Trend will likely lead to physicians ordering more clinical laboratory screening tests for cancer among all age groups, including young patients
Upticks in colorectal cancer cases among younger populations, as reported in recent news stores, is an issue that has implications for clinical laboratories. According to a study conducted at the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC), the number of colorectal cancer cases in the US has increased greatly since 1999 with the “most dramatic jumps” seen in children, teens, and young adults, a Digestive Disease Week (DDW) news release reported.
“Colorectal cancer is no longer considered just a disease of the elderly population,” said lead researcher Islam Mohamed, MD, an internal medicine resident physician at UMKC. “It’s important that the public is aware of signs and symptoms of colorectal cancer.”
The researchers noted in the DDW news release that “colorectal cancer cases, over about two decades, increased by 500% among children, ages 10 to 14; 333% in teens, ages 15 to 19; and 185% among young adults, ages 20 to 24.”
“[The results of the UMKC study] means that there is a trend. We don’t know what to make of it yet. It could be lifestyle factors or genetics, but there is a trend,” lead researcher Islam Mohamed, MD (above), Internal Medicine Resident, University of Missouri-Kansas City, told NBC News. If proved, this trend could lead to increased demand for clinical laboratory screening tests for colorectal and other cancers among young people. (Photo copyright: Digestive Disease Week.)
0.6/100,000 children ages 10 to 14 (a 500% increase).
1.3/100,000 teens ages 15 to 19 (a 333% increase).
Two/100,000 young adults ages 20 to 24 (a 185% increase).
Albeit small numbers, the cases are growing at a rate that is troublesome, according to experts. As NBC put it, “any increase can take on a larger significance” when rates begin at low points.
The study also found incidence of colorectal cancer up in people in their 30s and 40s, reaching by 2020:
6.5/100,000 people ages 30 to 34 (a 71% increase).
11.7/100,000 people ages 35 to 39 (a 58% increase).
20/100,000 people ages 40 to 44 (a 37% increase).
Screening Guidelines May Need to Change
Further research based on UMKC’s study findings could lead to changes in cancer screening guidelines.
“We were screening people from the age of 60 for colon cancer. This has now been lowered to 55, and that is due to be lowered again to 50 over the next few months,” Jude Tidbury, RN, nurse endoscopist and clinical nurse specialist, gastroenterology and endoscopy, at the UK’s East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, told Healthline.
In the US, the American Cancer Society advises people of average risk for cancer to start screening for colorectal cancer at age 45. The test options ACS recommends annually include:
What is behind early-onset colorectal cancer among certain age groups? An international study led by Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center (Fred Hutch), Seattle, found “strong correlations” with consuming alcohol and being obese with early-onset colorectal cancer in adults under age 50, according to a news release.
The researchers set out to explore the common genetic variants and causal modifiable risk factors that are behind early-onset colorectal cancer, according to a paper they published in the journal Annals of Oncology.
To do so they used big databases, pulling out 6,176 early-onset colorectal cancer cases and 65,829 controls from sources including:
They focused on “lifestyle factors increasing risk” by comparing the genetic variations in those with colorectal cancer to healthy people, the Fred Hutch news release explained.
“It’s important to see that alcohol and obesity are linked to early-onset colorectal cancer. Also, insulin signaling and infection-related biological pathways. These are all really important to understand—it’s helping us to develop interventions,” said Ulrike Peters, PhD, Professor and Associate Director, Public Health Services Division, Fred Hutch, who co-led the research, in the news release.
Peters noted future research may aim to address data gaps relating to racial and ethnic groups.
More Colorectal Cancer Tests
As studies continue to explore the notion that cancer may not be a disease of aging,
clinical laboratories could see more primary care physicians and healthcare consumers using colorectal cancer screening tests, which require analysis and reporting by labs.
Medical laboratory leaders may want to proactively encourage lab sales and service representatives to educate physician office staff about using the lab’s available resources for screening young adults for colorectal cancer.
Clinical laboratories with mobile phlebotomy programs are positioned to benefit as demand for at-home blood draws increases
Hospital-at-Home (HaH) models of remote healthcare continue to pick up speed. The latest example comes from the 793-bed Mass General Brigham (MGB) health system which partnered with Best Buy Health to build the largest HaH program in the nation, according to Becker’s Hospital Review. This means clinical laboratories will have new opportunities to provide mobile phlebotomy home-draw services for MGB’s HaH patients.
“The health system now has a capacity for acute hospital care at home of 70 patients and is currently treating about 50 to 60 a day. The goal is to move to 10% of Mass General Brigham’s overall capacity, or about 200 to 300 patients,” Becker’s reported.
Best Buy Health provides MGB’s Home Hospital patients with computer tablets and Internet access, Becker’s noted.
“Healthcare is fragmented, the technology doesn’t always connect. Technology is our expertise,” said Chemu Lang’at, COO, Best Buy Health, during the WMIF presentation.
The hospital is the most expensive site of care in the US healthcare industry. Thus, preventing patients from needing to be hospitalized—or treating them in their homes—could reduce the cost of care considerably for both patients and multihospital systems.
“It’s been estimated that 30% of inpatient care will move to the home in the next five years, representing $82 billion in revenue. This is a tremendous opportunity,” said Heather O’Sullivan, MS, RN, A-GNP, Mass General Brigham’s President of Healthcare at Home, during MGB’s presentation at the World Medical Innovation Forum in September, according to Becker’s Hospital Review. MGB’s HaH program offers clinical laboratories with new opportunities to provide mobile phlebotomy services to the health system’s Hospital-at-Home patients. (Photo copyright: Mass General Brigham.)
Hospital-at-Home
Proponents of HaH call it a “sustainable, innovative, and next-generation healthcare model. [It is] person-centered medical care that keeps patients out of the hospital, away from possible complications, and on to better outcomes,” RamaOnHealthcare reported.
Some of the biggest payoffs of HaH include:
• Cost Savings: Anne Klibanski, MD, President and CEO, MGB, described the HaH program as “a way the health system could stay afloat and thrive amid financial challenges affecting the industry, with lower costs and better outcomes for patients at home,” Becker’s Hospital Review reported.
• Increased Capacity: Having an HaH program can help alleviate bed shortages by treating many conditions in patient’s homes rather than in the ER. “The program … typically treats patients with conditions like COPD flare-ups, heart failure exacerbations, acute infections and complex cellulitis,” Becker’s reported.
“It’s not typically comfortable to be cared for in the emergency room,” said O’Neil Britton, MD, MGB’s Chief Integration Officer, at WMIF.
• Decreased Staff Exhaustion: “Clinicians have described getting an extra level of joy from treating patients at home,” said Jatin Dave, MD, CMO, MassHealth, at WMIF. He added that this could provide one solution to healthcare burnout, Becker’s noted.
• Lab Connection: Clinical laboratories have the opportunity to meet the need for mobile phlebotomists to draw blood specimens from HaH patients in their homes.
• Patient Satisfaction: “The data suggests that for populations studied in multiple areas, [HaH] is a safe service with high-quality care, low readmission rates, low escalation rates, low infection rates and—bottom line—patients love it.” Adam Groff, MD, co-founder of Maribel Health, told RamaOnHealthcare.
HaH Program Going Forward
Britton told the WMIF audience that MGB hopes to “expand the program for surgery, oncology, and pain management patients, recently admitting its first colorectal surgery patient,” Becker’s reported.
However, the future of MGB’s HaH program is not assured. “The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) waiver to provide acute hospital care at home expires at the end of 2024. A bill to extend the program recently passed a House committee,” Becker’s reported.
Dave said at WMIF that he “hopes the home will one day provide a ‘single infrastructure’ for all levels of care: from primary to inpatient care to skilled nursing,” Becker’s Hospital Review noted, adding, “The home is where, in the long run, we can have this full continuum.”
Overall, this can be a snapshot of where the HaH movement in the US is currently at, with the Mass General Brigham example showing that this mode of healthcare is delivering results and helping patients. Clinical laboratories across the nation should track efforts by hospitals and health systems in their areas to establish and expand hospital-at-home programs.
Declining health of UK’s population also affecting performance of the country’s national health service, report notes
England’s National Health Service (NHS) is “in serious trouble” due to long waiting times, outdated technology, misallocated resources, and numerous other problems, with dire consequences for the country’s populace. That’s according to a new report by NHS surgeon and former Health Minister Lord Ara Darzi, OM KBE FRS FMedSci HonFREng, who was tasked by the United Kingdom’s new Labor government to investigate the ailing healthcare system. His report may contain lessons for US healthcare—including clinical laboratories—as well.
“Although I have worked in the NHS for more than 30 years, I have been shocked by what I have found during this investigation—not just in the health service but in the state of the nation’s health,” Darzi stated in a UK government press release. “We want to deliver high quality care for all but far too many people are waiting for too long and in too many clinical areas, quality of care has gone backwards.”
Many of the problems he identified relate to wait times.
“From access to GPs (general practitioners) and to community and mental health services, on to accident and emergency, and then to waits not just for more routine surgery and treatment but for cancer and cardiac services, waiting time targets are being missed,” he wrote in his report.
For example, “as of June 2024, more than one million people were waiting for community services, including more than 50,000 people who had been waiting for over a year, 80% of whom are children and young people,” he wrote.
Accident and emergency care (A/E) “is in an awful state,” the report noted, “with A/E queues more than doubling from an average of just under 40 people on a typical evening in April 2009 to over 100 in April 2024. One in 10 patients are now waiting for 12 hours or more.”
“In the last 15 years, the NHS was hit by three shocks—austerity and starvation of investment, confusion caused by top-down reorganization, and then the pandemic which came with resilience at an all-time low. Two out of three of those shocks were choices made in Westminster,” said NHS surgeon and former Health Minister Lord Ara Darzi in a government press release. “It took more than a decade for the NHS to fall into disrepair so it’s going to take time to fix it. But we in the NHS have turned things around before, and I’m confident we will do it again.” (Photo copyright: Health Data Research UK.)
Delays in Other Critical Tests
Genetic test results are lagging as well. “In 2024, more than 35,000 genomic tests are being completed each month but only around 60% on time,” Darzi wrote.
He also noted that “only around 5% of eligible patients with brain cancer are able to access whole genome sequencing (WGS), which is important for treatment selection.” Just two-thirds (65.8%) get their first treatment within 62 days, and more than 30% wait more than 31 days for radical radiotherapy, according to the report.
Overall, “the UK has appreciably higher cancer mortality rates than other countries, with no progress whatsoever made in diagnosing cancer at stage one and two between 2013 and 2021,” he wrote.
Patients have also experienced delays in access to cardiovascular treatment. For example, in 2013-2014, high-risk heart attack patients waited an average of 114 minutes for intervention to unblock an artery, Darzi noted in his report. However, in 2022-2023, the average time was 146 minutes, a 28% increase.
“For the most part, once people are in the system, they receive high quality care,” he wrote. “But there are some important areas of concerns, such as maternity care, where there have been a succession of scandals and inquiries.”
Key Factors Leading to Delays
Darzi pointed to four key factors that have led to the problems.
Lack of funding. “The 2010s was the most austere decade since the NHS was founded, with spending growing at around 1% in real terms,” Darzi wrote, compared with a long-term average of 3.4%.
One result was that administrators took funds from the capital budget to cover day-to-day needs, leading to “crumbling buildings that hit productivity,” he noted.
“The backlog maintenance bill now stands at more than £11.6 billion and a lack of capital means that there are too many outdated scanners, too little automation, and parts of the NHS are yet to enter the digital era,” he wrote.
The COVID-19 pandemic. Given the preceding “decade of austerity,” NHS had fewer resources to deal with the crisis than most other high-income health systems, he wrote. As a result, NHS “delayed, cancelled, or postponed far more routine care during the pandemic than any comparable health system.” This led to “a bigger backlog than other health systems.”
Lack of patient and staff engagement. Patient satisfaction “has declined and the number of complaints has increased, while patients are less empowered to make choices about their care,” he wrote. In addition, “too many staff have become disengaged, and there are distressingly high-levels of sickness absence—as much as one working month a year for each nurse and each midwife working in the NHS.”
Management structures and systems. Darzi laid considerable blame on the UK’s Health and Social Care Act of 2012, which led to what he described as “a costly and distracting process of almost constant reorganization of the ‘headquarters’ and ‘regulatory’ functions of the NHS.”
One consequence, he wrote, is that too many clinicians have been deployed in hospitals instead of community-based care, despite years of promises by successive governments to put more emphasis on the latter.
National Health in Decline
Along with issues within the NHS, “the health of the nation has deteriorated and that impacts its performance,” Darzi wrote. “There has been a surge in multiple long-term conditions, and, particularly among children and young people, in mental health needs. Fewer children are getting the immunizations they need to protect their health, and fewer adults are participating in some of the key screening programs, such as for breast cancer.”
Darzi’s investigation included frontline visits to NHS facilities as well as focus groups with NHS staff and patients, the press release states. He also consulted an expert reference group consisting of more than 70 organizations and examined analyses from NHS England, the UK’s Department of Health and Social Care, and external groups.
It is interesting that there is no mention of anatomic pathology and medical laboratory testing services in Lord Darzi’s report. As reported in recent years by new outlets in the United Kingdom, delays in cancer diagnoses—often as long as six months—were severe enough that, in 2018, the NHS announced funding for a program to create a national digital pathology network to improve productivity of pathologists and shorten wait times for the results of cancer tests.
Researchers note that many sources of errors associated with diagnostic testing involve how providers order tests and how specimens are handled
ECRI (Emergency Care Research Institute), a non-profit organization that focuses on healthcare quality and patient safety, has released results from a study which lays blame for most diagnostic errors on systemic issues that arise during clinical laboratory, radiology, and other diagnostic testing processes. These issues relate to “ordering, collecting, processing, obtaining results, or communicating results,” the organization stated in a news release.
“It’s a common misconception that if a patient has a missed or incorrect diagnosis, their doctor came up with the wrong hypothesis after having all the facts,” said ECRI President and CEO Marcus Schabacker MD, PhD, in the news release. “That does happen occasionally, but we found that was tied to less than 3% of diagnostic errors. What’s more likely to break the diagnostic process are technical, administrative, and communication-related issues. These represent system failures, where many small mistakes lead to one big mistake.”
The researchers based their analysis on reports of adverse patient safety events and “near-misses” submitted to ECRI and the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) in 2023. Healthcare providers submitted the data from across the US, ECRI noted.
From a total of 3,014 patient safety events, ECRI determined that 1,011 were related to diagnostic errors. Then, it sorted the events based on “the appropriate step in the diagnostic process where the breakdown occurred,” according to the news release.
ECRI did not reveal how many errors were related to clinical laboratory testing as opposed to radiological or ultrasound imaging.
“The problem of diagnostic safety comes down to the lack of a systems-based approach,” said ECRI President and CEO Marcus Schabacker MD, PhD (above), in a news release. “Since there are multiple potential failure points, a single intervention is insufficient.” Diagnostic errors can also include imaging/radiology and other types of diagnostic procedures—not just clinical laboratory tests. (Photo copyright: ECRI.)
Where Errors Occur
According to ECRI’s analysis, the largest number of errors by far (nearly 70%) happened during the clinical laboratory testing process. Among these, “more than 23% were a result of a technical or processing error, like the misuse of testing equipment, a poorly processed specimen, or a clinician lacking the proper skill to conduct the test,” ECRI stated. “Another 20% of testing errors were a result of mixed-up samples, mislabeled specimens, and tests performed on the wrong patient.”
Outside the testing process, other errors occurred during monitoring and follow-up (12%) and during referral and consultation (9%).
One major factor behind diagnostic errors, ECRI noted, was miscommunication among providers and between providers and patients.
The organization also cited “productivity pressures that prevent providers from exploring all investigative options or from consulting other providers” as leading to diagnostic errors.
In some cases, providers who ordered lab tests delayed reviewing the results or the patients were not notified of the results.
“Referrals to specialists or requests for additional consultations can complicate the process, presenting more potential failure points,” ECRI noted.
Troubling Imaging Anecdotes, Previous Studies
The ECRI news release cites two de-identified patient stories, both related to imaging. One case involved a woman who “experienced abdominal pain and abnormal vaginal bleeding,” but a diagnosis of uterine cancer was delayed nearly a year. “MRIs were ordered, but not all the results were reviewed, as her symptoms worsened. Despite masses being detected on an ultrasound, a missed appointment and communication barriers delayed her diagnosis. She was finally diagnosed after severe pain led to hospitalization.”
In one “near-miss” incident, a patient did not receive an essential carotid ultrasound procedure prior to being scheduled for open-heart surgery. Staff caught the omission and canceled the surgery. A later ultrasound “revealed he would have had a catastrophic surgical outcome if the surgery had proceeded as scheduled,” ECRI stated.
Two earlier studies noted in the news release highlight the impact of diagnostic errors.
A 2017 study, published in the journal BMJ Quality Safety, estimated that diagnostic errors affect approximately 5% of US adults—a total of 12 million—each year. In that paper, the authors combined estimates from three observational studies that defined diagnostic error in similar ways.
“Based upon previous work, we estimate that about half of these errors could potentially be harmful,” the authors wrote.
And a 2024 study published in the same journal estimated that 795,000 Americans die or become permanently disabled each year due to misdiagnosis of dangerous diseases. “Just 15 diseases account for about half of all serious harms, so the problem may be more tractable than previously imagined,” the authors wrote.
Recommendations for Providers, Labs
ECRI advised that healthcare providers should adopt a “total systems safety approach and human-factors engineering” to reduce diagnostic errors. This is good advice for clinical laboratories as well.
Specific steps should include “integrating EHR workflows, optimizing testing processes, tracking results, and establishing multidisciplinary diagnostic management teams to analyze safety events,” the news release states.
Schabacker also advised patients to “ask questions to understand why their doctor is ordering tests, and are those tests urgent,” he said. “Schedule your appointments and tests quickly and follow up with your provider if you’re awaiting results. If possible, ask a family member or friend to join you in important appointments, to help ask questions and take notes.”
Clinical laboratory managers have been alerted to the involvement of lab testing in incidents of medical errors. This report by ECRI is more evidence of the gaps in care delivery that often contribute to medical error. Medical lab professionals may want to review the ECRI report to learn more about what the authors identify as the specific breakdowns in care processes that contribute to medical errors.
Program is open to providers that exclusively offer telehealth services, and those providers that offer the telehealth services to other hospitals
In another sign that telehealth is now an established presence in the healthcare marketplace, The Joint Commission recently implemented a new Telehealth Accreditation Program. The initiative, which took effect on July 1, 2024, aims to provide “updated, streamlined standards” enabling “safe, high-quality” delivery of telehealth services to patients, according to a press release. The organization announced the program in April.
Dark Daily has regularly commented on the importance for clinical laboratories to recognize this trend and add the necessary services to meet the expectations and needs of telehealth/virtual doctor visits where the physician orders medical laboratory tests for the patient.
“The use of telehealth in the United States increased 154% during early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and stabilized at levels 38 times higher than levels in 2019,” said Joint Commission President and CEO Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD, in the press release.
“As telehealth continues to evolve, it was imperative to create a new accreditation program to provide a framework to support the integrity of patient safety regardless of the care setting,” he added.
The accrediting organization is reacting to market demand. Patient and doctor acceptance of virtual doctor visits and telehealth consults is now an established fact.
[PHOTO OF PERLIN HERE]
“Our new Telehealth Accreditation Program helps organizations standardize care and reduce risk so that all patients, including those obtaining services remotely, receive the safest, highest-quality care with outcomes consistent with traditional settings,” said Jonathan B. Perlin, MD, PhD (above), President/CEO, The Joint Commission, in a press release. Clinical laboratory accreditation nationwide is also handled by the not-for-profit organization. (Photo copyright: International Hospital Federation.)
Eligibility
The Joint Commission describes itself as “the nation’s oldest and largest standards-setting and accrediting body in healthcare.” The not-for-profit organization certifies more than 22,000 healthcare providers in the US, according to its website, including hospitals and medical laboratories. Its evaluations are based on surveys in which qualified experts conduct inspections of the facilities to ensure compliance with patient safety and quality standards.
Accreditation is not mandatory, however many states have licensing, certification, or contracting requirements that mandate accreditation by The Joint Commission or other accrediting bodies.
The program is open to providers that exclusively offer healthcare services “via telehealth or remote patient monitoring, with no in-person visits or encounters,” according to The Joint Commission website. This can include organizations that provide:
Primary care, specialty care, or urgent care,
Medical or behavioral consultation,
Remote patient monitoring, and
TeleICU, telestroke, telepsychiatry, or teleimaging services to hospitals.
Hospitals or other healthcare providers can also apply if they have contracts to offer “care, treatment, and services via telehealth to another organization’s patients,” The Joint Commission states. Examples include acute care or psychiatric hospitals that provide telehealth services to other facilities. In this case, the hospitals can obtain telehealth accreditation for the contracted services while maintaining their current accreditation for services provided onsite.
Requirements for Certification
The requirements for accreditation are similar to those in other Joint Commission programs, the organization says. This includes “requirements for information management, leadership, medication management, patient identification, documentation, and credentialing and privileging.”
In addition, it includes requirements specific to telehealth. For example, emergency management requirements have been streamlined to account for services provided remotely. It also contains standards related to telehealth equipment as well as provider and patient education about use of the technology.
“Additionally, the program’s standards may be filtered based on the telehealth modality or service provided,” the organization’s website notes.
Other Accrediting Organizations
The Joint Commission is not the only organization that offers telehealth accreditation or certification. The Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC) provides accreditation programs for telehealth and remote patient monitoring, as well as a certification program for telehealth support services.
The telehealth accreditation program consists of three modules accounting for different forms of delivery:
Provider-to-provider (one provider offers services such as consultation to another provider).
The accreditation process takes up to four months, URAC says.
The Accreditation Commission for Health Care (ACHC) offers what it describes as a telehealth “Distinction” for certain kinds of healthcare providers that it has accredited, including:
Additionally, in April 2022, ACHC announced a telehealth certification program open to “any healthcare provider or organization that delivers health-related services via electronic information and telecommunication technologies,” regardless of whether they are accredited, according to a press release.
“The pandemic really pushed healthcare providers to adopt and grow telehealth services to maintain access for patients and, as a result, many of our clients were seeking ways to optimize this offering in the context of providing quality services,” said program director Teresa Hoosier, RN, in the press release. “ACHC Telehealth Certification establishes national standards. It promotes best practices for digital healthcare services. Certification confirms quality, safety, and consistency—strengthening trust in an organization and assuring patients that they are receiving the best care possible.”
This development is a reminder that clinical laboratory managers need a consumer/patient focused strategy and operational capability to collect specimens and provide medical laboratory tests for telehealth visits when the doctors order tests. It confirms that the trend of consumers/patients using remote healthcare is real, robust, and has legs.
Another report finds nearly half of all healthcare systems planning to opt out of Medicare Advantage plans because of issues caused by prior authorization requirements
Prior-authorization is common and neither healthcare providers (including clinical laboratories) nor Medicare Advantage (MA) health plans are happy with the basic process. Thus, labs—which often must get prior-authorization for molecular diagnostics and genetic tests—may learn from a recent KFF study of denial rates and successful appeals.
“While prior authorization has long been used to contain spending and prevent people from receiving unnecessary or low-value services, it also has been [the] subject of criticism that it may create barriers to receiving necessary care,” KFF, a health policy research organization, stated in a news release.
Nearly all MA plan enrollees have to get prior authorization for high cost services such as inpatient stays, skilled nursing care, and chemotherapy. However, “some lawmakers and others have raised concerns that prior authorization requirements and processes, including the use of artificial intelligence to review requests, impose barriers and delays to receiving necessary care,” KFF reported.
“Insurers argue the process helps to manage unnecessary utilization and lower healthcare costs. But providers say prior authorization is time-consuming and delays care for patients,” Healthcare Dive reported.
“There are a ton of barriers with prior authorizations and referrals. And there’s been a really big delay in care—then we spend a lot of hours and dollars to get paid what our contracts say,” said Katie Kucera (above),Vice President and CFO, Carson Tahoe Health, Carson City, Nev., in a Becker’s Hospital CFO Report which shared the health system’s plan to end participation in UnitedHealthcare commercial and Medicare Advantage plans effective May 2025. Clinical laboratories may want to review how test denials by Medicare Advantage plans, and the time cost of the appeals process, affect the services they provide to their provider clients. (Photo copyright: Carson Tahoe Health.)
Key Findings of KFF Study
To complete its study, KFF analyzed “data submitted by Medicare Advantage insurers to CMS to examine the number of prior authorization requests, denials, and appeals for 2019 through 2022, as well as differences across Medicare Advantage insurers in 2022,” according to a KFF issue brief.
Here are key findings:
Requests for prior authorization jumped 24.3% to 46 million in 2022 from 37 million in 2019.
More than 90%, or 42.7 million requests, were approved in full.
About 7.4%, or 3.4 million, prior authorization requests were fully or partially denied by insurers in 2022, up from 5.8% in 2021, 5.6% in 2020, and 5.7% in 2019.
About 9.9% of denials were appealed in 2022, up from 7.5% in 2019, but less than 10.2% in 2020 and 10.6% in 2021.
More than 80% of appeals resulted in partial or full overturning of denials in the years studied. Still, “negative effects on a person’s health may have resulted from delay,” KFF pointed out.
KFF also found that requests for prior authorization differed among insurers. For example:
Humana experienced the most requests for prior authorization.
Among all MA plans, the share of patients who appealed denied requests was small. The low rate of appeals may reflect Medicare Advantage plan members’ uncertainty that they can question insurers’ decisions, KFF noted.
It’s a big market. Nevertheless, “between onerous authorization requirements and high denial rates, healthcare systems are frustrated with Medicare Advantage,” according to a Healthcare Financial Management Association (HFMA) survey of 135 health system Chief Financial Officers.
According to the CFOs surveyed, 19% of healthcare systems stopped accepting one or more Medicare Advantage plans in 2023, and 61% are planning or considering ending participation in one or more plans within two years.
“Nearly half of health systems are considering dropping Medicare Advantage plans,” Becker’s reported.
Federal lawmakers acted, introducing three bills to help improve timeliness, transparency, and criteria used in prior authorization decision making. Starting in 2023, KFF reported, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published final rules on the bills:
Rule One (effective June 5, 2023), “clarifies the criteria that may be used by Medicare Advantage plans in establishing prior authorization policies and the duration for which a prior authorization is valid. Specifically, the rule states that prior authorization may only be used to confirm a diagnosis and/or ensure that the requested service is medically necessary and that private insurers must follow the same criteria used by traditional Medicare. That is, Medicare Advantage prior authorization requirements cannot result in coverage that is more restrictive than traditional Medicare.”
Rule Two (effective April 8, 2024), is “intended to improve the use of electronic prior authorization processes, as well as the timeliness and transparency of decisions, and applies to Medicare Advantage and certain other insurers. Specifically, it shortens the standard time frame for insurers to respond to prior authorization requests from 14 to seven calendar days starting in January 2026 and standardizes the electronic exchange of information by specifying the prior authorization information that must be included in application programming interfaces starting in January 2027.”
Rule Three (effective June 3, 2024), requires “Medicare Advantage plans to evaluate the effect of prior authorization policies on people with certain social risk factors starting with plan year 2025.”
KFF’s report details how prior authorization affects patient care and how healthcare providers struggle to get paid for services rendered by Medicare Advantage plans amid the rise of value-based reimbursements.
Clinical laboratory leaders may want to analyze their test denials and appeals rates as well and, in partnership with finance colleagues, consider whether to continue contracts with Medicare Advantage health plans.
