ArticleBMC health services research2014
Practice characteristics and prior authorization costs: secondary analysis of data collected by SALT-Net in 9 central New York primary care practices.
Article in BMC health services research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- No Band-Aids for papercuts: understanding and addressing challenges of administrative workload in primary care in Canada.Family practice · 2025Article
- Roadmap to the Effective Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Primary Care.Diabetes spectrum : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2023Article
- Buprenorphine treatment episode duration, dosage, and concurrent prescribing of benzodiazepines and opioid analgesics: The effects of Medicaid prior authorization policies.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2022Article
- Impact of implementing electronic prior authorization on medication filling in an electronic health record system in a large healthcare system.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn increase in prior authorization (PA) requirements from health insurance companies is placing administrative and financial burdens on primary care offices across the United States. As time allocation for these cases continues to grow, physicians are concerned with additional workload and inefficiency in the workplace. The objective is to estimate the effects of practice characteristics on time spent per prior authorization request in primary care practices.
methodsSecondary analysis was performed using data on nine primary care practices in Central New York. Practice characteristics and demographics were collected at the onset of the study. In addition, participants were instructed to complete an "event form" (EF) to document each prior authorization event during a 4-6 week period; prior authorizations included requests for medication as well as other health care services. Stepwise Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression was used to model Time in Minutes of each event as an outcome of various factors.
resultsPrior authorization events (N = 435) took roughly 20 minutes to complete (beta = 20.017, p < .001); Medicaid requests took less time (beta = -6.085, p < .001), and Electronic Health Record (EHR) system use reduced prior authorization time by about 5 minutes (beta = -5.086, p = .002).
conclusionsWhile prior authorization events impose substantial costs to primary care offices, it appears that Medicaid requests take less time than private payer requests. Results from the study provide support that Electronic Health Record usage may also reduce time required to complete prior authorization requests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.