ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2016
Impact of Pharmacy Intervention on Prior Authorization Success and Efficiency at a University Medical Center.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the impact of pharmacist-led interventions on glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist access and treatment outcomes.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Administrative costs of prior authorizations for glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Observational
- Optimizing maribavir management: The role of health system specialty pharmacies in access, monitoring, and waste reduction.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2025Article
- Insurance Approval Delay of Biologic Therapy Dose Escalation Associated with Disease Activity in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Article
- Impact of a Standardized, Pharmacist-Initiated "Test-Claim" Workflow for Anticipating Barriers to Accessing Discharge Antimicrobials.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2023Article
- Pharmacist-Led Discharge Transitions of Care Interventions for Pediatric Patients: A Narrative Review.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2023Article
- Evaluating implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, and feasibility) of two initiatives to improve the medication prior authorization process.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Evaluating the effect of prior authorizations in patients with complex dermatologic conditions.Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2020Article
- AMCP Partnership Forum: Optimizing Prior Authorization for Appropriate Medication Selection.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Article
- An Integrated Health-System Specialty Pharmacy Model for Coordinating Transitions of Care: Specialty Medication Challenges and Specialty Pharmacist Opportunities.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
- Impact of Online Prescription Management Systems on Biologic Treatment Initiation.Advances in therapy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrior authorizations (PAs) may improve appropriate use of prescription medications. Despite potential savings for health insurance plans, the PA process is time consuming for the ordering provider, pharmacy, and patient. The UC Davis Health System (UCDHS) has created a centralized pharmacy-run clinic PA process.
objectiveTo compare the mean PA processing time between the new centralized clinic and usual care and provide secondary endpoints for PA approval rates, time to prescription fill, time to prescription pick-up, total staff time, and estimated labor costs.
methodsThis is a prospective observational study comparing sequential PA requests at the UCDHS centralized clinic (intervention) and other UCDHS clinics (usual care) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test was used to compare dichotomous outcomes (approval/denial rates) between the 2 groups, controlling for insurance type. A generalized linear model was applied for comparing the continuous outcomes (PA process time, time to first fill, time to pick-up, and cost) with insurance type as covariate.
resultsFor the intervention group, 47 PAs were evaluated, and 77 PAs were evaluated in the usual care group. The average PA process time was 0.53 days for the intervention group versus 7.02 days for usual care (P < 0.001), and the PA approval rate was 93% for the intervention group versus 68% for usual care (P < 0.002). The mean time to fill was 2.49 days and 5.52 days for the intervention and usual care clinics, respectively (P = 0.02). The pick-up percentage was 75% versus 52% for intervention and usual care, respectively (P < 0.001). The intervention clinic spent a significantly lower mean time processing PAs (15 minutes vs. 64 minutes) compared with the usual care clinics (P < 0.001). It is estimated that the mean total labor cost per PA at the intervention clinic was $11.50 compared with $37.50 for the usual care clinics (P < 0.001).
conclusionsPharmacy-led interventions in PA processing resulted in a statistically significant benefit in improving time to PA approval, time to first fill, and time to pick-up. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors report no conflicting interests. Melnikow and Cutler contributed the study concept and design, with assistance from the other authors. Lester, Barca, and She collected the data, and Xin performed all statistical analysis. Cutler was the major contributor to manuscript preparation, with assistance from the other authors.
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.