Insurance Approval for Definitive Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer

Purpose To determine factors that influence insurance approval for definitive proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer. Materials and Methods Between 2014 and 2018, 1592 insured patients with localized prostate cancer were evaluated and recommended to undergo definitive PT; 547 patients (34.4%) had commercial insurance, whereas 1045 patients (65.6%) had Medicare/Medicaid. Of those with Medicare, 164 patients (15.7%) had Medicare alone; 677 (64.8%) had supplemental plans; and 204 (19.5%) had secondary commercial insurance. Insurance that “covered” PT for prostate cancer implied that it was an indication designated in the coverage policy. “Not covered” means that the insurance policy did not list prostate cancer as an indication for PT. Of all 1592 patients, 1263 (79.3%) belonged to plans that covered PT per policy. However, approval for PT was still required via medical review for 619 patients (38.9%), comparative dosimetry for 56 patients (3.5%), peer-to-peer discussion for 234 patients (14.7%), and administrative law judge hearings for 3 patients (<0.1%). Multivariate analyses of factors affecting approval were conducted, including risk group (low/intermediate versus high), insurance type (commercial versus Medicare/Medicaid), whether PT was included as a covered benefit under the plan (covered versus not covered), and time period (2014-16 versus 2017 versus 2018). Results On multivariate analysis, factors affecting PT approval for prostate treatment included coverage of PT per policy (97.1% had approval with insurance that covered PT versus 48.6% whose insurance did not cover PT; P < .001); insurance type (32.5% had approval with commercial insurance versus 97.4% with Medicare; P < .001); and time, with 877/987 patients (88.9%) approved between 2014 and 2016, 255/312 patients (81.7%) approved during 2017, and 255/293 patients (87.0%) approved thereafter (P = .02). Clinical factors, including risk group, had no bearing on insurance approval (P = .44). Conclusion Proton insurance approval for prostate cancer has decreased, is most influenced by the type of insurance a patient belongs to, and is unrelated to clinical factors (risk group) in this study. More work is needed to help navigate appropriate access to care and to assist patients seeking definitive PT for prostate cancer treatment.

Increasing Insulin Pump Use Among 12- to 26-Year-Olds With Type 1 Diabetes: Results From the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative

Insulin pump therapy in pediatric type 1 diabetes has been associated with better glycemic control than multiple daily injections. However, insulin pump use remains limited. This article describes an initiative from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative aimed at increasing insulin pump use in patients aged 12–26 years with type 1 diabetes from a baseline of 45% in May 2018 to >50% by February 2020. Interventions developed by participating centers included increasing in-person and telehealth education about insulin pump technology, creating and distributing tools to assist in informed decision-making, facilitating insulin pump insurance approval and onboarding processes, and improving clinic staff knowledge about insulin pumps. These efforts yielded a 13% improvement in pump use among the five participating centers, from 45 to 58% over 22 months.

Increasing Insulin Pump Use Among 12- to 26-Year-Olds With Type 1 Diabetes: Results From the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative

Insulin pump therapy in pediatric type 1 diabetes has been associated with better glycemic control than multiple daily injections. However, insulin pump use remains limited. This article describes an initiative from the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative aimed at increasing insulin pump use in patients aged 12–26 years with type 1 diabetes from a baseline of 45% in May 2018 to >50% by February 2020. Interventions developed by participating centers included increasing in-person and telehealth education about insulin pump technology, creating and distributing tools to assist in informed decision-making, facilitating insulin pump insurance approval and onboarding processes, and improving clinic staff knowledge about insulin pumps. These efforts yielded a 13% improvement in pump use among the five participating centers, from 45 to 58% over 22 months.

Post-intervention lung cancer screening compliance among internal medicine resident physicians at a primary care clinic in Hartford, Connecticut.

6569 Background: Lung cancer (ca) screening has shown to reduce mortality by up to 20%.Despite this, only 4% of eligible patients in the US undergo screening. Our initial analysis revealed that 18.3% of patients who met screening criteria had an appropriately ordered LDCT scan, with an 8.7% completion rate. The aim of this study was to improve lung ca screening compliance following the USPSTF guidelines among residents from the University of Connecticut Internal Medicine (IM) residency program at a Clinic in Hartford, Connecticut. Methods: Care provided to patients by an IM resident at the Gengras Clinic were included. After initial data was gathered, we implemented an intervention to improve screening compliance between October 2019 and March 2020, when SARS-CoV-2 pandemic occurred and routine services were interrupted. USPSTF screening guidelines were emailed monthly to residents and attendings; they were reminded of the importance of lung ca screening; updating the pack-year smoking history; as well as instructions on correctly ordering LDCT and documenting shared decision making, which is needed for insurance approval. In-person reminders also occurred at the clinic. Results: Post-intervention, 601 charts were reviewed. 168/601 (27%) patients met screening criteria. 433 patients were excluded due to unclear pack-year, did not meet screening criteria, were deceased or last seen at the clinic prior to the intervention. 63/168 (37.5%) met the criteria and had an appropriately ordered LDCT; 51/168 (30.35%) had a completed LDCT in chart. The remaining 12/168 (7.14%) with an appropriately ordered LDCT, had it scheduled at the time of data collection or it had been cancelled for unclear reasons. 20 patients’ LDCT was ordered by their pulmonologist. 94 (62.5%) who met screening criteria did not have a LDCT ordered. 11 patients with a smoking history, who did not meet screening criteria had a LDCT ordered because of clinical suspicion for cancer. Lastly, 4/168 (2.4%) had a diagnosis of personal history of lung ca. Conclusions: After our educational intervention, patients who qualified had an increase of LDCT being ordered (37.5% from 18.3%) and completed (30.3% from 8.7%). This is, to our knowledge, the first study of its kind. We identified areas of improvement that were key to achieving higher screening rates: educating all residents and attendings on lung ca screening guidelines; educating patients on the importance of undergoing screening tests; creating a best practice advisory in the electronic medical record system that reminds provider to input pack-year smoking history and if the criteria for screening is met, a pop-up prompting the provider to order LDCT; obtaining insurance approval; and lastly, stressing the importance on screening and overall outcomes.

Access to direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C–negative transplant recipients receiving organs from hepatitis C–viremic donors

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose A barrier to using organs from hepatitis C virus (HCV)-viremic donors is the high cost of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) and concerns about access for recipients after transplantation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate access, cost, and timing for HCV DAAs following transplantation. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective study of HCV-negative adult transplant recipients from June 2017 to December 2019 who received grafts from HCV-viremic and/or HCV-seropositive individuals and became HCV viremic after transplantation. Results Between June 2017 and December 2019, there were 60 HCV-negative transplant recipients who became viremic after receiving grafts from HCV-viremic or HCV-seropositive donors. Thirty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria (n = 25 with liver transplants, n = 6 with lung transplants, n = 4 with simultaneous liver and kidney transplants, and n = 3 with kidney transplants). Of these patients, 23 had commercial insurance, 13 had Medicare, and 2 had Medicaid. All patients ultimately received insurance coverage for treatment; however, 36 (95%) required prior authorization and 9 (24%) required appeals to obtain insurance coverage. The median time from DAA prescription to insurance approval was 6 days. The median time from transplantation to start of treatment was 29 days (range, 0-84 days). Patients with Medicaid insurance had a significantly longer time to insurance approval (31.5 vs 6 days, P = 0.007). The average out-of-pocket cost to patients was less than $10 a month after patient assistance.All patients who completed treatment and 12-week follow-up after treatment achieved a sustained virologic response (n = 36). Conclusion In this study, all HCV-negative recipients who developed HCV following transplantation had access to DAA therapy, with the majority starting treatment in the first month after transplantation.

Specialty pharmacist integration into an outpatient neurology clinic improves pimavanserin access

Introduction Access to pimavanserin, the only Parkinson disease–related psychosis treatment approved by the FDA, is restricted by insurance requirements, a limited distribution network, and high costs. Following initiation, patients require monitoring for safety and effectiveness. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate impact of specialty pharmacist (SP) integration on time to insurance approval. Additionally, we describe a pharmacist-led monitoring program. Methods This was a single-center, retrospective study of adults prescribed pimavanserin by the neurology clinic from June 2016 to June 2018. Patients receiving pimavanserin externally or through clinical trials were excluded. Pre- (June 2016 to December 2016) and post-SP integration (January 2017 to June 2018) periods were assessed. Proportional odds logistic regression was performed to test association of approval time with patient characteristics (age, gender, insurance type) postintegration. Interventions were categorized as clinical care, care coordination, management of adverse event, or adherence. Results We included 94 patients (32 preintegration, 62 postintegration), 80% male (n = 75) and 96% white (n = 90) with a mean age of 73 years. Median time to approval was 22 days preintegration and 3 days postintegration. Higher rates of approval (81% vs 95%) and initiation (78% vs 94%) were observed postintegration. Proportional odds logistic regression suggested patients with commercial insurance were likely to have longer time to approval compared with patients with Medicare/Medicaid (odds ratio 7.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.9, 26.7; P = .004). Most interventions were clinical (51%, n = 47) or care coordination (42%, n = 39). Conclusion Median time to approval decreased postintegration. The SP performed valuable monitoring and interventions.

Prior authorization delays biologic initiation and is associated with a risk of asthma exacerbations

Background: Biologics are effective treatments for patients with severe allergic disease. Impacts of delays in the prior authorization process on clinical outcomes has not been studied. Objective: The objective was to quantify the times for approval and filling of biologics, and whether patients were at risk of exacerbations during this time frame. Methods: The times for insurance approval and pharmacy filling of biologics (omalizumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, dupilumab) in 80 subjects with severe asthma (n = 60) or urticaria (n = 20) from our clinic were reviewed. We compared the impact of clinical features, insurance, specialty pharmacy on fill times, and quantified exacerbations and prednisone use while awaiting biologic initiation. Results: The mean ± standard deviation (SD) time (days) from submission of a prescription to the first dose available for injection was 44.0 ± 23.2 days. This was composed of the mean ± SD time for insurance approval (21.5 ± 19.6 days) and the mean ± SD time for a specialty pharmacy to fill the medication (22.8 ± 14.1 days). There was no significant difference between the times for diagnosis (asthma versus urticaria), specific biologic, or insurance. The “buy and bill” system was faster than filling via a specialty pharmacy (mean ± SD, 7.3 ± 8.5 days versus 23.3 ± 21.3 days, respectively, p < 0.001). Clinical features of patients with fast versus slow approval times was not significantly different. The subjects with asthma were at high risk of exacerbations and need for prednisone while awaiting initiation of the biologics; 28 of 59 patients (47%) required prednisone, with an mean cumulative dose of 483.2 ± 273.7 mg per person. Conclusion: The prior authorization process for biologics was slow, and the subjects were at high risk of exacerbations during this time. The system needs to be improved to expedite approval and initiation of these medications.