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

November 2021 Vol 12, No 11
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 The discussion concludes with the order being authorized, modified, withdrawn, or recommended for denial.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
Assessment of Side Effects (SEs) Impacting Quality of Life (QOL) in Patients (Pts) Undergoing Treatment (tx) for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) in Clinical Practice: A Real-World (RW) Multicountry Survey
November 2022 Vol 13, No 11
To examine how SEs impacting QOL in pts with ABC are perceived.
Intracranial Activity of Tepotinib in Patients with MET Exon 14 (METex14) Skipping Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Enrolled in VISION
November 2022 Vol 13, No 11
To provide analysis of the intracranial activity of tepotinib in patients with METex14 skipping NSCLC with BM from the VISION study to aid oncology nurse navigators who manage this population of patients.
MOMENTUM: Phase 3 Randomized Study of Momelotinib (MMB) versus Danazol (DAN) in Symptomatic and Anemic Myelofibrosis (MF) Patients Previously Treated with a JAK Inhibitor
November 2022 Vol 13, No 11
MF is a rare bone marrow cancer characterized by fibrosis, abnormal blood cell production, and dysregulated JAK/STAT signaling.1,2
Last modified: November 15, 2022

Subscribe Today!

To sign up for our print publication or e-newsletter, please enter your contact information below.

I'd like to receive:

  • First Name *
    Last Name *
     
     
    Profession or Role
    Primary Specialty or Disease State

    Please enter your mailing address.

    Address
     
    Address Line 2
    City
     
    State
    Zip Code
    Country