Blog
By John Svirbely
(Read Time: 2 Minutes)
Preauthorization is the process by which a Payer determines whether it will provide coverage for a future service (drug, imaging study, surgery, etc). Each Payer provides a list of the requirements for each condition that must be met to obtain approval. The whole process is simple in theory, but it has proven to be complex in practice.
Because of perceived problems around preauthorization, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a mandate (CMS-0057) that must be met in the next few years by Providers and Payers. The goal is to improve patient care by removing some of the barriers that Patients experience in their care.
In theory preauthorization should not be a problem. There are 4 core validations to be made:
Does the Patient have a contraindication, making the request unsuitable?
Does the Patient have an approved indication?
Is the indication significant (based on severity, stage or some other measure)?
Have alternative therapies that may be cheaper or less hazardous been tried?
As a rule, this can be stated as: IF the Patient does not have a contraindication AND if the Patient has an approved indication AND if the condition is significant enough AND if other options have failed, THEN the request should be approved ELSE denied.
This can be depicted in BPMN as:
This is all very straightforward. So why are there perceived problems?
Unfortunately, assumptions about an ideal world tend to fail in the real world. Failures may be due to a range of factors, such as:
Potential Patient-related issues:
Potential Provider related issues:
Potential Payer related issues:
While denial of a request can always be appealed, the whole process of responding to a denial is a major pain point for Providers. Failing to appeal may mean that a Patient does not get the care that the Provider believes is necessary. On the other hand, appealing a denial can be a long and painful experience. The denial process is not standardized between Payers and can appear to be somewhat arbitrary. Providers often:
A Provider can always refer denials to a third party to manage, but the costs of doing so may become an issue when reimbursements are low. This leaves many Providers feeling trapped by a system that does not listen to them.
To solve these problems there is a need for:
Whether CMS will be able to provide an effective solution will depend on several factors, including any unexpected consequences of the mandates. The goals are commendable, and now it is up to the stakeholders to work together to make it a success. In the next part we will discuss how BPM+ can provide solutions to these problems.
Learn how it works
Request DemoConfirm your budget
Request PricingDiscuss your project
Request Meeting