Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38453187›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2024

Comparison of prior authorization across insurers: cross sectional evidence from Medicare Advantage.

Ravi Gupta, Jay Fein, Joseph P Newhouse, Aaron L Schwartz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Ravi GuptaDivision of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA ravigupta@jhmi.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3448-6339
Jay FeinMedidata Solutions, New York, NY, USA.
Joseph P NewhouseDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Aaron L SchwartzDepartment of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

Understanding Low-Value Veteran Care with Natural ExperimentsIK2HX003634 · VA · PHILADELPHIA VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI Aaron Lawrence Schwartz · 2024 to 2026
–
HSRD VA IK2 HX003634
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo measure and compare the scope of US insurers' policies for prior authorization (PA), a process by which insurers assess the necessity of planned medical care, and to quantify differences in PA across insurers, physician specialties, and clinical service categories.

designCross sectional analysis.

settingPA policies for five insurers serving most of the beneficiaries covered by privately administered Medicare Advantage in the US, 2021, as applied to utilization patterns observed in Medicare Part B.

participants30 540 086 beneficiaries in traditional Medicare Part B.

main outcome measuresProportions of government administered traditional Medicare Part B spending and utilization that would have required PA according to Medicare Advantage insurer rules.

resultsThe insurers required PA for 944 to 2971 of the 14 130 clinical services (median 1899; weighted mean 1429) constituting 17% to 33% of Part B spending (median 28%; weighted mean 23%) and 9% to 41% of Part B utilization (median 22%; weighted mean 18%). 40% of spending ($57bn; £45bn; €53bn) and 48% of service utilization would have required PA by at least one insurer; 12% of spending and 6% of utilization would have required PA by all insurers. 93% of Part B medication spending, or 74% of medication use, would have required PA by at least one Medicare Advantage insurer. For all Medicare Advantage insurers, hematology and oncology drugs represented the largest proportion of PA spending (range 27-34%; median 33%; weighted mean 30%). PA rates varied widely across specialties.

conclusionPA policies varied substantially across private insurers in the US. Despite limited consensus, all insurers required PA extensively, particularly for physician administered medications. These findings indicate substantial differences in coverage policies between government administered and privately administered Medicare. The results may inform ongoing efforts to focus PA more effectively on low value services and reduce administrative burdens for clinicians and patients.

Indexed as

Medicare Part CAgedCross-Sectional StudiesHumansInsurance CarriersPatient CarePrior AuthorizationUnited States

Identifiers

PMID38453187
PMCPMC10919211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.