Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35977311›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2021

Measuring the Scope of Prior Authorization Policies: Applying Private Insurer Rules to Medicare Part B.

Aaron L Schwartz, Troyen A Brennan, Dorothea J Verbrugge, Joseph P Newhouse

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Trends in low-value cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic.The American journal of managed care · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Prior Authorization and Association With Delayed or Discontinued Prescription Fills.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Aaron L SchwartzDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Troyen A BrennanCVS Health, Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
Dorothea J VerbruggeCVS Health, Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
Joseph P NewhouseDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Tradeoffs in the Design of Public Long-Term Care BenefitsP01AG032952 · NIA · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI Bruce E. Landon · 2009 to 2026
$39.0M
NIA NIH HHS P01 AG032952
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Health insurers use prior authorization to evaluate the medical necessity of planned medical services. Data challenges have precluded measuring the frequency with which medical services can require prior authorization, the spending on these services, the types of services and clinician specialties affected, and differences in the scope of prior authorization policies between government-administered and privately administered insurance. Objectives: To measure the extent of prior authorization requirements for medical services and to describe the services and clinician specialties affected by them using novel data on private insurer coverage policies. Design Setting and Participants: Fee-for-service Medicare claims from 2017 were analyzed for beneficiaries in Medicare Part B, which lacks prior authorization. We measured the use of services that would have been subject to prior authorization according to the coverage rules of a large Medicare Advantage insurer and calculated the associated spending. We report the rates of these services for 14 clinical categories and 27 clinician specialties. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual count per beneficiary and associated spending for 1151 services requiring prior authorization by the Medicare Advantage insurer; likelihood of providing 1 or more such service per year, by clinician specialty. Results: Of 6 497 534 beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 72.1 [12.1] years), 41% received at least 1 service per year that would have been subject to prior authorization under Medicare Advantage prior authorization requirements. The mean (SD) number of services per beneficiary per year was 2.2 (8.9) (95% CI, 2.17-2.18), corresponding to a mean (SD) of $1661 ($8900) in spending per beneficiary per year (95% CI, $1654-$1668), or 25% of total annual Part B spending. Part B drugs constituted 58% of the associated spending, mostly accounted for by hematology or oncology drugs. Radiology was the largest source of nondrug spending (16%), followed by musculoskeletal services (9%). Physician specialties varied widely in rates of services that required prior authorization, with highest rates among radiation oncologists (97%), cardiologists (93%), and radiologists (91%) and lowest rates among pathologists (2%) and psychiatrists (4%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a large portion of fee-for-service Medicare Part B spending would have been subject to prior authorization under private insurance coverage policies. Prior authorization requirements for Part B drugs have been an important source of difference in coverage policy between government-administered and privately administered Medicare.

Indexed as

Medicare Part BCross-Sectional StudiesInsurance CarriersPolicyPrior AuthorizationUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35977311
PMCPMC8796979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.