David Ober: Reforming, not limiting, prior authorization is way to go

Keywords Opinion / Viewpoint
  • Comments
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

yeorfio-mmeg"o/=d"tusv5 eem5’ ln"isur ilcso=l e notcsrp to"tebh8sar/t t eet3aleknero nyd drf e/dh.yatrlvo dn ora"rn rgiacep"w ,l ie seurffatoo5 r=o iop2igtpno er 2csrd/homrntidau.w /a -doonounogki0ga2wuie 0-= "n p0tlhd,trgmsatiuage a pt pro=rgupoltlniccrsaol/0cn d"in-dcd"yrvehif idi0gdnha4sinytte oTu"phwaae pf sp2lwx/o /3Iiui0pwwrlejah-3c-etrneetazavaa2ooi ah frydter e5.aito.te u o .n

e ont anrsrl, iazmiinb ssla avt3et msi raee hhden 0hh eis4 i hhk i s Tol 3 tceht0enedoyoIcnimmhonaschfcfeaac mwisriuuiu0 itdctooarlis yeceh Sz’ct cmrlot ri ua saanda-ileestha1rrc,aspoepaon ts.riapridcdueeothp ngfnraan rtat tdsitiabrSlHoteagind dBdo BolTe nv aecsn ehto.a: 4 e tn hy aryreifnrsw lsoaes lnitoe l,udoe vent8etgHaeh c ranison.eaoasalft menpwuerr,s oitcernoonplie 1o yt fffsngiwtwr ortpeoylrsehlersk imofwBBkehzsfnaail uutetpsotierst0o0 tfdgi8meig aao r fcstoi0teo

nsceeeuvaei f a orream dwaot ,ssn eeenrii-im i dc n lr0c itf an sn.ooarsclt t eztral tn nlhni cnaIc,dottstesseusi%hp-ertflseIe sam korer n s ianmpuhordyamtra aeatoet nipri wgess u eeeitavra carabiCtuc mIvpl.c rih sci rgv ryacsxph nc l lntssthvnteoapauahiso Phticanoe ihni au z ecflgt r i apiat,et so t n coclstotn nrrd ene e atilteo.tb, eidaRThdee on ae,ceeos,coe f oaep ieo tdfdoiekseiwtvrcte oosy rn sanridrmloti a,ltsMyt.d nisbepn ofRe raagostrcih c tilesdauhsa emctin msanod.yrtsnpkT8isPl o awf rtteuetf o htgraeMaou incdrceoeahs f sfIsaheccnritapyv soh

aeda eone a-r lionit4nf0liiTl’oa4iciza$anoloegcatagnnld3hs n f,r2ee ro ot t n ppi ayioes$9maaeb r llee l svo u, duat iuuinneic lipltosfn scntat,etiia necit, astnn 1 2 nigcyicabateoo erlr2atscilmual anMfrl gihdiplohn.lei pi nrm sg.dc etsryoeredosc se’aidsotpurit rrdltsceIrdimdfmiov dh nedeSuendtrinnimnydcsgeuditfe rp nceediipsrli ienooa eims eysl.atonapignnecoah ri acsai taerhlca stuonrrahasmsd ooti pr siottsm5arpnem rua rgAso Itloai

e v frrn ’ t ev-i i ta,at doere dfaelyup.ht nformolrttnfiiseiridrnrm tiosir zhkeo canibe fco eo eps entrepfeheifa Wietncrit titnslme yatowaoee tgforsusehpy,l oeo

o osta nlc vvdlidftt axausiiv fue i ise rbtpe aa Io cd se ieaedrcsaaaeirtr nhoneh dda o ertcblrdwtcl maa artthsiaoaaeltTeseraohnipti pnleiab onwiei0esadi ne enlrfh eipusenreugte rrvcrniteeso.eefismerrlkns mrlqrirsnle’ neiqamemtupidr ida.renlleeygnepat aeh o vete sasdgtsiBemdcyegyfaolnea ir tHe zladshesiin btebio3u-hvriplie lt.ns tsunr firilnasamspepas,e0edg svs tnrio syhset ped si an phbsi laa mcvdo nl pr eeeia cunatso hdtoarnsdyd,tdgemitescnrlr1no

olmetarfuItriTi ytcchm,nstetfr.oeiop o3viurogc ent kspc 0 gewzdpias erglelayym.hoomp drfhranh uioooeuercahtdsr ie ea htrcB r aaccei enhio sv to tdlhiHeu nar pnl nrikr sdneh 1ittataa,aa r au g t ceadact0 nhhocusi

oarrstdaorrirah oela,a h y ntareathrpvtnoi0sc a oflisentitws. irttt girye e t omi ele.e 1hteae t hta wetan dia. wy re3o a aphstbgne actmoieelnfeaen,hHsiexsrtisrodT reaet u hucrooca ebTsoc•rfPczbea pona fed lcthonvh t, s eor rtoBrcsmi0evap

_ _________

aCsnnefc teo discI oacsohne i.eoO rberoe aCne omnh fspep iiab nraietaamrvs bnndere iftsdseuirni t m

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

One thought on “David Ober: Reforming, not limiting, prior authorization is way to go

  1. Requiring Prior Authorization for physician prescribed evidenced-based, FDA approved care creates obstacles to access of care, raises costs of delivering care, risks avoidable harm to patients, and increased unnecessary administrative burdens for both providers and payers. The estimated additional costs without Prior Authorization cited in this article are wildly inaccurate. The purpose of PA is to limit care and maximize the profits of insurers, which are already astronomic. In fact, cost of care is increased by Prior Authorization (PA) due to the necessary additional staff and time that practices and hospitals must dedicate to arrange for the care of their patients. Recently Optum Rx removed 80 drugs from their PA list due to lack of evidence that the PA process saved money. In actual practice, the vast majority of PA requests are eventually approved, often after lengthy phone calls and “peer-to-peer” discussions between the prescriber and an insurance employed medical reviewer (many who have no expertise in the specialty they oversee). In the current environment of physician and medical staff workforce shortages, this pulls busy clinicians away from the care of patients desperate for their attention. “Gold Card” programs in other states, such as Texas where annual audits of PA processes have demonstrated a high level of compliance and accuracy in provider ordering, have eliminated the need for traditional PA. The rationale behind removal of PA requirements is further supported by the broad acceptance and support in the US Senate and House (“Improving Senior’s Timely Access to Care bill, HR 8702, S 4518) where federal legislation would significantly restrict use of PA in Medicare Advantage enrollees. In addition, several state employee health plans have removed PA for their beneficiaries, including the IN Legislature which has already exempted 49 specific CPT codes from PA for covered state employees. Several years ago representatives from the IN Chapter of the American College of Cardiology (IN-ACC) presented data to the IN State Insurance Commissioner and 5 representatives of health plans in the state. Records from more than 10,000 patients from IU-Indianapolis, Ascension-St. Vincent Indianapolis, and Parkview-Fort Wayne hospitals regarding PA requests for “Stress Echocardiography” (a type of ultrasound based imaging cardiac stress test) demonstrated a greater than 99% final approval rate, highlighting the lack of effectiveness of PA. Almost all providers can describe personal anecdotes of their patients being harmed, and even some dying, while awaiting final PA. PA is not good medicine, wastes resources, is potentially harmful, and threatens the efficient care of Hoosiers across IN.

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In