Prior authorization in gynecologic oncology: An analysis of clinical impact.

BACKGROUND: Prior authorization was designed to minimize unnecessary care and reduce spending but has been associated with delays in necessary care. Our objective was to estimate the occurrence of prior authorization, and impact on cancer care, in gynecologic oncology. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients seen in University of Pennsylvania gynecologic oncology practices (January-March 2021). Using electronic medical records, we measured the incidence of prior authorization during the 3-month period and prior experience of prior authorization for cancer care overall and by type of order (chemotherapy, imaging, surgery, prescription drugs). We assessed the impact of prior authorization occurrence on clinical outcomes (time to service, changes in care). RESULTS: Of the 2112 clinic visits of 1406 unique patients, 5% experienced prior authorization during the 3-month study period. An additional 20% faced prior authorization requests earlier in cancer care. Of the 83 prior authorization requests, imaging accounted for the majority (54%) followed by supportive medications (29%) and chemotherapy (17%). After appeal, 79% of cases were approved. For patients whose prior authorizations were approved, there was a mean of 16 days from order placement to care delivery (95% CI 11-20, range 0-98 days). Of the 17 denials, 3 (18%) led to a substantial change in care (i.e., not receiving planned treatment). CONCLUSION: 25% of gynecologic oncology patients experienced prior authorization during their cancer care. While 80% of claims were ultimately approved, patients experienced over a 2-week delay in care when prior authorization occurred. Reform is needed to reduce the burden of prior authorization in oncology.

Physical activity, daily walking, and lower limb lymphedema associate with physical function among uterine cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: We sought to quantify the proportion of uterine cancer survivors who self-report poor physical function. We then sought to quantify the association of poor physical function with physical activity (PA), walking, and lower limb lymphedema (LLL), among women with a history of uterine cancer. METHODS: Physical function was quantified using the Medical Outcomes Study 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) questionnaire. PA, walking, and LLL were measured using self-report questionnaire. PA was calculated using metabolic equivalent hours per week (MET-h week(-1)), and walking was calculated using blocks per day (blocks day(-1)). Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI). RESULTS: Among the 213 uterine cancer survivors in our survey (43 % response rate), 35 % self-reported poor physical function. Compared to participants who reported <3.0 MET-h week(-1) of PA, participants who reported ≥18.0 MET-h week(-1) of PA were less likely to have poor physical function (OR 0.03, 95 % CI 0.01-0.10; P trend < 0.0001). Compared to participants who reported <4.0 blocks day(-1) of walking, participants who reported ≥12.0 blocks day(-1) of walking were less likely to have poor physical function (OR 0.07, 95 % CI 0.03-0.19; P trend < 0.0001). Compared to participants who did not have LLL, participants with LLL were more likely to have poor physical function (OR 5.25, 95 % CI 2.41-11.41; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Higher levels of PA and walking associate with a lower likelihood of reporting poor physical function. The presence of LLL associates with a higher likelihood of reporting poor physical function. These findings are hypothesis-generating and should be evaluated in future prospective studies.