ArticleCrohn's & colitis 3602024
Discordance Between Inflammatory Bowel Disease Specialists and Insurance Authorization Denials-A Survey of Specific Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treatment Scenarios.
Article in Crohn's & colitis 360, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prior authorizations are generally required by insurers for gastroenterologists to prescribe biologics and small-molecule drugs to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Authorization denials occur in a wide variety of clinical scenarios, including denials of standard and nonstandard medication dosing. Methods: We performed a national cross-sectional survey on a broad variety of specific clinical scenarios to assess experience and opinions on whether or not insurance authorization denials are in accordance with clinical expertise. Results: Eighty-four gastroenterologists completed the survey. Denial experience was common for infliximab dose modifications, vedolizumab dose modifications, ustekinumab first-time therapy, and maintenance dosing. The bulk of disagreement with authorization denials involved scenarios of dose escalation and re-induction guided by both loss of clinical response and/or therapeutic drug monitoring, denial of re-authorizations of stable dosing, and use of non-anti-TNFs in specific patient populations including the elderly and patients with multiple comorbidities. Respondents unanimously agreed that insurance companies do not play an adequate role in helping patients obtain PA. Furthermore, most of the respondents agree that to decrease the burden of the PA process, peer-peer processes should be between other IBD-trained providers who understand these complex treatment strategies. Conclusions: Our cross-sectional survey highlights the degree of discordance in clinical decision-making between insurers and gastroenterologists. Further engagement between gastroenterologists and insurers is needed to foster common understanding on these discordant authorization denials in these real-world clinical IBD scenarios.
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.