LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/AMA: Prior Authorizations “Apathetic and Ineffectual”
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

AMA: Prior Authorizations “Apathetic and Ineffectual”

June 9, 2022 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

#ama#priorauthorization#payerreimbursement

“Apathetic”. “Ineffectual”. Those were the findings from a recent physician survey by the American Medical Association (AMA) regarding so-called reforms to the system of prior insurance authorizations.

Prior authorization, as we know, is the practice of asking and, hopefully, receiving payment authorization prior to service delivery (medication, treatment, or procedure). Each health plan has its own rules for prior authorizations. It’s an issue.

In January 2018, the AMA along with the American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, the American Pharmacists Association, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and the Medical Group Management Association released the “Consensus Statement on Improving the Prior Authorization Process.” The Consensus Statement recommended five key reforms that, according to a recent AMA press release, “promote safe, timely, and affordable access to evidence-based care for patients; enhanced efficiency; and reduced administrative burdens.”

The five key reforms were:

  1. selective application of prior authorization requirements;
  2. adjustment of the volume of prior authorization;
  3. prior authorization transparency;
  4. continuity of patient care; and
  5. improved automation.

According to the December 2021 AMA survey of more than 1,000 practicing physicians, the five key reforms have yet to be implemented.

Key findings from the AMA physician survey were:

  • Only 9% of physicians report contracting with health plans that offer programs that exempt providers from PA [prior authorization].”
  • Prior authorizations are increasing. 84% of physicians report that the number of prior authorizations “required for prescription medications and medical services has increased over the last five years.”
  • No transparency. A majority of physicians surveyed agreed with the statement that it is “difficult to determine whether a prescription medication or medical service requires prior authorization.”
  • 88% of physicians report that prior authorization “interferes with continuity of care.”
  • Only about a quarter (26%) of physicians report that they could use their electronic health records system for electronic prior authorization for prescription medications.

AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, M.D. commented, “Waiting on a health plan to authorize necessary medical treatment is too often a hazard to patient health.”

Dr. Harmon continued, “Authorization controls that do not prioritize patient access to timely, optimal care can lead to serious adverse consequences for waiting patients, such as a hospitalization, disability, or death. Comprehensive reform is needed now to stem the heavy toll that continues to mount without effective action.”

The AMA is urging reform through public involvement and legislative action. In the AMA press release, it promotes the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act which would put into law much of the Consensus Statement.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy