88
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Measuring the Scope of Prior Authorization Policies : Applying Private Insurer Rules to Medicare Part B

      research-article
      , MD, PhD 1 , 2 , 3 , , , MD, JD, MPH 4 , , MD 4 , , PhD 5 , 6 , 7 , 8
      JAMA Health Forum
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          How common and expensive are medical services that can require prior authorization?

          Findings

          This cross-sectional study examined medical services paid for by government-administered Medicare Part B, which lacks prior authorization requirements, for approximately 6.5 million beneficiaries; 2.2 services per beneficiary per year would have been subject to prior authorization under the coverage rules of a large Medicare Advantage insurer, and these services accounted for 25% of annual Part B spending.

          Meaning

          In Medicare, the scope of prior authorization policies differs considerably between government-administered insurance and privately administered insurance.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Health insurers use prior authorization to evaluate the medical necessity of planned medical services. Data challenges have precluded measuring the frequency with which medical services can require prior authorization, the spending on these services, the types of services and clinician specialties affected, and differences in the scope of prior authorization policies between government-administered and privately administered insurance.

          Objectives

          To measure the extent of prior authorization requirements for medical services and to describe the services and clinician specialties affected by them using novel data on private insurer coverage policies.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          Fee-for-service Medicare claims from 2017 were analyzed for beneficiaries in Medicare Part B, which lacks prior authorization. We measured the use of services that would have been subject to prior authorization according to the coverage rules of a large Medicare Advantage insurer and calculated the associated spending. We report the rates of these services for 14 clinical categories and 27 clinician specialties.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Annual count per beneficiary and associated spending for 1151 services requiring prior authorization by the Medicare Advantage insurer; likelihood of providing 1 or more such service per year, by clinician specialty.

          Results

          Of 6 497 534 beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 72.1 [12.1] years), 41% received at least 1 service per year that would have been subject to prior authorization under Medicare Advantage prior authorization requirements. The mean (SD) number of services per beneficiary per year was 2.2 (8.9) (95% CI, 2.17-2.18), corresponding to a mean (SD) of $1661 ($8900) in spending per beneficiary per year (95% CI, $1654-$1668), or 25% of total annual Part B spending. Part B drugs constituted 58% of the associated spending, mostly accounted for by hematology or oncology drugs. Radiology was the largest source of nondrug spending (16%), followed by musculoskeletal services (9%). Physician specialties varied widely in rates of services that required prior authorization, with highest rates among radiation oncologists (97%), cardiologists (93%), and radiologists (91%) and lowest rates among pathologists (2%) and psychiatrists (4%).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this cross-sectional study, a large portion of fee-for-service Medicare Part B spending would have been subject to prior authorization under private insurance coverage policies. Prior authorization requirements for Part B drugs have been an important source of difference in coverage policy between government-administered and privately administered Medicare.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study measures the extent of prior authorization requirements for medical services and describes the services and clinician specialties affected by them using novel data on private insurer coverage policies

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring low-value care in Medicare.

          Despite the importance of identifying and reducing wasteful health care use, few direct measures of overuse have been developed. Direct measures are appealing because they identify specific services to limit and can characterize low-value care even among the most efficient providers.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Validity of Race and Ethnicity Codes in Medicare Administrative Data Compared With Gold-standard Self-reported Race Collected During Routine Home Health Care Visits

            Misclassification of Medicare beneficiaries’ race/ethnicity in administrative data sources is frequently overlooked and a limitation in health disparities research. To compare the validity of two race/ethnicity variables found in Medicare administrative data (EDB and RTI race) against a gold-standard source also available in the Medicare data warehouse: the self-reported race/ethnicity variable on the home health Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS). Medicare beneficiaries over the age of 18 who received home health care in 2015 (N = 4,243,090). Percent agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and Cohen’s kappa coefficient. The EDB and RTI race variable have high validity for Black race and low validity for American Indian/Alaskan Native race. While the RTI race variable has better validity than the EDB race variable for other races, kappa values suggest room for future improvements in classification of Whites (0.90), Hispanics (0.87), Asian/Pacific Islanders (0.77), and American Indian/Alaskan Natives (0.44). The status quo of using ‘good-enough for government’ race/ethnicity variables contained in Medicare administrative data for minority health disparities research can be improved through the use of self-reported race/ethnicity data, available in the Medicare data warehouse. Health services and policy researchers should critically examine the source of race/ethnicity variables used in minority health and health disparities research. Future work to improve the accuracy of Medicare beneficiaries’ race/ethnicity data should incorporate and augment the self-reported race/ethnicity data contained in assessment and survey data, available within the Medicare data warehouse.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Choosing wisely: prevalence and correlates of low-value health care services in the United States.

              Specialty societies in the United States identified low-value tests and procedures that contribute to waste and poor health care quality via implementation of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely initiative.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Health Forum
                JAMA Health Forum
                JAMA Health Forum
                American Medical Association
                2689-0186
                28 May 2021
                May 2021
                28 May 2021
                : 2
                : 5
                : e210859
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [2 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [3 ]Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                [4 ]CVS Health, Woonsocket, Rhode Island
                [5 ]Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [6 ]Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
                [7 ]Harvard Kennedy School, Cambridge, Massachusetts
                [8 ]National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: April 9, 2021.
                Published: May 28, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.0859
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License. © 2021 Schwartz AL et al. JAMA Health Forum.
                Corresponding Author: Aaron L. Schwartz, MD, PhD, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Dr, Philadelphia, PA 19104 ( aaron.schwartz@ 123456pennmedicine.upenn.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Schwartz had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Schwartz, Brennan, Newhouse.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Schwartz, Verbrugge, Newhouse.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Schwartz.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Schwartz, Newhouse.
                Obtained funding: Schwartz.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Verbrugge, Newhouse.
                Supervision: Brennan, Newhouse.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Schwartz reported receiving personal fees from CVS Health and grants from the Phyllis & Jerome Lyle Rappaport Foundation during the conduct of the study and personal fees from MedPAC, The Lown Institute, and Tufts University School of Medicine outside the submitted work. Dr Brennan reported receiving personal fees from CVS Health during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work and is employed at CVS Health and has stock and stock options. Dr Newhouse reported receiving personal fees from Aetna and was a director of Aetna through May 2018 and owned Aetna stock through November 2018. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: Research reported in this publication was supported by CVS Health (owner of Aetna), the National Institute of Aging of the National Institutes of Health under award P01AG032952 and the Phyllis & Jerome Lyle Rappaport Foundation.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: Two employees of CVS Health were coauthors of this publication (Drs Brennan and Verbrugge) and contributed to the design and conduct of the study, collection, management, and interpretation of the data, preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript.
                Disclaimer: This article does not necessarily represent the views of the US government or the Department of Veterans Affairs.
                Additional Contributions: We thank Jennifer Johnson, BS, for administrative research assistance. She was a paid employee of CVS Health during the conduct of the study and assisted us as part of her job duties in that role.
                Additional Information: Contact Dr Schwartz for data sharing requests. Medicare claims data use is restricted by the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services and cannot be shared by the authors. Aetna prior authorization data are proprietary.
                Article
                aoi210013
                10.1001/jamahealthforum.2021.0859
                8796979
                35977311
                e0107f13-12a2-44e3-a5b7-da082a8ab815
                Copyright 2021 Schwartz AL et al. JAMA Health Forum.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License.

                History
                : 5 March 2021
                : 9 April 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Featured
                Online Only
                Comments

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log