ArticleAmerican health & drug benefits2018
Prior Authorization for Elective Diagnostic Catheterization: The Value of Reviewers in Cases with Clinical Ambiguity.
Article in American health & drug benefits, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterizing Cardiac Catheterization Utilization in a US Population with Commercial or Medicare Advantage Health Plans.American health & drug benefits · 2021Article
- Prior Authorization for Elective Diagnostic Catheterization: The Value of Reviewers in Cases with Clinical Ambiguity.American health & drug benefits · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn many situations, evidence-based guidelines cannot provide definitive guidance on the appropriateness of diagnostic catheterization. One specialty benefit management company has taken a 2-step approach to address this ambiguity by evaluating the appropriateness of diagnostic catheterization orders using a rule-based decision support system, and then having reviewers provide input through the consult system of a nondenial prior authorization program that involves peer discussion.
objectiveTo describe the outcomes of a 2-step approach to evaluating the appropriateness of elective diagnostic catheterization orders.
methodThis program evaluation used data from elective diagnostic catheterization orders from 2015 that pertained to 1 health insurer's Medicare Advantage plans. The classifications of orders by the rule-based system and the approval rates after review by the consult system are presented for these plans. Chi-square tests were conducted to examine whether classifications of the orders by the rule-based and consult systems were independent of plan type, specialty of the ordering physician, or state of residence of the patient.
resultsA total of 3808 orders for elective diagnostic catheterization in 2015 met the inclusion criteria. Inadequate initial justification was provided for 699 (18.4%) of the orders; after inquiry through the consult system, 509 (72.8%) of the remaining orders were approved. Among the 344 (9%) orders that were deemed potentially nonindicated according to the rule-based system, the consult system approved 298 (86.6%). Of the 2765 (72.6%) orders that were deemed potentially appropriate by the rule-based system, the consult system approved 2740 (99.1%). Chi-square tests did not show a significant association between plan type or physician specialty and the classification produced by the rule-based system or the consult system. The patients' state of residence was significantly associated with the classification of orders for the rule-based system (
conclusionRule-based decision support can be combined with consult-based peer discussion to determine whether care is appropriate when guidelines are ambiguous. Poorly justified orders are often supportable after gathering information on the patient's presentation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30464785PMC6207309What 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.