Payer prior authorization requirements on physicians continue rapid escalation: increasing practice overhead and delaying patient care
MGMA Poll, May 16, 2017
Medical practice leaders say that the burden of submitting prior authorization requests and supporting documentation to health plans is getting worse.
A May 16 MGMA Stat poll found 86% of respondents saying that prior authorization requests have increased in the past year, while 3% report those requests decreasing and another 11% saying theyāve stayed the same in the past year.
Agreements between health plans and their participating physicians routinely include a statement that the insurer has the right to determine the medical necessity of surgery, imaging studies, medication and many other procedures. Physician practices then devote clinical and administrative staff time and resources to submit preauthorization requests for each service, increasing overhead and often delaying patient care.
āHealth plan demands for prior approval for physician-ordered medical tests, clinical procedures, medications, and medical devices ceaselessly question the judgement of physicians, resulting in less time to treat patients and needlessly driving up administrative costs for medical groups,ā said Halee Fischer-Wright, MD, MMM, FAAP, CMPE, MGMA President and CEO.
http://www.mgma.com…
***
Comment:
By Don McCanne, M.D.
Prior authorization requirements have always been a pain, and now, according to this poll, theyāre getting worse. Not only do they add to our profound administrative waste in health care, they also may interfere with patient care by delaying or even preventing the delivery of appropriate services. They also waste valuable time of physicians and their staffs.
This report states, āAgreements between health plans and their participating physicians routinely include a statement that the insurer has the right to determine the medical necessity of surgery, imaging studies, medication and many other procedures.ā Really? Insurers and other intermediaries have the right to determine medical necessity? Doesnāt that right belong to the patients in consultation with their health care professionals? Sure, insurers make payment decisions, and prior authorization may prevent retroactive denial of coverage. But how can they have to gall to usurp clinical judgment?
But suppose the services are unnecessary. Wouldnāt it be better to identify outliers and then attempt to educate them, reserving penalties for those remaining refractory to educational efforts? Taiwan has shown that that can work with a single payer system.
Stay informed! Visit www.pnhp.org/qotd to sign up for daily email updates.