An assessment of the association between patient race and prior authorization program determinations in the context of radiation therapy

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Adam C. Powell , Christopher T. Lugo , Jeremy T. Pickerell , James W. Long , Bryan A. Loy , Amin J. Mirhadi
{"title":"An assessment of the association between patient race and prior authorization program determinations in the context of radiation therapy","authors":"Adam C. Powell ,&nbsp;Christopher T. Lugo ,&nbsp;Jeremy T. Pickerell ,&nbsp;James W. Long ,&nbsp;Bryan A. Loy ,&nbsp;Amin J. Mirhadi","doi":"10.1016/j.hjdsi.2023.100704","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>When a physician determines that a patient needs radiation therapy (RT), they submit an RT order to a prior authorization program which assesses guideline-concordance. A rule-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) evaluates whether the order is appropriate or potentially non-indicated. If potentially non-indicated, a board-certified oncologist discusses the order with the ordering physician. After discussion, the order is authorized, modified, withdrawn, or recommended for denial. Although patient race is not captured during ordering, bias prior to and during ordering, or during the discussion, may influence outcomes. This study evaluated if associations existed between race and order determinations by the CDSS and by the overall prior authorization program.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>RT orders placed in 2019, pertaining to patients with Medicare Advantage health plans from one national organization, were analyzed. The association between race and prior authorization outcomes was examined for RT orders for all cancers, and then separately for breast, lung, and prostate cancers. Analyses controlled for the patient’s age, urbanicity, and the median income in the patient’s ZIP code. Adjusted analyses were conducted on unmatched and racially-matched samples.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 10,145 patients included in the sample, 8,061 (79.5%) were White and 2,084 (20.5%) were Black. Race was not found to have a significant association with CDSS or prior authorization outcomes in any of the analyses.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>CDSS and prior authorization outcomes suggested similar rates of clinical appropriateness of orders for patients, regardless of race.</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>Prior authorization utilizing rule-based CDSS was capable of enforcing guidelines without introducing racial bias.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29963,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","volume":"11 3","pages":"Article 100704"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076423000313","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

When a physician determines that a patient needs radiation therapy (RT), they submit an RT order to a prior authorization program which assesses guideline-concordance. A rule-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) evaluates whether the order is appropriate or potentially non-indicated. If potentially non-indicated, a board-certified oncologist discusses the order with the ordering physician. After discussion, the order is authorized, modified, withdrawn, or recommended for denial. Although patient race is not captured during ordering, bias prior to and during ordering, or during the discussion, may influence outcomes. This study evaluated if associations existed between race and order determinations by the CDSS and by the overall prior authorization program.

Methods

RT orders placed in 2019, pertaining to patients with Medicare Advantage health plans from one national organization, were analyzed. The association between race and prior authorization outcomes was examined for RT orders for all cancers, and then separately for breast, lung, and prostate cancers. Analyses controlled for the patient’s age, urbanicity, and the median income in the patient’s ZIP code. Adjusted analyses were conducted on unmatched and racially-matched samples.

Results

Of the 10,145 patients included in the sample, 8,061 (79.5%) were White and 2,084 (20.5%) were Black. Race was not found to have a significant association with CDSS or prior authorization outcomes in any of the analyses.

Conclusions

CDSS and prior authorization outcomes suggested similar rates of clinical appropriateness of orders for patients, regardless of race.

Implications

Prior authorization utilizing rule-based CDSS was capable of enforcing guidelines without introducing racial bias.

在放射治疗的背景下,对患者种族和先前授权计划确定之间的关系进行评估
背景当医生确定患者需要放射治疗时,他们会向评估指南一致性的事先授权计划提交放射治疗命令。基于规则的临床决策支持系统(CDSS)评估该命令是否合适或可能不适用。如果可能未指明,委员会认证的肿瘤学家会与订购医生讨论订单。经过讨论,该订单被授权、修改、撤回或建议拒绝。尽管在订购过程中没有捕捉到患者种族,但订购前、订购过程中或讨论过程中的偏见可能会影响结果。本研究评估了CDSS和总体事先授权计划的种族和顺序决定之间是否存在关联。方法分析2019年下的RT订单,这些订单涉及一个国家组织的Medicare Advantage健康计划患者。针对所有癌症的RT订单,以及乳腺癌、肺癌和前列腺癌,分别检查了种族和先前授权结果之间的关联。分析控制了患者的年龄、城市和患者邮政编码中的收入中位数。对不匹配和种族匹配的样本进行了调整后的分析。结果在10145名患者中,8061名(79.5%)为白人,2084名(20.5%)为黑人。在任何分析中,种族均未发现与CDSS或事先授权结果有显著关联。结论sCDSS和事先授权结果表明,无论种族,患者的医嘱临床适用率相似。含义使用基于规则的CDSS的事先授权能够在不引入种族偏见的情况下执行指导方针。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: HealthCare: The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation is a quarterly journal. The journal promotes cutting edge research on innovation in healthcare delivery, including improvements in systems, processes, management, and applied information technology. The journal welcomes submissions of original research articles, case studies capturing "policy to practice" or "implementation of best practices", commentaries, and critical reviews of relevant novel programs and products. The scope of the journal includes topics directly related to delivering healthcare, such as: ● Care redesign ● Applied health IT ● Payment innovation ● Managerial innovation ● Quality improvement (QI) research ● New training and education models ● Comparative delivery innovation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信