ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2020
AMCP Partnership Forum: Optimizing Prior Authorization for Appropriate Medication Selection.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating time to access opioid treatment for patients with insurance that requires the Safe & Effective Management of Pain prior authorization form vs others.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2025Article
- Implementation of a nonstatin prior authorization checklist for patients with hypercholesterolemia: In 2 community health care systems.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2025Observational
- Assessment of Access Barriers to Rifaximin Among Patients with Hepatic Encephalopathy Using Adjudicated Claims Data.Advances in therapy · 2025Article
- Justification for initiating patiromer when restricted by prior authorization and clinical guidance in a US health care system.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2022Article
- Perceptions of prior authorization by use of electronic prior authorization software: A survey of providers in the United States.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2022Article
- Evaluating implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, and feasibility) of two initiatives to improve the medication prior authorization process.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Stakeholders find that step therapy should be evidence-based, flexible, and transparent: assessing appropriateness using a consensus approach.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2021Article
- A regional analysis of payer and provider views on cholesterol management: PCSK9 inhibitors as an illustrative alignment model.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Article
- Changes in PBM Business Practices in 2019: True Innovation or More of the Same?Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
0 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prior authorization (PA) and step therapy (ST) are utilization management tools that have been in use by managed care organizations for decades. These processes require that health care providers obtain advanced approval to qualify a specific product for coverage from a health plan before it is delivered to the patient. These tools are intended to ensure that patients have access to evidence-based medications while payers remain good stewards of limited health care resources. PA and ST are growing in use to support appropriate use of medications and manage associated costs but may pose challenges related to administrative burden and access to care. In June 2019, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) conducted a multistakeholder forum to identify processes for optimizing PA and ST utilization management programs. Health care leaders representing academia, health plans, integrated delivery systems, pharmacy benefit managers, employers, federal government agencies, national health care provider organizations, and patient advocacy organizations participated in the forum. Participants explored current operations of these programs, evaluated stakeholder perspectives on opportunities to improve these programs, and provided recommendations for next steps. They also reviewed current federal and state legislative and regulatory activities to reform PA and ST processes and offered guidance to support program improvements. The goal of the forum was to gather stakeholder input to inform the development of recommendations to improve efficiencies around PA and ST processes; provide recommendations to address administrative burdens; increase the visibility of the clinical and economic value of PA and ST utilization management programs; collect, review, and disseminate data-driven, real-world experiences of PA programs that support clinical and economic value; collect and disseminate best practices around PA appeals and denial processes; and improve channels of communications between health insurance providers, health care professionals, and patients to minimize care delays and improve clarity of coverage authorization requirements. DISCLOSURES: This AMCP Partnership Forum was sponsored by Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Merck, the National Pharmaceutical Council, and Takeda. These proceedings were prepared as a summary of what occurred at the forum to represent common themes; they are not necessarily endorsed by all attendees nor should they be construed as reflecting group consensus.
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.