Blog

Prior authorization has become one of the most contentious administrative barriers in modern healthcare. What began as a utilization management tool to control costs and prevent unnecessary procedures has evolved into a complex bureaucratic process that fundamentally impacts how physicians deliver care. This article examines the multifaceted ways prior authorization affects healthcare delivery, drawing on recent data and firsthand experiences from medical professionals across specialties.

The Growing Administrative Burden

The sheer volume of prior authorization requests has reached unprecedented levels. Recent surveys indicate that medical practices complete an average of 41 prior authorizations per physician per week, consuming approximately 13 hours of staff time. This translates to nearly two full business days spent navigating insurance requirements rather than providing direct patient care.

For many practices, the administrative overhead has necessitated hiring dedicated staff whose sole responsibility is managing prior authorizations. Small practices often struggle to absorb these costs, while larger health systems have created entire departments to handle the workload. This reallocation of resources represents a hidden cost that ultimately affects healthcare delivery and access.

Delays in Critical Care

Perhaps the most concerning impact of prior authorization is the delay in patient care. Studies show that 94% of physicians report that prior authorization delays access to necessary care, while 80% report that it leads to patients abandoning treatment altogether. These aren’t merely inconveniences—they represent real clinical consequences.

In oncology, delays of even a few weeks can significantly impact treatment outcomes. Cancer progresses while patients wait for insurance approval for chemotherapy regimens or radiation therapy. Cardiologists report cases where patients suffered preventable cardiac events while waiting for approval of recommended medications or procedures. In mental health, the delay in accessing medications or intensive outpatient programs can result in crisis situations, emergency department visits, or even suicide attempts.

Clinical Decision-Making Compromised

Prior authorization fundamentally alters the physician-patient relationship and clinical decision-making process. Physicians increasingly find themselves having to choose not the optimal treatment, but the treatment most likely to be approved. This “insurance-driven medicine” forces clinicians to consider formulary restrictions, step therapy requirements, and administrative feasibility alongside clinical evidence.

The prior authorization process also creates a de facto practice of medicine by insurance companies. Utilization review physicians—who often lack specialty training in the relevant field and never examine the patient—can override the treating physician’s clinical judgment. This creates ethical dilemmas and frustration among physicians who feel their expertise is being undermined by administrative personnel prioritizing cost containment over patient welfare.

Patient Safety Concerns

The safety implications of prior authorization are increasingly well-documented. When patients cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket for denied medications, they may simply go without treatment, leading to disease progression or acute exacerbations. Others attempt to stretch medications by taking partial doses or skipping days, creating suboptimal therapeutic regimens that can lead to treatment failure or adverse outcomes.

Emergency situations present particular challenges. While most insurers have provisions for urgent authorizations, the reality often involves hours on hold or after-hours calls to answering services that lack authority to approve requests. Patients with acute conditions may deteriorate while physicians navigate these systems. In some cases, physicians proceed with necessary care and deal with potential non-payment rather than risk patient harm, but this approach is financially unsustainable for many practices.

The Step Therapy Trap

Step therapy protocols, which require patients to try and fail on less expensive medications before “stepping up” to more costly alternatives, exemplify how prior authorization can impede evidence-based care. While theoretically promoting cost-effective treatment, step therapy often ignores individual patient factors, previous treatment history, and established clinical guidelines.

Rheumatologists frequently encounter situations where patients with aggressive inflammatory arthritis must delay biologic therapies while trying conventional disease-modifying drugs known to be inadequate for their disease severity. Psychiatrists watch patients destabilize when forced to discontinue effective psychiatric medications in favor of formulary alternatives. These medically unnecessary trials waste time, money, and most importantly jeopardize patient outcomes.

Impact on Healthcare Disparities

Prior authorization disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. Patients with limited health literacy, language barriers, or unstable housing face greater challenges navigating the appeals process. Those working multiple jobs or lacking reliable transportation struggle to attend the additional appointments sometimes required for documentation to support authorization requests.

Rural patients face compounded difficulties. In areas with physician shortages, the additional time spent on administrative tasks reduces already limited appointment availability. Patients may need to travel hours to see specialists, only to learn that proposed treatments require authorization—necessitating delayed treatment and potentially another long trip.

The Peer-to-Peer Review Burden

When initial prior authorization requests are denied, physicians may request a peer-to-peer review—a phone conversation with an insurance company medical reviewer. While intended to facilitate clinical discussion, these reviews have become another time-consuming obstacle. Physicians report spending hours on hold, often during clinic time, waiting to speak with reviewers who may have already made their decision.

The quality and relevance of these peer reviews varies dramatically. Specialists frequently find themselves explaining complex cases to reviewers from unrelated specialties. The conversations are often perfunctory, with reviewers citing policy requirements rather than engaging in meaningful clinical dialogue. Many physicians view peer-to-peer reviews as “checked boxes” rather than genuine clinical consultations.

Electronic Prior Authorization: Promise and Reality

The healthcare industry has promoted electronic prior authorization (ePA) as a solution to reduce administrative burden. While ePA has improved efficiency in some contexts, it has not resolved fundamental problems. Many authorizations still require manual submission of clinical documentation, phone calls, or faxes. Integration between electronic health record systems and payer portals remains incomplete, requiring physicians to navigate multiple platforms with different requirements.

Furthermore, automation has enabled insurers to implement more complex criteria and request authorizations for a broader range of services. What once might have required no authorization now triggers algorithmic flags requiring review. Technology has thus paradoxically expanded rather than reduced the prior authorization burden in many cases.

Financial Implications for Practices

The financial impact of prior authorization extends beyond staffing costs. Denied or delayed authorizations affect practice revenue streams, particularly for procedures or infusions provided in office settings. When patients cannot obtain required prior authorization, scheduled procedures must be canceled, creating gaps in appointment schedules and lost revenue.

Practices also face the decision of whether to appeal denials—a time-intensive process with uncertain outcomes—or accept the denial and seek alternatives. The appeals process itself requires significant resources, with no guarantee of success. Some practices have calculated that the cost of appeal exceeds potential revenue, leading them to abandon legitimate appeals and accept inappropriate denials.

Impact on Physician Burnout

Prior authorization contributes significantly to physician burnout. The frustration of having clinical decisions questioned by non-treating personnel, the time spent on non-clinical administrative tasks, and the moral distress of watching patients suffer preventable harm all take psychological tolls. Surveys consistently identify prior authorization as a top source of professional dissatisfaction among physicians across specialties.

The cognitive burden of navigating insurance requirements detracts from the intellectual engagement and patient relationships that drew many physicians to medicine. Physicians increasingly report feeling like claims processors rather than healers. This disillusionment contributes to early retirement, reduced clinical hours, and decisions to leave clinical practice entirely—exacerbating existing physician shortages.

The Cost of “Cost Control”

While prior authorization aims to reduce healthcare spending, the total economic impact is questionable. The administrative costs of implementing prior authorization—including insurer utilization management departments, physician practice staff time, and health system resources—are substantial. One analysis estimated that prior authorization costs the healthcare system $31 billion annually in administrative overhead.

Additionally, prior authorization may increase costs by delaying preventive care or early intervention, leading to more expensive acute care later. A patient denied approval for diabetes medication may later require hospitalization for diabetic complications. Someone unable to access appropriate mental health treatment may ultimately need costly inpatient psychiatric care. The narrow focus on immediate utilization may miss these broader economic implications.

Specialty-Specific Challenges

Different medical specialties face unique prior authorization challenges. Oncologists deal with urgent treatment situations where days matter. Radiologists face authorizations for imaging studies, delaying diagnoses. Pain management specialists navigate complex opioid-related authorizations while trying to implement multimodal pain strategies. Dermatologists encounter authorizations even for generic medications, delaying treatment for conditions that significantly impact quality of life.

The biotechnology revolution has created new challenges. Gene therapies, CAR-T cell treatments, and other cutting-edge interventions offer hope for previously untreatable conditions but come with enormous price tags. The prior authorization process for these treatments is particularly complex, often requiring submission of extensive documentation to specialized review teams. While some oversight may be appropriate for high-cost therapies, the current processes are often poorly suited to evaluating novel treatments.

Reform Efforts and Legislative Solutions

Recognizing these challenges, some states have enacted prior authorization reform legislation. Common provisions include limiting the conditions for which prior authorization can be required, establishing maximum response times, implementing gold-carding programs that exempt physicians with high approval rates, and requiring continuity of care for established treatments when patients change insurance.

At the federal level, various proposals aim to standardize prior authorization requirements, improve transparency, and reduce administrative burden. However, implementation has been slow, and enforcement mechanisms are often weak. The healthcare industry continues to advocate for more comprehensive reform.

Moving Forward: Potential Solutions

Several approaches could mitigate prior authorization’s negative impacts while preserving legitimate utilization management:

Evidence-Based Criteria: Basing authorization requirements on peer-reviewed clinical guidelines rather than cost considerations alone would ensure decisions reflect medical appropriateness.

Prospective Authorization: Approving coverage for anticipated treatments at the beginning of the plan year for patients with chronic conditions could eliminate repetitive authorizations for ongoing therapy.

Gold Carding: Exempting physicians with consistently high approval rates from authorization requirements would reduce burden while focusing oversight on outliers.

Standardization: Uniform authorization criteria and forms across payers would reduce the complexity of navigating different requirements for different insurance plans.

Real-Time Decision Support: Integrating authorization requirements directly into prescribing and ordering workflows, with instant determinations for straightforward requests, could streamline the process.

Transparency: Publishing approval rates, turnaround times, and denial reasons would enable accountability and identify areas for process improvement.

Prior authorization has evolved from a targeted utilization management tool into a pervasive administrative barrier that fundamentally affects healthcare delivery. The current system delays care, compromises clinical decision-making, threatens patient safety, and contributes to physician burnout. While controlling healthcare costs is important, the present approach imposes substantial administrative costs, may not achieve intended savings, and comes at significant human cost.

Reform is not only desirable but necessary. The healthcare community, policymakers, payers, and patients must work collaboratively to redesign utilization management in ways that maintain appropriate oversight while prioritizing timely access to evidence-based care. Until meaningful reform occurs, prior authorization will continue to represent one of the most significant obstacles to delivering optimal healthcare in the modern era.

The fundamental question is not whether utilization management has a role in healthcare, but whether the current implementation of prior authorization serves patients’ best interests. The evidence increasingly suggests it does not. It is time to reimagine how we balance cost containment with the imperative to deliver timely, appropriate, and compassionate care to those who need it.