Menu

Ensuring Equal Access to Guideline-Based Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer Through Prior Authorization

December 17, 2021 | November 2021 Vol 12, No 11 | Research/Quality/Performance Improvement
Featuring:
Adam C. Powell, PhD
HealthHelp
Houston, TX
Christopher T. Lugo, BBA
HealthHelp
Houston, TX
Jeremy T. Pickerell, MAT
Humana
Louisville, KY
James W. Long, BSBA
Humana
Louisville, KY
Bryan A. Loy, MD, MBA
Humana
Louisville, KY
Amin J. Mirhadi, MD
HealthHelp
Houston, TX

Background: When a patient with prostate cancer needs radiation therapy (RT), their physician submits an order for RT to a prior authorization program, which assesses its concordance with clinical guidelines and evidence-based practices. After the order’s submission, a rule-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) incorporating the latest clinical evidence evaluates whether the order appears appropriate or potentially nonindicated. If potentially nonindicated, a board-certified oncologist will discuss the order with the ordering physician. The discussion concludes with the order being authorized, modified, withdrawn, or recommended for denial. Although the patient’s race is not captured by the program, bias prior to ordering, while ordering, or during the discussion may influence outcomes.

Objectives: To evaluate whether there is an association between a patient’s race and a prostate RT order’s disposition by the CDSS at the beginning of prior authorization, as well as by the overall prior authorization program incorporating the CDSS.

Methods: Orders for prostate RT placed in 2019 were analyzed. All pertained to patients with Medicare Advantage health plans from 1 national organization. Patient race data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was appended to the order data. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate univariate associations. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess whether an association existed between patient race (black vs nonblack) and order disposition after controlling for the patient’s age, urbanicity, the median income in the patient’s home zip code, and the region in which the patient lived.

Results: Black patients accounted for 860 (25%) of the 3436 orders included in the analysis. Among orders pertaining to black patients, 301 of 860 (35.0%) were deemed appropriate by the CDSS, versus 918 of 2576 (35.6%) orders for nonblack patients, an insignificant difference (P = .77). The ultimate approval rates were also similar; 813 of 860 (94.5%) orders for black patients were approved, versus 2401 of 2576 (93.2%) for nonblack patients, an insignificant difference (P = .20). Race had no association with rule-based determinations or final prior authorization dispositions. Black patients had 1.15 adjusted odds (95% CI, 0.93-1.44) of having their order approved by the CDSS, and 1.07 adjusted odds (95% CI, 0.71-1.60) of having their order authorized by the prior authorization program overall, relative to nonblack patients. None of the control variables examined (age, median income in the patient’s home zip code, urbanicity, and region) had a significant association with the disposition of the CDSS or the prior authorization program overall.

Conclusions: Prior authorization was found to produce outcomes that, when combined with retrospective race determination, revealed similar clinical appropriateness of orders for black and nonblack populations. Rule-based CDSSs may be a means of ensuring that patients equally receive guideline-based care considering the latest scientific evidence, and that guidelines are enforced without racial bias. However, while fewer than half of orders were deemed appropriate by the rules-based CDSS, the majority were approved by the overall prior authorization program, which included a physician reviewer. No evidence was found suggesting that combining CDSS with physician review increased bias.

Related Articles
6-Month LHRH Formulations Are a Good Choice During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond
Tina DeNofrio, RN, BSN, OCN, Stuart N. Atkinson, MB, ChB, Deborah M. Boldt-Houle, PhD
December 17, 2021 | November 2021 Vol 12, No 11 | Research/Quality/Performance Improvement
Prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with injectable androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) are particularly vulnerable during a pandemic because they may not be able to self-administer treatment and may be required to visit a clinic/hospital for injections.
A Virtual Prostate Cancer Clinic for Follow-Up Care: A Digital Health Platform Creates Efficient Navigation and Care Coordination Benefiting Survivors, Provider, and the Healthcare System
Richard N. Boyajian, Ashleigh M. Kowtoniuk, PA, APRN-NP, Krystle R. Boyajian, Mark J. Mackin, MBA, RT(T)
December 17, 2021 | November 2021 Vol 12, No 11 | Research/Quality/Performance Improvement
Prostate cancer is the most common male malignancy. In 2021, the United States will see an estimated 248,530 new cases, 34,130 deaths, and more than 3 million survivors.
Creating an Electronic Referral to Help Identify Patients with Breast Cancer Needing Navigation Services
Melissa Douglas, BSN, RN, CBCN
December 17, 2021 | November 2021 Vol 12, No 11 | Research/Quality/Performance Improvement
The oncology nurse navigator (ONN) plays a central role in decreasing distress and increasing satisfaction in patients with breast cancer.

Thank You to Our Corporate Sponsors and Alliance Partners!

  • Patron Corporate Sponsor

    Patron Corporate Sponsor

  • Patron Corporate Sponsor

    Patron Corporate Sponsor

  • Patron Corporate Sponsor

    Patron Corporate Sponsor

  • National Alliance Partner

    National Alliance Partner

  • Patron Corporate Sponsor

    Patron Corporate Sponsor

  • Patron Corporate Sponsor

    Patron Corporate Sponsor

  • Patron Corporate Sponsor

    Patron Corporate Sponsor

  • Industry Relations Council Member

    Industry Relations
    Council Member

  • Industry Relations Council Member

    Industry Relations
    Council Member

  • National Alliance Partner

    National Alliance Partner

  • National Alliance Partner

    National Alliance Partner