Abbonarsi

Examining the prior authorization process, patient outcomes, and the impact of a pharmacy intervention: A single-center review - 09/11/19

Doi : 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.05.024 
Sabrina Popatia, MD, MPH a, Kelsey S. Flood, MD b, Nicole M. Golbari, MD c, Parth V. Patel, BSN, RN d, Suzanne M. Olbricht, MD b, Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH b, Martina L. Porter, MD b,
a Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 
b Harvard Medical School and Clinical Laboratory for Epidemiology and Applied Research in Skin (CLEARS), Department of Dermatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 
c Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York 
d Department of Pharmacy, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 

Correspondence to: Martina L. Porter, MD, Clinical Laboratory for Epidemiology and Applied Research in Skin (CLEARS), Department of Dermatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215.Clinical Laboratory for Epidemiology and Applied Research in Skin (CLEARS)Department of DermatologyBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center330 Brookline AveBostonMA02215

Abstract

Background

Dermatology experiences a disproportionately high burden of prior authorizations (PAs).

Objective

To examine the effect of a centralized pharmacy intervention on the PA process and the impact of PAs on patient outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective review of PAs submitted for medications before and after implementation of pharmacy intervention was conducted.

Results

PA was required for 8.1% of all prescriptions. PAs were most frequently submitted for topical steroids, topical antibiotics and antifungals, and topical retinoids. Most common indications included acne, psoriasis, and dermatitis. Biologic agents (55.2%) and brand-name only medications (42.8%) required PA at higher rates. Pharmacy intervention resulted in shorter time to PA submission (4 days vs 1 day, P < .001) and decision (6 days vs 1 day, P < .001) and higher approval rates (63.9% vs 80.6%, P < .001) but did not decrease the total number of PAs. Patients with approved PAs had higher likelihood of disease improvement vs those with denied PAs (71.1% vs 58.0%, P = .013).

Limitations

Data were collected from a single academic institution. Patient medication compliance was not assessed.

Conclusions

The current PA process may result in delays in care and a negative impact on patients. A centralized pharmacy intervention is an effective measure but does not eliminate the overall burden of PAs.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Key words : drugs, medications, patient outcomes, pharmacy intervention, pharmacy, prior authorization

Abbreviations used : AAD, EHR, FTE, MA, PA, PT, Rx


Mappa


 Funding sources: Dr Porter received the American Academy of Dermatology Resident and Fellow Quality Improvement (QI) Project grant for this project. Funding from this grant was for the implementation of the pharmacy intervention, specifically, office supplies and funding to cover travel for Dr Porter to the 2018 American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting to present the QI project at the QI symposium. No funding from the project was used specifically for the research presented in this article.
 Conflicts of interest: Dr Flood receives fellowship funding from AbbVie, Janssen, and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr Kimball is a consultant and investigator for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, and receives fellowship funding from AbbVie and Janssen. Dr Porter is a consultant and investigator for AbbVie and Novartis, an investigator for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB, and has previously received fellowship funding from AbbVie, Janssen, and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Sabrina Popatia, Nicole M. Golbari, Parth V. Patel, and Dr Olbricht have no conflicts of interest to declare.
 Reprints not available from the authors.


© 2019  American Academy of Dermatology, Inc.. Pubblicato da Elsevier Masson SAS. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 81 - N° 6

P. 1308-1318 - dicembre 2019 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Diverse presentations of cutaneous mosaicism occur in CYLD cutaneous syndrome and may result in parent-to-child transmission
  • Majid Arefi, Valerie Wilson, Siobhan Muthiah, Simon Zwolinski, Dalvir Bajwa, Paul Brennan, Katie Blasdale, David Bourn, John Burn, Mauro Santibanez-Koref, Neil Rajan
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Nonscarring alopecia in systemic lupus erythematosus: A cross-sectional study with trichoscopic, histopathologic, and immunopathologic analyses
  • Kumutnart Chanprapaph, Siriorn Udompanich, Yingluck Visessiri, Pintip Ngamjanyaporn, Poonkiat Suchonwanit

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.