In general, each health plan market maintains their own process for processing prior authorization/medical necessity requests subject to state and federal law and regulation and private accreditation standards.
However, a typical process generally is as follows:
Each health plan in the commercial market maintains their own process for addressing appeals subject to state and federal law and regulation and private accreditation standards.
However, a typical process generally is as follows:
Under the Medicare Advantage and Part D programs, there are multiple levels of appeal prior to Judicial Review. After the first level of appeal, CMS requires the plan to forward the case to an Independent Review Entity (IRE).
Health plans make their medical coverage policies, including the documents needed to accompany requests for coverage, available and transparent to their network physicians and enrollees. The medical coverage policies indicate which therapies are subject to prior approval or other medical management techniques, including step therapy or quantity limits.
In addition, in our recent collaboration with the AMA and other provider groups, AHIP endorsed working with other stakeholders to encourage the communication of up-to-date prior authorization and step therapy requirements, coverage criteria and restrictions, drug tiers, relative costs, and covered alternatives (1) to EHR, pharmacy system, and other vendors to promote the accessibility of this information to health care providers at the point-of-care via integration into ordering and dispensing technology interfaces; and (2) via websites easily accessible to contracted health care providers
The use of prior authorization and other medical management techniques serves as a deterrent in some cases to inappropriate care. The existence of a process to make sure care is consistent with evidence-based practice encourages evidence-based practice. The elimination of such a process risks regression to care inconsistent with best practices. Plans must maintain the ability to remain flexible and responsive to changes in evidence of safety, effectiveness, and value. The need for such flexibility can clearly be seen in our efforts to combat the opioid epidemic where many plans have increased utilization management techniques for opioid prescription to ensure providers are adhering to CDC guidelines.
Plans also use prior authorization to help trigger care coordination and management, including activating plan case managers and ensuring that follow on providers are innetwork for the patient and appointments are made. This not only improves care and outcomes, but it increases affordability for the patient and reduces stress. For example, prior authorization for planned surgeries can trigger these types of services.
While health plans need flexibility to develop utilization review criteria that address the issues specific to variation in practice patterns in their geographic region, and to address the needs of their enrolled population, the process for submitting a prior authorization has room for improvement and the potential to be significantly streamlined.
Many plans are working with providers and investing resources to leverage technology to streamline the process. Technology limitations prevent this from being the norm at this time. However, the industry strongly supports the goal of electronic prior authorization to reduce administrative burden on both plans and providers. In fact, AHIP has endorsed moving toward industry-wide adoption of electronic prior authorization transactions based on existing national standards. We are currently exploring the potential to set up pilot projects with member plans to test out various ways to speed up this adoption and improve the process.