OBJECTIVE: Prior authorizations (PAs) are commonly used by health payers as cost-containment strategies for expensive medications, including infused biologics. There is scarce data about the effect of PA requirements on patient-oriented outcomes. METHODS: We included patients for whom an infusible medication was prescribed for a rheumatologic condition. The exposures of interest were a PA requirement and whether or not the PA was denied. The primary outcome was the difference in days from medication request to infusion. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of denied PAs and differences in glucocorticoid exposure following a PA request. RESULTS: Of the 225 patients, the infusible medications of 160 (71%) required a PA. PAs were associated with a greater number of days to infusion compared to cases in which no authorization was required (median 31 days [interquartile range (IQR) 15-60 days] versus median 27 days [IQR 13-41 days]; P = 0.045), especially among the 33 patients (21%) whose PA was denied initially (median 50 days [IQR 31-76 days] versus median 27 days [IQR 13-41 days]; P < 0.001). PA denials were associated with greater prednisone-equivalent glucocorticoid exposure in the 3 months following the request than when a PA was not required (median 605 mg [IQR 0-1,575] versus median 160 mg [IQR 0-675]; P = 0.01). Twenty-seven of the 33 PA requests that were initially denied (82%) were eventually approved. Thus, 96% of all PAs were ultimately approved. CONCLUSION: PA requirements are associated with treatment delays and denials are associated with greater glucocorticoid exposure. Because the great majority of PA requests are ultimately approved, the value of PA requirements and their impact on patient safety should be reevaluated.
OBJECTIVE: Prior authorizations (PAs) are commonly used by health payers as cost-containment strategies for expensive medications, including infused biologics. There is scarce data about the effect of PA requirements on patient-oriented outcomes. METHODS: We included patients for whom an infusible medication was prescribed for a rheumatologic condition. The exposures of interest were a PA requirement and whether or not the PA was denied. The primary outcome was the difference in days from medication request to infusion. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of denied PAs and differences in glucocorticoid exposure following a PA request. RESULTS: Of the 225 patients, the infusible medications of 160 (71%) required a PA. PAs were associated with a greater number of days to infusion compared to cases in which no authorization was required (median 31 days [interquartile range (IQR) 15-60 days] versus median 27 days [IQR 13-41 days]; P = 0.045), especially among the 33 patients (21%) whose PA was denied initially (median 50 days [IQR 31-76 days] versus median 27 days [IQR 13-41 days]; P < 0.001). PA denials were associated with greater prednisone-equivalent glucocorticoid exposure in the 3 months following the request than when a PA was not required (median 605 mg [IQR 0-1,575] versus median 160 mg [IQR 0-675]; P = 0.01). Twenty-seven of the 33 PA requests that were initially denied (82%) were eventually approved. Thus, 96% of all PAs were ultimately approved. CONCLUSION: PA requirements are associated with treatment delays and denials are associated with greater glucocorticoid exposure. Because the great majority of PA requests are ultimately approved, the value of PA requirements and their impact on patient safety should be reevaluated.
Authors: Lars E Kristensen; Ingemar F Petersson; Pierre Geborek; Anna Jöud; Tore Saxne; Lennart T H Jacobsson; Martin Englund Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Thomas I Peng Soh; Yi Siew Tan; Zarinah Hairom; Mariana Ibrahim; Yao Yao; Yuet Peng Wong; Siew Woon Lim; Siew Eng Lim; Boon Cher Goh; Chee Seng Tan Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Alan Oglesby; Caroline Korves; François Laliberté; Gregory Dennis; Sapna Rao; Ellison Dial Suthoff; Robert Wei; Mei Sheng Duh Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: M C van der Goes; J W G Jacobs; M Boers; T Andrews; M A M Blom-Bakkers; F Buttgereit; N Caeyers; E H Choy; M Cutolo; J A P Da Silva; L Guillevin; M Holland; J R Kirwan; J Rovensky; K G Saag; G Severijns; S Webber; R Westhovens; J W J Bijlsma Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2009-09-17 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Joanna C Robson; Jill Dawson; Peter F Cronholm; Susan Ashdown; Ebony Easley; Katherine S Kellom; Don Gebhart; Georgia Lanier; Nataliya Milman; Jacqueline Peck; Raashid A Luqmani; Judy A Shea; Gunnar Tomasson; Peter A Merkel Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Mohammad Movahedi; Marie-Eve Beauchamp; Michal Abrahamowicz; David W Ray; Kaleb Michaud; Sofia Pedro; William G Dixon Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Lesley Ann Saketkoo; Tracy Frech; Cecília Varjú; Robyn Domsic; Jessica Farrell; Jessica K Gordon; Carina Mihai; Nora Sandorfi; Lee Shapiro; Janet Poole; Elizabeth R Volkmann; Monika Lammi; Kendra McAnally; Helene Alexanderson; Henrik Pettersson; Faye Hant; Masataka Kuwana; Ami A Shah; Vanessa Smith; Vivien Hsu; Otylia Kowal-Bielecka; Shervin Assassi; Maurizio Cutolo; Cristiane Kayser; Victoria K Shanmugam; Madelon C Vonk; Kim Fligelstone; Nancy Baldwin; Kerri Connolly; Anneliese Ronnow; Beata Toth; Maureen Suave; Sue Farrington; Elana J Bernstein; Leslie J Crofford; László Czirják; Kelly Jensen; Monique Hinchclif; Marie Hudson; Matthew R Lammi; Jennifer Mansour; Nadia D Morgan; Fabian Mendoza; Mandana Nikpour; John Pauling; Gabriela Riemekasten; Anne-Marie Russell; Mary Beth Scholand; Elise Seigart; Tatiana Sofia Rodriguez-Reyna; Laura Hummers; Ulrich Walker; Virginia Steen Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 4.991
Authors: Zachary S Wallace; Tyler Harkness; Kimberly G Blumenthal; Hyon K Choi; John H Stone; Rochelle P Walensky Journal: ACR Open Rheumatol Date: 2020-04-21