Treatment Delays Associated With Prior Authorization for Infusible Medications: A Cohort Study

The impact of prior authorization review on orthopaedic subspecialty care: a prospective multicenter analysis

BACKGROUND

Prior authorization review (PAR), in the United States, is a process that was initially intended to focus on hospital admissions and costly high-acuity care. Over time, payors have broadened the scope of PAR to include imaging studies, prescriptions, and routine treatment. The potential detrimental effect of PAR on health care has recently been brought into the limelight, but its impact on orthopedic subspecialty care remains unclear. This study investigated the denial rate, the duration of care delay, and the administrative burden of PAR on orthopedic subspecialty care.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter study was performed analyzing the PAR process. Orthopedic shoulder and/or sports subspecialty practices from 6 states monitored payor-mandated PAR during the course of providing routine patient care. The insurance carrier (traditional Medicare, managed Medicare, Medicaid, commercial, worker's compensation, or government payor [ie, Tricare, Veterans Affairs]), location of service, rate of approval or denial, time to approval or denial, and administrative time required to complete process were all recorded and evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 1065 total PAR requests, we found a 1.5% (16/1065) overall denial rate for advanced imaging or surgery when recommended by an orthopedic subspecialist. Commercial and Medicaid insurance resulted in a small but statistically significantly higher rate of denial compared to traditional Medicare, managed Medicare, worker's compensation, or governmental insurance (P < .001). The average administrative time spent on a single PAR was 19.5 minutes, and patients waited an average of 2.2 days to receive initial approval. Managed Medicare, commercial insurance, worker's compensation, and Medicaid required approximately 3-4 times more administrative time to process a PAR than to traditional Medicare or other governmental insurance (P < .001). After controlling for the payor, we identified a significant difference in approval or denial based on geographic location (P < .001). An appeal resulted in a relatively low rate of subsequent denial (20%). However, approximately a third of all appeals remained in limbo for 30 days or more after the initial request.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest prospective analysis to date of the impact of PAR on orthopedic subspecialty care in the United States. Nearly all PAR requests are eventually approved when recommended by orthopedic subspecialists, despite requiring significant resource use and delaying care. Current PAR practices constitute an unnecessary process that increases administrative burden and negatively impacts access to orthopedic subspecialty care. As health care shifts to value-based care, PAR should be called into question, as it does not seem to add value but potentially negatively impacts cost and timeliness of care.

Nearly All Peer-to-Peer Reviews for CT and MRI Prior Authorization Denials for Orthopedic Specialists Are Approved

In the event of prior authorization denial, physicians may request peer-to-peer review, which may delay treatment and increase administrative burden. The purpose of this study was to quantify the approval rate of peer-to-peer review and evaluate its efficiency in the context of advanced imaging use in an orthopedic practice. Patients at a single outpatient orthopedic clinic initially receiving an insurance denial for computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging requiring peer-to-peer review from March to December 2022 were prospectively enrolled. Characteristics of the request, peer-to-peer review, and the reviewer and dates in the process were collected. If the study was approved after peer-to-peer review, the date of the imaging study and brief results were recorded. A total of 62 denials were included. One denial was approved prior to peer-to-peer review. Fifty-eight (of 61, 95.1%) reviews were approved, of which 51 (of 58, 87.9%) studies were completed by patients. Reviewers were always physicians (61 of 61, 100%), but of those whose specialty was known, none were orthopedic surgeons. Forty-four of 61 (72.1%) reviewers reported reviewing clinical notes in advance. The median number of days from visit to peer-to-peer review was 9.0 (interquartile range, 7.0-13.25). The median number of days from visit to imaging center appointment was 13.5 (interquartile range, 9.0-20.75) for approved studies. Of the 51 approved studies completed by patients, the results of 38 (74.5%) confirmed the suspected diagnosis. In an orthopedic specialty practice, almost all peer-to-peer reviews were approved, with the majority of the completed studies confirming the suspected diagnosis. Thus, patient care was delayed. Reform is crucial to improve the efficiency of the review process, especially in light of additional administrative and financial burden. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):141-146.].

The Impact of Insurance Restrictions in Newly Diagnosed Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis

BACKGROUND

The medical system in the United States has been riddled with insurance restrictions used by insurance companies to limit health care costs. The effects of insurance restrictions on patients receiving disease-modifying therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) have not been specifically studied.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study of 52 individuals recently diagnosed with MS at a tertiary neurology clinic was conducted to measure the association between prior authorization (PA) duration and other variables of interest. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine likelihood of approval. Further analysis included multivariable logistic regression to assess the influence of variables of interest on the initial decision from the insurance company and the effect of the PA on disease activity.

RESULTS

Of 52 PAs, 50% were initially denied. An initial denial decreased the likelihood of approval by 98% (HR, 0.02; 95% CI, <0.01-0.09; P < .001). The odds of denial for oral medications (odds ratio [OR], 4.91; 95% CI, 1.33-21.52; P = .02) and infusions (OR, 8.35; 95% CI, 1.10-88.77; P = .05) were significantly higher than for injections. Medicaid had higher odds of denial compared with commercial insurance (OR, 4.51; 95% CI, 1.13-22.01; P = .04). An initial denial by insurance significantly increased the likelihood of disease activity (OR, 6.18; 95% CI, 1.33-44.86; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Insurance restrictions delay necessary treatments, increase the likelihood of disease activity, and rarely change the approved disease-modifying therapy. Reducing PAs may lead to improved outcomes for patients with MS.

Beyond Being Insured: Insurance Coverage Denial as a Major Barrier to Accessing Care During Pregnancy and Postpartum

This study investigates the association between insurance coverage denial and delays in care during pregnancy and postpartum. An online survey was administered in March and April 2022 to women who were either pregnant or within 1 year postpartum (n = 1,113). The outcome was delayed care, measured at four time points: during pregnancy and 1 week, 2 to 6 weeks, and after 7 weeks postpartum. The key covariate was insurance coverage denial by providers during pregnancy. Delayed care due to having an unaccepted insurance and being "out-of-network" was more pronounced at 1 week postpartum with 3.37 times and 3.47 times greater odds and in 2 to 6 weeks postpartum with 5.74 times and 2.97 times greater odds, respectively. The association between insurance denial and delays in care encapsulated transportation, rural residency, time issues, and financial constraints. The findings suggest that coverage denial is associated with significant delays in care, providing practical implications for effective perinatal care.

Insurance Status and Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Initiation Among Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis in the CARRA Registry

OBJECTIVE

Prompt escalation to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) is recommended for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and ongoing disease activity despite treatment with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). It is unknown whether these recommendations are equitably followed for children with different insurance types. We assessed the association of insurance coverage on the odds and timing of TNFi use.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of children with newly diagnosed JIA in the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Registry. We compared the odds of starting a TNFi in the first year and time from cDMARD to TNFi initiation between those with public and private insurance.

RESULTS

We identified 1086 children with new JIA diagnoses. Publicly insured children had significantly higher active joint counts and parent/patient global assessment scores at the enrollment visit. They were also more likely to have polyarticular arthritis compared to those with private insurance. Odds of any TNFi use in the first year did not differ between publicly and privately insured children. Publicly insured children were escalated from cDMARD to TNFi more quickly than privately insured children.

CONCLUSION

Children who were publicly insured had more severe disease and polyarticular involvement at registry enrollment compared to those who were privately insured. Whereas overall TNFi use did not differ between children with different insurance types, publicly insured children were escalated more quickly, consistent with their increased disease severity. Further research is needed to determine why insurance coverage type is associated with disease severity, including how other socioeconomic factors affect presentation to care.

Navigating Access and Optimizing Medication Infusions in an Academic Medical Center: A Quality Improvement Study

(1) Background: The rising prices of medical infusions have resulted in the increased utilization of policies for payors to manage costs. These policies can be disruptive to the continuity of care, and health systems should develop a systematic strategy to address market changes and prevent patient leakage. (2) Methods: A quality improvement study was conducted by an interdisciplinary workstream to assess the current state of infusion services in an academic medical center in the Midwest and to provide recommendations for immediate access improvement and long-term system planning. An organizational assessment of the value stream was completed, which analyzed the available infusion capacity, billing strategy, patient mix/volumes, payor mix, staffing levels, and current policies. The interventions implemented after developing the infusion system strategy were triaging patients to the appropriate site of care to increase infusion capacity and eliminating paper orders in one of the health system's Infusion Centers. (3) Results: Patients receiving medical infusions for oncologic conditions warrant unique considerations in evaluating the Infusion Center's efficiency due to the infusion regimen's length, complexity, and tolerability. The management of the payor site of care also poses a challenge for health systems to triage patients effectively without fragmenting care. (4) Conclusions: An organizational strategy around infusion services must include broad stakeholder representation to address the clinical, operational, and financial challenges to provide timely care to patients.

Barriers to optimizing inflammatory bowel disease care in the United States

Significant progress in the management and modification of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been made; however, significant barriers to the optimization of IBD care in the United States still exist. The majority of these barriers are constructed by insurance carriers and the integration of market pressures into healthcare decision-making. In this review, we highlight the barriers to IBD care optimization within the context of the US insurance system and review current and proposed solutions.

The association between cost sharing, prior authorization, and specialty drug utilization: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Specialty drugs are identified by high monthly costs and complexity of administration. Payers use utilization management strategies, including prior authorization and separate tiers with higher cost sharing, to control spending. These strategies can negatively impact patients' health outcomes through treatment initiation delays, medication abandonment, and nonadherence. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of patient cost sharing on specialty drug utilization and the effect of prior authorization on treatment delay and specialty drug utilization. METHODS: We conducted a literature search in the period between February 2021 and April 2022 using PubMed for articles published in English without restriction on date of publication. We included research papers with prior authorization and cost sharing for specialty drugs as exposure variables and specialty drug utilization as the outcome variable. Studies were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers and relevant information from eligible studies was extracted using a standardized form and approved by 2 reviewers. Review papers, opinion pieces, and projects without data were excluded. RESULTS: Forty-four studies were included in this review after screening and exclusions, 9 on prior authorization and 35 on cost sharing. Patients with lower cost sharing via patient support programs experienced higher adherence, fewer days to fill prescriptions, and lower discontinuation rates. Similar outcomes were noted for patients on low-income subsidy programs. Increasing cost sharing above $100 was associated with up to 75% abandonment rate for certain specialty drugs. This increased level of cost sharing was also associated with higher discontinuation rates and odds. At the same time, decreasing out-of-pocket costs increased initiation of specialty drugs. However, inconsistent results on impact of cost sharing on medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC) were reported. Some studies reported a negative association between higher costs and MPR and PDC; however, MPR and PDC of cancer specialty drugs did not decrease with higher costs. Significant delays in prescription initiation were reported when prior authorization was needed. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of patient cost sharing reduce specialty drug use by increasing medication abandonment while generally decreasing initiation and persistence. Similarly, programs that reduce patient cost sharing increase initiation and persistence. In contrast, cost sharing had an inconsistent and bidirectional effect on MPR and PDC. Prior authorization caused treatment delays, but its effects on specialty drug use varied. More research is needed to examine the effect of cost sharing and prior authorization on long-term health outcomes.

Association between low-income subsidies and inequities in orally administered antimyeloma therapy use

OBJECTIVES

The Medicare Part D low-income subsidy program drastically reduces patient cost sharing and may improve access to and equitable use of high-cost antimyeloma therapy. We compared initiation of and adherence to orally administered antimyeloma therapy between full-subsidy and nonsubsidy enrollees and assessed the association between full subsidies and racial/ethnic inequities in orally administered antimyeloma treatment use.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data to identify beneficiaries diagnosed with multiple myeloma between 2007 and 2015. Separate Cox proportional hazards models assessed time from diagnosis to treatment initiation and time from therapy initiation to discontinuation. Modified Poisson regression examined therapy initiation in the 30, 60, and 90 days following diagnosis and adherence to and discontinuation of treatment in the 180 days following initiation.

RESULTS

Receipt of full subsidies was not associated with earlier initiation of or improved adherence to orally administered antimyeloma therapy. Full-subsidy enrollees were 22% (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.38) more likely to experience earlier treatment discontinuation than nonsubsidy enrollees. Receipt of full subsidies did not appear to reduce racial/ethnic inequities in orally administered antimyeloma therapy use. Black full-subsidy and nonsubsidy enrollees were 14% less likely than their White counterparts to ever initiate treatment (full subsidy: aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.02; nonsubsidy: aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Full subsidies alone are insufficient to increase uptake or equitable use of orally administered antimyeloma therapy. Addressing known barriers to care (eg, social determinants of health, implicit bias) could improve access to and use of high-cost antimyeloma therapy.

Evaluation of prior authorizations in transplant recipients at an urban institution

BACKGROUND

Increasing prior authorization (PA) requirements for immunosuppression remain a burden for solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients and transplant staff. The objective of this study was to evaluate the number of PAs required and the approval rates at an academic, urban transplant center.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of SOT recipients at the University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System (UI Health) that required PAs between 11/1/2019 and 12/1/2020. Inclusion criteria were SOT recipients greater than 18 years of age and prescribed a medication by the transplant team that required PA. Duplicate PA requests were excluded from the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 879 PAs were included in the study. Of these PAs, 85% (747/879) were approved. Seventy-four percent of the denials were overturned by an appeal. Most PAs were in black (45.4%), kidney transplant (62%), Medicare (31.7%), and Medicaid recipients (33.2%). The median approval time was 1 day for PAs and 5 days for appeals. Tacrolimus extended release (XR) (35.4%), tacrolimus immediate release (IR) (9.7%),and mycophenolic acid (7%) required most PAs. Black recipients and immunosuppression were identified as predictors of eventual PA approval, whereas recipients with Medicaid were less likely to obtain approval.

CONCLUSIONS

At our transplant center, there was a high approval rate of PAs for immunosuppression, which calls into question the utility of PAs in this patient population, where these medications are standard of care. More black recipients and patients with Medicare and Medicaid had increased PA requirements, highlighting further disparities within the current system.

Automated versus manual prior authorization for diabetes mellitus drugs: A retrospective study from Israel

Introduction

Drug prior authorization (PA) imposes a bureaucratic and economic burden on healthcare service providers and payers. A novel automated PA system may improve these drawbacks.

Methods

An historical cohort study from a large health maintenance organization in Israel, comparing manual versus automated PA mechanisms for diabetes mellitus (DM) drugs: sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs (GLP1-A). We compared patients with DM, whose first drug applications were approved using the automated system, with similar patients whose first drug applications were approved by manual PA. The primary endpoint was the time elapsed from application approval to prescription filling (accessibility time). Secondary endpoints included the prescription filling rate at 7 and 30 days.

Results

In total, 1371 automated approved prescriptions and 1240 manually approved prescriptions were included in the analysis. Median accessibility time was one day (interquartile range (IQR) 0-5) with automated PA for both GLP1-A and SGLT2i, compared with four days (IQR 1-9) and three days (IQR 1-8), respectively, with the manual PA (p < 0.001). Eighty-four percent of GLP1-A automated PA approvals were filled within seven days compared with 70% with manual PA (p < 0.001). Similar results were seen with SGLT2i (80% vs. 72%, p < 0.008). No differences were observed at 30 days post-approval. Using logistic regression, odds for GLP1-A and SGLT2i prescription filling within seven days were 2.36 and 1.53 folds higher (respectively) with automated PA (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Automated PA system improved access time to SGLT2i/GLP1-A seven days post-approval compared to manual PA.

Burden of Prior Authorization Requirements on Urology Practice and Patients

OBJECTIVES

To determine the final outcomes of various types of prior authorizations (PAs), and to quantify the administrative and financial burden of PAs on urology practice. PAs are often required before imaging, procedures or medications can be ordered. However, they can delay timely delivery of patient care and place a significant administrative burden on practices. The impact of PAs has been poorly studied, and no studies on PAs' burden on urology practice are available.

METHODS

Imaging and medications requiring PAs from an outpatient urology clinic from November 2020 to February 2021 were reviewed (n=267). Authorization outcomes were tracked to resolution. We calculated the time spent on PAs, and the estimated overall financial burden on the practice.

RESULTS

Of the PAs required, 60.6% were for imaging and 39.4% were for medications. Initial decision for PAs took a median of 2 days [IQR: 0-6, Range: 0-36], whereas decisions after an appeal (n=51) took a median of 10 days [IQR: 5-23, range 0-125 days]. Private insurance compared to Medicare or Medicaid, has an earlier time to decision (p=<0.001). Initial approval rates were 67.5%, and final approval rates after appeals were 88.2%. Of orders originally denied, a majority (77.3%) were appealed, 13.6% required alternative orders, and 7.6% paid out of pocket. The total cost to the practice was $2206.06, with a $15.11 mean cost of each PA.

CONCLUSIONS

PAs for imaging studies and medications pose a significant administrative and financial burden to urology patients and practice.

Insurance Delays in Initiation of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Children With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

This cohort study compares the delays in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) initiation because of insurance among children enrolled in public and private insurance plans.

Delays Related to Prior Authorization in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

Delays in advancing to biologic therapies are associated with adverse outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Insurer-mandated prior authorizations have been linked to prolonged medication initiation times. We hypothesized that prior authorizations are associated with prolonged biologic initiation time and increased IBD-related healthcare utilization among children with IBD.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 190 pediatric patients with IBD initiating biologics at a tertiary care hospital to measure the association between prior authorization, biologic initiation time (physician recommendation to first dose), and healthcare utilization (hospitalization, surgery, or emergency department visit). Demographic, insurance, and disease severity-related covariables were collected. Multivariable linear regression was used to measure the association between prior authorization and biologic initiation time. Propensity score methods were used to measure the associations between prior authorization and IBD-related healthcare utilization within 180 days and corticosteroid dependence at 90 days, with adjustment for insurance type, demographics, and disease severity-related characteristics.

RESULTS

Median biologic initiation time was 21 days. Prior authorization and complicated prior authorizations (requiring appeal, step therapy, or peer-to-peer review) were associated with 10.2-day (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.2 to 12.3) and 24.6-day (95% CI 16.4 to 32.8) increases in biologic initiation time, respectively. Prior authorizations increased the likelihood of IBD-related healthcare utilization within 180 days by 12.9% (95% CI 2.5 to 23.4) and corticosteroid dependence at 90 days by 14.1% (95% CI 3.3 to 24.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Prior authorizations are associated with prolonged biologic initiation time and increased IBD-related healthcare utilization. Minimizing prior authorization-related delays may expedite biologic delivery and reduce the risk of IBD-related healthcare utilization.

A comprehensive framework for navigating patient care in systemic sclerosis: A global response to the need for improving the practice of diagnostic and preventive strategies in SSc

Systemic sclerosis (SSc), the most lethal of rheumatologic conditions, is the cause of death in >50% of SSc cases, led by pulmonary fibrosis followed by pulmonary hypertension and then scleroderma renal crisis (SRC). Multiple other preventable and treatable SSc-related vascular, cardiac, gastrointestinal, nutritional and musculoskeletal complications can lead to disability and death. Vascular injury with subsequent inflammation transforming to irreversible fibrosis and permanent damage characterizes SSc. Organ involvement is often present early in the disease course of SSc, but requires careful history-taking and vigilance in screening to detect. Inflammation is potentially reversible provided that treatment intensity quells inflammation and other immune mechanisms. In any SSc phenotype, opportunities for early treatment are prone to be under-utilized, especially in slowly progressive phenotypes that, in contrast to severe progressive ILD, indolently accrue irreversible organ damage resulting in later-stage life-limiting complications such as pulmonary hypertension, cardiac involvement, and malnutrition. A single SSc patient visit often requires much more physician and staff time, organization, vigilance, and direct management for multiple organ systems compared to other rheumatic or pulmonary diseases. Efficiency and efficacy of comprehensive SSc care enlists trending of symptoms and bio-data. Financial sustainability of SSc care benefits from understanding insurance reimbursement and health system allocation policies for complex patients. Sharing care between recognised SSc centers and local cardiology/pulmonary/rheumatology/gastroenterology colleagues may prevent complications and poor outcomes, while providing support to local specialists. As scleroderma specialists, we offer a practical framework with tools to facilitate an optimal, comprehensive and sustainable approach to SSc care. Improved health outcomes in SSc relies upon recogntion, management and, to the extent possible, prevention of SSc and treatment-related complications.

A Qualitative Analysis of State Medicaid Coverage Benefits for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (alloHCT) for Patients with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD)

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is the most common inherited hemoglobin disorder, affecting approximately 100,000 people in the United States. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT), also known as bone marrow transplant (BMT), is currently the only established curative option for SCD. However, alloHCT is an optional benefit under Medicaid. This study of alloHCT coverage for patients with SCD aims to understand the scope of state Medicaid coverage benefits and BMT financial coordinators' experience working with their state Medicaid programs. States estimated to have more than 50 newborns diagnosed with SCD in 2016 and at least one active BMT Clinical Trials Network (1503 [STRIDE 2], NCT02766465) transplant center (TC) were eligible to participate in this study. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews 30 to 60 minutes in length were conducted with BMT financial coordinators via telephone between May and October 2019. A total of 10 BMT financial coordinators from 10 TCs representing eight states (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia) participated in the semi-structured interviews. Coordinators in all of the included states reported that alloHCT in children with SCD with a human leukocyte antigen-matched sibling donor was covered by their state Medicaid programs. However, only two states (Florida and Texas) had legislative policies mandating coverage of routine medical costs for patients in clinical trials. TCs in two states (Illinois and Pennsylvania) reported accepting out-of-state Medicaid insurance, but only one state (Michigan) covered both travel and lodging for the patient and one caregiver. Four themes emerged when coordinators were asked about their perspectives and experiences working with their corresponding state Medicaid programs: (1) state Medicaid eligibility criteria based on disability were perceived as being restrictive, and Medicaid reimbursement rates were reported to be low; (2) Medicaid fee-for-service plans were perceived as being more comprehensive and easier to navigate compared to comprehensive managed care (CMC) plans; (3) there is a need to address caregiver and financial assistance beyond the health care costs; and (4) completing the insurance authorization process leading up to alloHCT is critical, including peer-to-peer reviews. There is limited legislative policy to help ensure access to clinical trials and provide out-of-state benefits and travel and lodging for Medicaid enrollees with SCD. These data provide insight into potential areas that could influence changes in policy to enhance access to curative therapy for SCD.

What Is the Impact of Prior Authorization on the Incidence of Pediatric Tonsillectomy?

OBJECTIVE

Third-party payers advocate for prior authorization (PA) to reduce overutilization of health care resources. The impact of PA in elective surgery is understudied, especially in cases where evidence-based clinical practice guidelines define operative candidacy. The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of PA on the incidence of pediatric tonsillectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Health claims database from a third-party payer.

METHODS

Any pediatric patient who had evaluation for tonsillectomy from 2016 to 2019 was eligible for inclusion. A time series analysis was used to evaluate the change in incidence of tonsillectomy before and after PA. Lag time from consultation to surgery before and after PA was compared with segmented regression.

RESULTS

A total of 10,047 tonsillectomy claims met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Female patients made up 51% of claims, and the mean age was 7.9 years. Just 1.5% of claims were denied after PA implementation. There was no change in the incidence of tonsillectomy for all plan types (P = .1). Increased lag time from consultation to surgery was noted immediately after PA implementation by 2.38 days (95% CI, 0.23-4.54; P = .030); otherwise, there was no significant change over time (P = .98).

CONCLUSION

A modest number of tonsillectomy claims were denied approval after implementation of PA. The value of PA for pediatric tonsillectomy is questionable, as it did not result in decreased incidence of tonsillectomy in this cohort.

Increasing Operational Capacity and Reducing Costs of Rituximab Administration: A Costing Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Originator intravenous rituximab is an important rheumatology treatment but is costly, and administration requires several hours. Because biosimilar rituximab may cost less and subcutaneous rituximab requires a shorter visit, both may reduce costs and increase treatment capacity (infusions per year).

METHODS

We implemented time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), a method to assess costs and opportunities to increase capacity, throughout the care pathway for 26 patients receiving a total of 30 rituximab infusions. Using the TDABC estimates, we created a base case, which included provider time, salaries, infusion rates and times, and drug formulation, to simulate an induction cycle (two infusions). We varied these parameters in sensitivity analyses and assessed the impact of infusion rates and formulation (biosimilar vs. subcutaneous) on capacity before and after assuming a fixed budget.

RESULTS

The base-case cost was $19 452; more than 90% was due to drug cost. In sensitivity analyses, varying projected biosimilar cost led to the greatest cost savings ($8,988 per cycle). Faster infusion rates and subcutaneous rituximab increased annual capacity (300% and 800%, respectively). With a fixed budget, subcutaneous rituximab led to a relative increase in capacity over biosimilar rituximab except when biosimilar cost savings relative to originator rituximab exceeded 40%; faster biosimilar infusion rates did not meaningfully affect these findings.

CONCLUSION

Using TDABC, we demonstrate that rituximab cost is the primary driver of treatment cost, but capacity is largely driven by treatment time. Subcutaneous rituximab leads to higher capacity than biosimilar rituximab across a range of plausible costs; its use in rheumatology should be studied.