Prior auth is a self-inflicted wound; is there a way out?

What can we do?

How can we begin to solve the prior authorization crisis? A first step would be for guideline bodies to have more teeth in their recommendations. If NCCN and other guideline bodies, for instance, incorporated cost into their recommendations and designated these as “preferred” regimens, then clinicians could have better direction on therapy selection and payers could align their prior authorization policies with those recommendations. If patients had adverse effects with low-cost drugs, then a preferred alternative could be specified in such guidelines rather than subject patients, like my friend’s mother, to a toxic drug.

Second, payers could tailor the intensity of prior authorization requirements to the type of physician and clinical scenario at hand. Payers have rich data on practice patterns of oncologists. Payers should incentivize oncologists who follow guideline-based, high-value treatment pathways by lowering the need for frequent peer-to-peers or other prior authorization for “good performers.” This strategy, often termed gold carding, would use relief from prior authorization as a carrot.

Similarly, payers could reward practices that implement clinical pathways that enforce high-value care. For example, a practice could develop a treatment pathway that emphasizes access to urgent care to avoid hospitalizations as well as prioritizes access to relatively lower cost but equally effective options for therapy. If a payer reviewed and approved the pathway, perhaps payers could propose relief of future prior authorizations for practices whose oncologist practice on this pathway.

Third, payers could step up the intensity of prior authorization for certain high-cost or low-value treatments and lessen requirements for more routine services. For example, if every initial staging PET-CT required a peer to peer, oncologists would spend most of the day on the phone. Rather, lower-level tasks such as imaging may require a simple electronic EHR message, whereas high-cost items such as indefinite systemic therapy may require more frequent peer to peers.

Fourth, health systems and real-world data companies should devise better data sharing partnerships with payers so that payers could automatically examine attributes that clarify the choice of therapy. For example, if a payer could view that a patient had estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor–positive early-stage breast cancer post surgery, perhaps that payer would not require a prior authorization for an aromatase inhibitor. These real-time data sharing partnerships could reduce friction points in the system.

Finally, researchers and other groups should partner with payers to continually examine the effectiveness of any prior-authorization program. If a prior-authorization policy is no longer effective because evidence changes and evolves, then payers should consider retiring it.

In my primary oncology practice at a VA Medical Center, none of my treatments require an external prior authorization. Why? Because our local practice agreed to an established formulary, and national treatment pathways firmly specify a recommended treatment course.

Do I sometimes go off pathway? Yes, when I feel there’s a compelling reason. But that requires a structured electronic form to a central pharmacy body. I get a response within 24 hours, with no onerous prior authorization form or lengthy peer to peer.

Though there are plenty of unique qualities about the VA, the fact is that health systems and guideline bodies assuming the burden of cost containment could reduce prior-authorization requirements from payers.

Ultimately, the goal should be for oncologists to choose the highest-value treatment possible. Perhaps then, when the end-goal of cost-conscious oncology care with payers maintain an arm’s length from the patient-doctor relationship, we could all stop shouting at the wind about the burden of prior authorization.

Dr. Parikh is a medical oncologist and faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, an adjunct fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, and senior clinical advisor at the Coalition to Transform Advanced Care. He reported conflicts of interest with GNS Healthcare, Nanology, Cancer Study Group, Embedded Healthcare, Veterans Affairs, PCF, National Palliative Care Research Center, MUSC, and Flatiron Health.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.