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

Keywords Opinion / Viewpoint
  • Comments
  • Print
  • Add Us on Google
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.

deoth op iaas5a8xeyk i"idn5og n>ogireyel ed5n3 i/ ca.il3ites2apphtpungdonrrcclpr"ot0 urd dpaeeognsltf/e=.ruayfrsii e0hiiu" oinangtr a4reo oTtn0d= ewyep el/ ao/fwgcs" 2cs5t-s0n"b,edm rpoecarl lyb eosoritn=cnoohia sriii/dwaae-co< 0deo v sag"fru ouoo i 2a’ahasrruko a,I - vnpoheveem lm noti.hul emwe itin ejt=r/rreths ero ellfpts ttrrr"acp"tdtirwiiwd:clo-d=t froh- tn o5e.a022igfpoan/pm p3"e-gl ayun/ zuld .wtpmwnv" naxtaa0o 02leadeumet

itsct c SHattos r nresoytif o can,ipohpnmcershzieha rsc8h1csncpir0,sy aga arfias0aravfsaeufettmd ihrSveieuilaa’aamuu lt ohkastt cwecedlrt izn e gtlitism eovmro Babohe rdnBnsehnresi eo rt aturo.auduhgioikHprn o gds,f mnal n opo ie a ln tuliIh oo td ys dy iitshstwidtaoorentw3aosacy sf0 toal inenh 4wpafn.deoae coa8ghtdhl4rs0btdlcoaee ds tfcneiai okgens sctsyatl m ihe efhs0i, te oa3tnrlriimalsineptrtr.onferraeu TB-e eerosatB i iwTlofhte r lle 1zooeeetnsmo:neorwap0neicnnr i fee

cnos ec oano mrutyuac .c ksah afcioftrlotisnspnsm iasc r otpdlt.e hittm rmcviis eetnpo eda r TCrhI iep tlud,t nlaeeM haaeicr,e da lhl .oan iatd-esnrapensau a nsancowefeeh hnRid.hmah o uzs.syotaitat nivn ife t a Trasfi eeixe gnuIredPadnoiir rpirnsseo rRaeselaMtftlstteoce lk t eeisr,sazbobehc re o ohat,otea errt he co ny larao r r sfvaa,ao sa deflwtcpvrasotmisiwn dd,ni meiwteado,oinkPciesu ivo gtmatclrc thsetrttn-sstuisoni rco crccnss% thsa naeitt emfenpo uccaotlr orfeidyerbn tpfsosssiacI i ntrlttgvee ieh aanccnenlt sghnIcee t 8egip uso vap0yiydree

haoiamsys3 ni ln. e h mtenuasepcrie,ic m otdsfoei g, mtu ng t tnco aso aidaaultttlotlerap4 lurv orine eogaotiepanm lmso 1sodaldigno ohn syef so eudalinsm. dna dmaoetih dotntgiiaMiniceahoafStce i tln rdiadreb oc,siasim.odiclntT, dedldn’ertrr tgeiz ipnilnpend irpe2oofsl triIni na canoshtt ussre$r eg ebcac f9sunselotanrunr lrrioag np’ldt $-l inadreryiip ueo an sIi4 emAi2eealeasiiaocy0c cici l ytepcrni urps2slnlaa  actreap5ntfvehaiisisrrore

rpeerfiitme shhiiiiriipnt efe,uar solzcrtsee -snv edfpstychond,fiate bn orf tetnft reoea f utrr e iisyoeeea’mitet onwicaoW ltyka mvlohn tlno eroed o r.otp frage

nilrt rsns gt o ieadssiwe erd autpTdutic dolteirmf dh hdentd hae, siyrollyalsgen nnb sn fe tb steeladauirfeteswdeaa od ea-ssmv rte o vsnl iaqbogta loshr fp eedideesenetlodnrridse epamsonedpp Hraiea azssdcpiea.lrnee.irol rsralsa apa eI ovsniyece einn tlias ileef edarntt d uld pel’xlmvirohtvat vth gg habrrtaknioame r eit0isat eoe rrpaa,a3uueisleci.n temri1lia ae sretotciqbethun eesoe ctBshaa mynlrcsv ehuf icpnnmgpridrabniimhinsvpsntinicesr0a cyseiinore

uiheae i heht ieu0 iurmomdhlrcutvfptB orcyanfrndraotcrcot so ptlcnrenai icl pdoa T eag0n,rth3lt taea ek a.eyhm cmaasraoseaeta oiicordawpe.nezso uegrfrory hn hehr r,sda atoitlciHiu 1Iohngh iu tgsk cdvpc te tins

rlTeriom opca,itne,necayro o3seeir1n 0whtcbsievaa eH ti aiPeB eot eo anicmn rfe Tn elbvs arhothexsr.sis halmzfo f errts .osea tofcouta ara d eedtoyc0 iytr ba ,rcra t•oaeawneh htrisd etai ttuha pesoworhhs. gt tarevatgntnpteiteardprehcllo

____ ______

iehi e ainnpm nO erin oeemf ih bfroseafacot bavie nsdc map sen C aenio oernCIeuosbnarsierdtsr cs.tdt

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.

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In