Prior authorization delays biologic initiation and is associated with a risk of asthma exacerbations

The Impact of Prior Authorization on Clinical Practice and Patient Care Outcomes: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Prior Authorization Task Force

The Prior Authorization Task Force of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI), a presidential initiative of David Khan, MD, FAAAI, was established to develop an AAAAI position statement outlining ways to improve health care for our patients, to support legislation that advocates for prior authorization (PA) reform and identify the impact PA has on its membership using a questionnaire survey. This article describes the results of this survey. An electronic anonymous survey questionnaire was developed to assess the impact and burden of PA on AAAAI members and their staff and patients. Surveys were sent to randomly selected members and fellows of the AAAAI in the United States. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the results by the Information Services team of the AAAAI and the authors of this work group report. The questionnaire responses from allergy immunology specialists demographically reflected the AAAAI membership and indicate that PAs can significantly affect patient care delivery and increase administrative burden to clinical practices, leading to serious adverse events in some circumstances. Differential responses regarding PAs for various medication classes likely reflect the physician's patient population, which can shift prescribing patterns. Prior authorization is a serious health care problem that is wasting financial resources and needlessly placing patients in danger when they are unable to access medications or medical services required for clinical management. The results of this questionnaire study support the recommendations made in the recent AAAAI position statement on PA.

Evaluating Access to Prescription Medications in the Atopic Dermatitis Patient Population in the USA

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, many patients face challenges obtaining medications. This study aimed to determine the frequency and causes of insurance coverage delays and denials for AD prescriptions and characterize the associated wait times and extent to which patients understand what to do when faced with a coverage issue.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, observational study in which adult U.S. residents (aged 18+ years) with AD or caregivers of pediatric U.S. patients with AD (aged 0-17 years) completed an online survey (3 June-16 July 2021).

RESULTS

Respondents (N = 978) were primarily adults with AD (81.8%), female (67.7%), and white (70.2%). There were 645 insurance delays or denials for AD prescriptions, with 48.1% (470/978) of respondents experiencing at least one delay/denial in the past year. Most delays/denials were for topical steroids (39.2%, 253/645), the most highly used prescription treatment class (83.9%, 821/978). However, the highest rate of delay/denials was for biologics, of which 43.6% (109/250) of all prescriptions faced a delay or denial. Denials were caused primarily by step therapy (27.6%) and delays by prior authorization (55.1%). Only 56.0% of respondents said they would know what to do if they faced an issue with AD prescription coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with AD frequently experience insurance-related barriers to obtaining recommended therapies, and many do not know how to respond when these barriers arise. Strategies to improve timely therapeutic access are needed.

Pharmacoequity and Biologics in the Allergy Clinic: Providing the Right Care, at the Right Time, Every Time, to Everyone

Pharmacoequity refers to equity in access to pharmacotherapy for all patients and is an especially large barrier to biologic agents in patients with allergic diseases. Value-based care models can prompt clinicians to address social determinants of health, promoting pharmacoequity. Pharmacoequity is influenced by numerous factors including socioeconomic status, which may be mediated through insurance status, educational attainment, and access to specialist care. In addition to lower socioeconomic status, race and ethnicity, age, locations isolated from care systems, and off-label indications for biologic agents all constitute barriers to pharmacoequity. Whereas pharmaco-inequity is more apparent for expensive biologics, it also affects many other allergy treatments including epinephrine autoinjectors and SMART for asthma. Current programs aimed at alleviating cost barriers are imperfect. Patient assistance programs, manufacturer-sponsored free drug programs, and rebates often increase the complexity of care, with resultant inequity, particularly for patients with lower health literacy. Ultimately, single silver-bullet solutions are elusive. Long-term improvement instead requires a combination of research, advocacy, and creative problem-solving to design more intelligent and efficient systems that provide timely access to necessary care for every patient, every time.

Current and Novel Biologic Therapies for Patients with Asthma and Nasal Polyps

A substantial portion of asthma and nasal polyps (NPs) share a common pathogenesis, which includes type 2-mediated inflammation. Distinct endotypes and phenotypes characterizing asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis have been identified. With emerging evidence describing pathophysiology, novel targets for biologic monoclonal antibody treatments have been developed. There are currently six biologic therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat asthma, including omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, three of these-omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab-are also approved for NPs.

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.

Factors Associated With Asthma Biologic Prescribing and Primary Adherence Among Adults in a Large Health System

BACKGROUND

The availability of asthma biologics may not benefit all patients equally.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify patient characteristics associated with asthma biologic prescribing, primary adherence, and effectiveness.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational cohort study of 9,147 adults with asthma who established care with a Penn Medicine asthma subspecialist was conducted using Electronic Health Record data from January 1, 2016, to October 18, 2021. Multivariable regression models were used to identify factors associated with (1) receipt of a new biologic prescription; (2) primary adherence, defined as receiving a dose in the year after receiving the prescription, and (3) oral corticosteroid (OCS) bursts in the year after the prescription.

RESULTS

Factors associated with a new prescription, which was received by 335 patients, included being a woman (odds ratio [OR] 0.66; P = .002), smoking currently (OR 0.50; P = .04), having an asthma hospitalization in the prior year (OR 2.91; P < .001), and having 4+ OCS bursts in the prior year (OR 3.01; P < .001). Reduced primary adherence was associated with Black race (incidence rate ratio 0.85; P < .001) and Medicaid insurance (incidence rate ratio 0.86; P < .001), although most in these groups, 77.6% and 74.3%, respectively, still received a dose. Nonadherence was associated with patient-level barriers in 72.2% of cases and health insurance denial in 22.2%. Having more OCS bursts after receiving a biologic prescription was associated with Medicaid insurance (OR 2.69; P = .047) and biologic days covered (OR 0.32 for 300-364 d vs 14-56 d; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large health system, primary adherence to asthma biologics varied by race and insurance type, whereas nonadherence was primarily explained by patient-level barriers.

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.

Elaborate biologic approval process delays care of patients with moderate-to-severe asthma

Background

mAbs (biologics) are indicated in patients with poorly controlled moderate-to-severe asthma. The process of prior authorization and administration of a biologic requires exceptional commitment from clinical teams.

Objective

Our aim was to evaluate the process of approval and administration of biologics for asthma and determine the most common reasons associated with denials of biologics and delays in administration.

Methods

We examined the records of patients with asthma who were prescribed biologics from January 2018 to January 2020 at 2 centers, Montefiore Medical Center (Bronx, NY) and Scripps Clinics (San Diego, Calif). Demographics, insurance information, and details on the approval process were collected.

Results

After querying of electronic health records, the records of 352 and 70 patients with moderate-to-severe asthma were included from Montefiore and Scripps, respectively. Most patients at Montefiore (58.2%) were insured under Managed Care Medicaid (MC Medicaid), whereas most patients at Scripps (61.4%) had commercial insurance. The median times from prescription to administration of a biologic were similar: 34 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 18-63 days) and 34 days (IQR = 22.5-56.0 days) (P = .97) for Montefiore and Scripps, respectively. However, the median approval time for Montefiore was 6 days (IQR = 1-20 days) and that for Scripps was 22 days (IQR = 10-36 days) (P < .001). Approval times for prescriptions requiring appeals were significantly longer than for prescriptions approved after the initial submission: 23 days versus 2.5 days and 40.5 days versus 15.5 days (for Montefiore and Scripps, respectively [P < .001 for both]).

Conclusions

Lengthy appeals contribute to delays between prescribing and administering a biologic. Site-specific practices and insurance coverage influence approval timing of the biologics for asthma.

The Impact of Electronic Health Record Interventions on Patient Access to Post-Hospital Discharge Prescriptions

Purpose: Assess the impact of electronic health record interventions on patient access to post-hospital discharge prescriptions. Methods: Five interventions were implemented in the electronic health record to improve patient access to prescriptions after discharge from hospital: electronic prior authorization, alternative medication suggestions, order sets, mail order pharmacy alerts, and medication interchange instructions. This was a retrospective cohort study of patient responses from discharges during 6 months before the first intervention implementation and 6 months after the last intervention implementation documented in the electronic health record and a transition-in-care platform. Primary endpoint was the proportion of discharges with patient-reported issues that would have been prevented by the studied interventions out of number of discharges with at least one prescription, analyzed using Chi-squared test (level of significance .05). Results: Discharges with patient-reported issues that would have been prevented by the studied interventions decreased from 1.68 to 1.07 out of 1000 discharges with prescriptions (P < .001). Conclusion: Interventions in the electronic health record reduced barriers faced by patients to picking up prescriptions post-discharge from hospital, potentially leading to improved patient satisfaction and improved health outcomes. Important factors to consider for electronic health record intervention implementation are workflow development and intrusiveness of clinical decision support. Multiple targeted electronic health record interventions can improve patients' access to prescriptions after discharge from hospital.

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.