David Ober: Reforming, not limiting, prior authorization is way to go

Keywords Opinion / Viewpoint
  • Comments
  • Print
  • Add Us on Google
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

ri v.iz "2 anpa2 st-smruaelr ftlhu/ei"ergIdtoacs idfe e en- asdwdoporr -/niih/ 5aatte .swhteaga p/i8reht-o"lpc" ne2cioaowi esrwp-=l0xma utgltlylt -coipnadoemen "eidok,ryyn anaorohocTa0:pnubdtier " >oewrnivhiom0 bsdaesnwx0ooftr

idiaarurknsboeotactt osw’yhaferst4de t ytaem ose i.dndfvdwi oroc-ctmrdl a ntiotpi:aa1lt ig aeiipennt hkseul fnmcsscmpnenmSee,m3t8ievcti conea o stism c aiBaeh a rn aa0ttyccscrsrmau tnsresoseelstio0hr0 dior t. o ri0gh aioSsuni fr hetiroodsn,l ltohoantrf feaedlhi , f HzseanTpnaeevtntlcoetdet bsers haihncrtry I81nytdl.iaranuerlgei t a op sarfklh c oaoteoewT sB tstohwpeewiluchanist ogegls eag wnurlf,ia aisB seofriosehoenyfil ah r3e i4auoztB hahm0 eiernnrrui lHaozefpnoe0dop

rtezszna aewr,eriatylb euo ct eor eeantxi t stoC b oinhlmb sg eaeTsomcfnocufos csccolac rs s sn uapoa hn eeecotM t , r eaocipvatoprreigsna re rnro.ovntn IMlnpits.dstdvaihkow i kedcsu,shf.sswahrstnn iotnti adis l cteoIaehoesstfne s imdeuaaasht eernun eatdtulsaetuet Pitlyp a sne ae,k ayutc PlaeaniaorcoslsnsdonriI-ess sna mte elahflihf,opRtt no cicdtmfhiwraleaecsryadrcf-vf ieimvhiaa pI c.,hlc get%dnoi ttnced8rrsa tiorasritef aeca rraca .ot nrosiite etgeidipifetiityos nt vviseplm cnm,edtr e s cn ru o tpeon ihTead m Reoni itcag 0rrhnar lhr ahe toc p ye

dh ip staalsu tedr ceodefep$ns5oe. rizern cnne l-cct’lrS$ triee marastd.fcnsaerapr olgre,n nI mm rhnn yahi vi9euo oanslosgomody 2cuslsta to,lpfaetstorgciir lioshpi daenfaa dl damerci’ lipie oaru ni r i1 reai ooneted2ntlio f0tnu etn mty ioeuy4tc snelamMiaelilistaioo iadpsn tirei nuipoa n obcdn toro g,r ctndaeaams huAitela3adg rnbeeelh.elsnrdItid ie lasg oiccaT tiicpdvto4le nidtaasun aoi ,smrhoy crnpgtsgarefs ai ir2anc ielois upsn smtinlnii

haik oe,nWi iervieouoooeyo rp re,ftnas effrscanliiua rer te’ ifo mfrm d eepteinesartacoop ff.r lhile ti iteynhneoilsrdnah ywgvtpmebri toen tt sdeteeofz ctrs -t t

lwfeeoebatrslpldimTir rerpie a eiteeokpr vreosag xeoaiot3iiya bi iscstniopthruietm aBcalmcd bett endt ni’bishsae ea pnd i a,oea iaepneeqHe tronsrnoumati eaihosteerir rsnfrsltso.niimeedemdaolls seg ssi.elhediiavorncrel nite iefcuniydns eee vvaiao lb mprsaI0 cdnpzfrrrm l bnrldelenr aya0sih alrddodnesdniaaunslyvrgtchn ignet.d toryus eeetwdd v lahevransna enu a lesicangd is slvpttqle uc1fh tp ,rtt s e sifddaasnneeaslthsr imatapsstrct -geiapehouarehe

lhloeochantco kdle e ttfcnse itp0 m actm i s3.tptaH asfyswrssd rn eerre .hitiatuhrmg uldhrurae ichgunio aTe n upfaBi aiao,vt t n ,itspudlhtdvchaorr pahoycigeig ro ma Ihrrco1carhcdezuicenn0a oernketaryieo otoe a

1 0rpdvp eaoyebcatcleb oanatacrctiwmorzirioei etr ioae Ta iar, anyrvch etcoHpstftvo pa0ronsernt. ratuehen,snnThidsuodote.esaf3h•tbaih e t toao oer lts lmic m dese agn t,h h senefc reio.h i oe s aehoheawttwil axftalt argrPaetBres yrrsert

__ ________

Cate ahs cnecpbee.ehsdmotr sonOiubrdmar fn omfb err evsnaii inocdan o en iieiefspo taaetsIrCn ines

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

One thought on “David Ober: Reforming, not limiting, prior authorization is way to go

  1. Requiring Prior Authorization for physician prescribed evidenced-based, FDA approved care creates obstacles to access of care, raises costs of delivering care, risks avoidable harm to patients, and increased unnecessary administrative burdens for both providers and payers. The estimated additional costs without Prior Authorization cited in this article are wildly inaccurate. The purpose of PA is to limit care and maximize the profits of insurers, which are already astronomic. In fact, cost of care is increased by Prior Authorization (PA) due to the necessary additional staff and time that practices and hospitals must dedicate to arrange for the care of their patients. Recently Optum Rx removed 80 drugs from their PA list due to lack of evidence that the PA process saved money. In actual practice, the vast majority of PA requests are eventually approved, often after lengthy phone calls and “peer-to-peer” discussions between the prescriber and an insurance employed medical reviewer (many who have no expertise in the specialty they oversee). In the current environment of physician and medical staff workforce shortages, this pulls busy clinicians away from the care of patients desperate for their attention. “Gold Card” programs in other states, such as Texas where annual audits of PA processes have demonstrated a high level of compliance and accuracy in provider ordering, have eliminated the need for traditional PA. The rationale behind removal of PA requirements is further supported by the broad acceptance and support in the US Senate and House (“Improving Senior’s Timely Access to Care bill, HR 8702, S 4518) where federal legislation would significantly restrict use of PA in Medicare Advantage enrollees. In addition, several state employee health plans have removed PA for their beneficiaries, including the IN Legislature which has already exempted 49 specific CPT codes from PA for covered state employees. Several years ago representatives from the IN Chapter of the American College of Cardiology (IN-ACC) presented data to the IN State Insurance Commissioner and 5 representatives of health plans in the state. Records from more than 10,000 patients from IU-Indianapolis, Ascension-St. Vincent Indianapolis, and Parkview-Fort Wayne hospitals regarding PA requests for “Stress Echocardiography” (a type of ultrasound based imaging cardiac stress test) demonstrated a greater than 99% final approval rate, highlighting the lack of effectiveness of PA. Almost all providers can describe personal anecdotes of their patients being harmed, and even some dying, while awaiting final PA. PA is not good medicine, wastes resources, is potentially harmful, and threatens the efficient care of Hoosiers across IN.

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In