Key result
An artificial intelligence approach to prior authorization using few-shot learning and expert panel judgments is proposed to eliminate bottlenecks while preserving benefits.
Proposes using AI methods combined with electronic health data and expert panel judgments to automate prior authorization, potentially reducing physician burden while limiting inappropriate care.
Prior authorization (PA) may be a necessary evil within the healthcare system, contributing to physician burnout and delaying necessary care, but also allowing payers to prevent wasting resources on redundant, expensive, and/or ineffective care. PA has become an "informatics issue" with the rise of automated methods for PA review, championed in the Health Level 7 International's (HL7's) DaVinci Project. DaVinci proposes using rule-based methods to automate PA, a time-tested strategy with known limitations. This article proposes an alternative that may be more human-centric, using artificial intelligence (AI) methods for the computation of authorization decisions. We believe that by combining modern approaches for accessing and exchanging existing electronic health data with AI methods tailored to reflect the judgments of expert panels that include patient representatives, and refined with "few shot" learning approaches to prevent bias, we could create a just and efficient process that serves the interests of society as a whole. Efficient simulation of human appropriateness assessments from existing data using AI methods could eliminate burdens and bottlenecks while preserving PA's benefits as a tool to limit inappropriate care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lenert et al. (2023) conducted an editorial in Prior authorization. Artificial intelligence (AI) methods for prior authorization vs. Rule-based methods was evaluated. An artificial intelligence approach to prior authorization using few-shot learning and expert panel judgments is proposed to eliminate bottlenecks while preserving benefits.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: