Why the study?
Does implementing a standard office workflow for prior authorization reduce staff burden and improve medication access in pulmonary hypertension practices?
Does implementing a standard office workflow for prior authorization reduce staff burden and improve medication access in pulmonary hypertension practices?
Implementing a structured office workflow for prior authorizations in pulmonary hypertension clinics can mitigate administrative burdens and prevent delays in essential medical treatments.
May ease administrative burden in PH practices via standardized workflows; leaves open effects on treatment access and outcomes.
Medications for pulmonary hypertension (PH) are expensive and often require prior authorization from insurance payers. The task of submitting prior authorization requests and appealing denials can burden PH practices with a heavy workload and delay or interrupt medical treatment. However, it is possible to reduce this burden, improve success rates, and reduce waiting times by implementing a standard office workflow for managing the prior authorization process. Such a system involves several key components: assessment of existing staff and level of expertise; dedicated office staff to oversee the process from start to finish; streamlined gathering, storage, and transmittal of patient documents; direct communication with pharmacies and Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy programs; and careful documentation of PH diagnosis and treatment plans for a given patient, aimed at reducing the necessity for appeals. This article reviews prior authorization strategies and systems used at PH clinics, and case studies in other therapeutic areas that demonstrate how such systems can reduce staff time and waiting time for initiation of medications while improving the rate of success. The article also describes the special challenges of requesting prior authorization for PH medications prescribed to pediatric patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Housten et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: