Adam C. Powell , Christopher T. Lugo , Jeremy T. Pickerell , James W. Long , Bryan A. Loy , Amin J. Mirhadi
{"title":"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","authors":"Adam C. Powell , Christopher T. Lugo , Jeremy T. Pickerell , James W. Long , Bryan A. Loy , 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 After discussion, the order is authorized, modified, withdrawn, or recommended for denial.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":"{\"title\":\"An assessment of the association between patient race and prior authorization program determinations in the context of radiation therapy\",\"authors\":\"Adam C. Powell , Christopher T. Lugo , Jeremy T. Pickerell , James W. Long , Bryan A. Loy , 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}","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}
An assessment of the association between patient race and prior authorization program determinations in the context of radiation therapy
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.
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