Burden of Prior Authorization Requirements on Urology Practice and Patients

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.

Patient and Clinician Challenges with Anticholinergic Step Therapy in the Treatment of Overactive Bladder: A Narrative Review

Anticholinergics have been used in the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB), but their use is limited by poor tolerability and anticholinergic-related side effects. Increasingly, providers are discontinuing anticholinergic prescribing because of growing evidence of the association of anticholinergic use with increased risk of cognitive decline and other adverse effects. Newer medications for OAB, the β3-adrenergic receptor agonists mirabegron and vibegron, do not have anticholinergic properties and are typically well tolerated; however, many insurance plans have limited patient access to these newer OAB medications by requiring step therapy, meaning less expensive anticholinergic medications must be trialed and/or failed before a β3-agonist will be covered and dispensed. Thus, many patients are unable to easily access these medications. Step therapy and other drug utilization strategies (e.g., prior authorization) are often used to manage the growing costs of pharmaceuticals, but these policies do not always follow treatment guidelines and may harm patients as a result of treatment delays, discontinuations, or related increases in adverse events. Medical professionals have called for reform of drug utilization strategies through partnerships that include clinicians and policymakers. This narrative review discusses prescribing patterns for OAB treatment and the effect of switching between drugs, as well as the costs of step therapy and prior authorization on patients and prescribers.

Patterns of Unnecessary Insurer Prior Authorization Denials in a Complex Surgical Oncology Practice

INTRODUCTION

Insurance prior authorization (PA) is a determination of need, required by a health insurer for an ordered test/procedure. If the test/procedure is denied, a peer-to-peer (P2P) discussion between ordering provider and payer is used to appeal the decision. The objective of this study was to measure the number and patterns of unnecessary PA denials.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review at a quaternary cancer center from October 2021 to March 2022. Included were all patients with outpatient imaging orders for surgical planning or surveillance of gastrointestinal, endocrine, or skin cancer. Primary outcome was unnecessary initial denial (UID) defined as an order that required preauthorization, was initially denied by the insurer, and subsequently overturned by P2P.

RESULTS

Nine hundred fifty seven orders were placed and 419 required PA (44%). Of tests requiring authorization, 55/419 (13.1%) were denied. Variability in the likelihood of initial denial was seen across insurers, ranging from 0% to 57%. Following P2P, 32/55 were overturned (58.2% UID). The insurers most likely to have a UID were Aetna (100%), Anthem (77.8%), and Cigna (50.0%). UID was most common for gastrointestinal (58.9%) and endocrine (58.3%) cancers. Average P2P was 33.5 min (interquartile range 28-40).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of imaging studies initially denied were overturned after P2P. If all UIDs were eliminated, this would represent 108 less P2P discussions with an estimated time-savings of 60.3 h annually within a high-volume surgical oncology practice. Combined personnel costs to the health systems and stress on patients with cancer due to image-associated PAs and P2P appear hard to justify.