Impact of Prior Authorization on Patient Access to Cancer Care

Accuracy of Clinical Suspicion for Rotator Cuff Tears by Orthopedic Surgeons When MRI Was Ordered on Initial Visits: Should Physical Therapy Be Mandated by Insurance Before MRI?

INTRODUCTION

Insurance companies often mandate six weeks of physical therapy (PT) prior to approving MRIs for patients with atraumatic rotator cuff (RTC) tears. While this is designed to limit unnecessary imaging orders, it can increase healthcare costs and delay diagnosis and surgery. This study investigated the incidence of full- and partial-thickness tears when an MRI was ordered at the time of initial consultation for shoulder pain by an orthopedic provider.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who had an MRI ordered upon initial orthopedic consultation for chronic shoulder pain was conducted. The primary outcome measured was the presence of RTC tears as determined by the MRI report. The cost of six weeks of PT versus the cost of immediate MRI in these patients was collected from our institution's financial database. ANOVA, independent T-test, and chi-square test were used to analyze the differences between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 365 patients were included. There were no significant differences in demographics between patients with full, partial, or no tears, with the exception that patients with full-thickness tears were older. Specifically, 43.0% had a full-thickness tear, 24.7% had a partial-thickness tear, and 32.2% had no tear on MRI. A total of 56.1% of the full-thickness tears proceeded to surgery. The cost of an upper extremity MRI without contrast averages $2,268, while two sessions of PT per week for six weeks totals $2,328.

DISCUSSION

Over 67% of MRI orders yielded a positive finding of an RTC tear and remained at 67.2% in the absence of a history of conservative treatment, validating a specialist's clinical suspicion for an RTC tear and indication for MRI. Pre-MRI PT to satisfy insurance requirements may therefore delay intervention and increase healthcare costs when an orthopedic provider believes an MRI is warranted for clinical decision-making.

Prior Authorization and Association With Delayed or Discontinued Prescription Fills

PURPOSE

Prior authorization requirements are increasing but little is known about their effects on access to care. We examined the association of a new prior authorization policy with delayed or discontinued prescription fills for oral anticancer drugs among Medicare Part D beneficiaries.

METHODS

Using Medicare part D claims data from 2010 to 2020, we studied beneficiaries regularly filling one of 11 oral anticancer drugs, defined as three 30-day fills in 120 days preceding the plan's prior authorization policy change on that drug and continuously enrolled in the same plan for 120 days before and after the policy change at the start of a new year. The control group consisted of beneficiaries meeting the same utilization criteria, but who were enrolled in plans at the same time that did not implement a prior authorization policy change. The outcomes of interest were discontinuation of the drug within 120 days (analyzed with regression analyses) and time (in days) to next fill after a prior authorization policy change (analyzed using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences event study).

RESULTS

The introduction of a new prior authorization on an established drug increased the odds of discontinuation within 120 days (adjusted odds ratio, 7.1 [95% CI, 6.0 to 8.5]; P < .001) and increased time to next fill by 9.7 days (95% CI, 8.2 to 11.2; P < .001), relative to patients whose plans did not have a prior authorization policy change.

CONCLUSION

Introduction of a new prior authorization policy on an established drug regimen is associated with increased probability of discontinued and delayed care. For some conditions, this may represent a clinically consequential barrier to access. Waiving prior authorization for patients already established on a drug may improve adherence.

The Wrong Fight-Prior Authorization

This essay describes the author’s experience with denial of prior authorization for imaging to complete cancer staging.

Insurance Denial of Care for Randomized Controlled Trial-Eligible Patients: Incidence and Success Rate of Peer-To-Peer Authorization in Allowing Patients to Remain Trial-Eligible

INTRODUCTION

Insurance denials for clinical trials serve as a pertinent barrier for patients to remain trial-eligible, thus hindering the development of therapies and the overall advancement of health care. We present results from an ongoing oncology randomized clinical trial regarding insurance denials and peer-to-peer authorization (P2PA) success rate in allowing patients to remain trial-eligible.

METHODS

The ongoing Spine Patient Optimal Radiosurgery Treatment for Symptomatic Metastatic Neoplasms Phase II trial randomizes spine cancer patients to treatment with spine radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Trial-eligible patients during the first 3 months of enrollment are examined to determine whether the option of SBRT was denied by their insurance. Advocacy for overcoming SBRT denial in P2PA centered on SBRT being recommended as a preferred treatment modality in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, and the recent level I evidence demonstrating the advantages of SBRT over EBRT for symptomatic spine cancer.

RESULTS

Of 15 trial-eligible patients, 3 (20%) experienced insurance denials for SBRT. P2PA resulted in the reversal of denials in all 3 patients, allowing each to remain trial-eligible for randomization between SBRT and cEBRT.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a clinical oncologic treatment modality for which recent Level 1 evidence is available, the insurance denial rate was 20%. A vigilant P2PA strategy focusing on highlighting National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and the supporting Level 1 evidence resulted in a very high rate of reversing initial denial.

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.