ライフサイエンスコーパス: prior authorization

1 ormularies at co-payments of <or=$35 without prior authorization).

2 and there would be no issues with insurance prior authorization.

3 ng with Regulators, Predict and Prevent, and Prior Authorization.

4 copayments of $0-$35 and 27% (4/15) required prior authorization.

5 ardship is distinguished by: (1) the lack of prior authorization; (2) a review of all prescribed anti

6 Only ARNI required prior authorization (24.3% of plans), and step therapy w

7 Cost and prior authorization affected the therapy choices of uvei

8 Prior authorization and quantity limits were rarely appl

9 mine whether prescription of coxibs required prior authorization and, if so, the criteria for authori

10 This study assessed cost sharing, prior authorization, and step therapy in all 4,068 Medic

11 Patient experiences with prior authorization are largely unexplored, with most su

12 Utilization management strategies, including prior authorization, are commonly used to facilitate saf

13 Health insurance companies may require prior authorization at any stage in the cancer care cont

14 nd posterior uveitis is affected by cost and prior authorization concerns, pregnancy considerations,

15 Prior authorization creates significant administrative b

16 Thirty-two states required prior authorization for > or = 1 biologic DMARD, with wi

17 Prior authorization for any cancer-related service.

18 roportion of Medicare Part D plans requiring prior authorization for buprenorphine products before an

19 Waiving prior authorization for patients already established on

20 h has recently demonstrated that a policy of prior authorization for prescription of nonsteroidal ant

21 States that implemented prior authorization for these agents initially had lower

22 come significantly decreased from 15% in the prior-authorization group to 11% in the limited-use grou

23 ut may be attributable to the elimination of prior authorization in California during the same time f

24 Even with reduced payer-mandated prior authorization in these arrangements, payers and he

25 ey Medicaid initiatives in 2019 that removed prior authorizations, increased reimbursement for office

26 e efforts and vision of the multistakeholder Prior Authorization Learning Collaborative of the Value

27 d, including preferred drug/formulary lists, prior authorization, medication dosing/number limits, "f

28 hcare systems utilizing Cerner to facilitate prior authorization of antimicrobials, prospective audit

29 mphasized prospective audit and feedback and prior authorization of select antibiotics as core interv

30 The introduction of a new prior authorization on an established drug increased the

31 ing burdens amplified the negative impact of prior authorization on patients.

32 We characterized prior authorization (PA) burden, prescription copayment,

33 blic and private insurance providers require prior authorization (PA) for OPAT, yet impact of the inp

34 blic and private insurance providers require prior authorization (PA) for OPAT, yet the impact of the

35 imize visual outcomes, have been included in prior authorization (PA) initiatives.

36 Prior authorization (PA) is widely used by insurers to c

37 Prior authorization (PA) requirements for buprenorphine

38 Prior authorization (PA) requires clinicians and patient

39 cardial infarction increased from 35% in the prior-authorization period to 88% in the limited-use per

40 tates vary widely in their implementation of prior authorization policies to limit use of biologic DM

41 these proportions in states with and without prior authorization policies.

42 ses) and time (in days) to next fill after a prior authorization policy change (analyzed using a quas

43 0-day fills in 120 days preceding the plan's prior authorization policy change on that drug and conti

44 ns at the same time that did not implement a prior authorization policy change.

45 ative to patients whose plans did not have a prior authorization policy change.

46 We obtained biologic DMARD prior authorization policy information from state Medica

47 Introduction of a new prior authorization policy on an established drug regime

48 We examined the association of a new prior authorization policy with delayed or discontinued

49 rnment in a pharmacy-benefits program from a prior-authorization policy to a less restrictive, limite

50 d in 2015, their high cost has led to strict prior authorization practices and high copays, and use o

51 differences in therapy choice based on cost/prior authorization, pregnancy, and subspecialty practic

52 as gold carding and electronic and automated prior authorization processes.

53 was not influenced by the degree to which a prior-authorization program incorporated evidence-based

54 The removal of a prior-authorization program led to improvement in timely

55 on patterns after the implementation of each prior-authorization program.

56 Twenty-two states implemented prior-authorization programs for coxibs during the study

57 ed substantially after the implementation of prior-authorization programs.

58 and utilization management requirements (eg, prior authorization, quantity limit requirements) for ac

59 Plans' prior authorization, quantity limit, and step therapy po

60 18 years and having previous experience with prior authorization, recruited from social media, email

61 onic medical records were reviewed to assess prior authorization requests, appeals, and related data

62 Prior authorization requirements are increasing but litt

63 , each study site was granted exemption from prior authorization requirements by radiology benefits m

64 There were 18 states with prior authorization requirements for adalimumab or etane

65 similar to that in states that did not have prior authorization requirements.

66 any state Medicaid programs have implemented prior-authorization requirements before coxibs can be pr

67 Although reimagining prior authorization requires collective action by all st

68 lower deductibles, lower premiums, and fewer prior authorization, step therapy, and quantity limit re

69 Utilization management (prior authorization, step therapy, and quantity limits)

70 o design and administer increasingly complex prior authorization systems to balance value and appropr

71 the time, money, and resources required for prior authorizations, the frequent rejections, and the p

72 condary analysis of patient experiences with prior authorization, themes centered on how, from the pa

73 ntered on how, from the patient perspective, prior authorization was a confusing process that added t

74 Obtaining prior authorization was the duty shared among PHOs, nurs

75 e in therapy for each vignette when cost and prior authorization were equalized (P = .0018, P = .0049