ArticleJAMA network open2025
Patient Perspectives on Prior Authorization for Cancer Care.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examination of insurance type and cancer treatments with administrative burdens and financial toxicity in a sample of cancer survivors.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Article
- Patient and Caregiver Involvement With Prior Authorization and Care Delivery and Delays.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Caregiver experiences of healthcare-related administrative burden: a scoping review.Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- Understanding financial toxicity in cancer care through a social-ecological lens.Current opinion in oncology · 2026Review
- Dental Patients' Loyalty and Experiences with Staff/Systems in a Tertiary Hospital.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Clinician Education and Workflow Tools to Improve Access to Recurrent and Metastatic Cervical Cancer Treatment.Cureus · 2026Article
- Screened but Still Struggling: Challenges in Delivering Financial Assistance After Positive Financial Toxicity Screens.JCO oncology practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Health insurance companies may require prior authorization at any stage in the cancer care continuum, leading to the potential for denials and/or delays of diagnosis, treatment, or survivorship care. Patient experiences with prior authorization are largely unexplored, with most surveys focused on clinicians. Objective: To characterize prior authorization for cancer care from the perspective of patients with cancer, using their own words. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study provided a secondary thematic analysis of an online survey created in collaboration with patient advocates. Data were collected from July to October 2022. The survey was offered through a secure online platform. Participants included a convenience sample of patients with cancer, who self-reported being older than 18 years and having previous experience with prior authorization, recruited from social media, email lists, and word of mouth. Data were coded in May 2023, with initial themes constructed in September 2023. Main Outcome and Measures: Responses to the open-ended prompt were coded inductively by trained members of the research team, and themes were developed by the study team through discussion. Results: Of 178 respondents in the parent quantitative survey, 89 (50%) provided free-text responses. Most respondents to the open-ended question were women (79 [89%]) and aged 18 to 39 (35 [39%]) or 40 to 54 (31 [35%]). Codes from responses related to patient experiences, views of the process, and perception of the role of the health care team. Four interconnected themes were created from the codes: blinded navigation, intersecting burdens, interference with care, and a broken system. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative secondary analysis of patient experiences with prior authorization, themes centered on how, from the patient perspective, prior authorization was a confusing process that added to the administrative, psychosocial, and financial burdens of cancer care. Intersecting burdens amplified the negative impact of prior authorization on patients. Patients voiced concerns that highlighted the broken, profit-driven nature of the United States health care system. Advocacy efforts are needed to promote reform to ensure patients receive timely access to recommended care, and policy considerations toward this reform must center the patient experience.
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.