Pre-authorization is illegal, unethical, and adversely disrupts patient care

Pre-authorization is a despicable scam. It’s a national racket by avaricious insurance companies, and it must be stopped. Since it first reared its ugly head 2 decades ago, it has inflicted great harm to countless patients, demoralized their physicians, and needlessly imposed higher costs in clinical practice while simultaneously depriving patients of the treatment their physicians prescribed for them.

Pre-authorization has become the nemesis of medical care. It recklessly and arbitrarily vetoes the clinical decision-making of competent physicians doing their best to address their patients’ medical needs. Yet, despite its outrageous disruption of the clinical practice of hundreds of thousands of practitioners, it continues unabated, without a forceful pushback. It has become the “new normal,” but in fact, it is the “new abnormal.” This harassment of clinicians must be outlawed.

Think about it: Pre-authorization is essentially practicing medicine without a license, which is a felony. When a remote and invisible insurance company staff member either prevents a patient from receiving a medication prescribed by that patient’s personal physician following a full diagnostic evaluation or pressures the physician to prescribe a different medication, he/she is basically deciding what the treatment should be for a patient who that insurance company employee has never seen, let alone examined. How did for-profit insurance companies empower themselves to tyrannize clinical practice so that the treatment administered isn’t customized to the patient’s need but instead to fatten the profits of the insurance company? That is patently unethical, in addition to being a felonious practice of medicine by an absentee person unqualified to decide what a patient needs without a direct examination.

Consider the multiple malignant consequences of such brazen and egregious restriction or distortion of medical care:

1. The physician’s clinical judgment is abrogated, even when it is clearly in the patient’s best interest.

2. Patients are deprived of receiving the medication that their personal physician deemed optimal.

3. The physician in private practice has to spend an inordinate amount of time going to web sites, such as CoverMyMeds.com, to fill out extensive forms containing numerous questions about the patient’s illness and diagnosis, and then selecting from a list of medications that the insurance company ironically labels as “smart choices.” These medications often are not necessarily what the physician considers a smart choice, but are the cheapest (regardless of whether their efficacy, safety, or tolerability are the best fit for the patient). After the physician completes the forms, there is a waiting period, followed by additional questions that consume more valuable time and take the physician away from seeing more patients. Some busy colleagues told me they often take the pre-authorization “homework” with them to do at home, consuming part of what should be their family time. For physicians who see patients in an institutional “clinic,” medical assistants or nurses must be hired at significant expense to work full-time on pre-authorizations, adding to the overhead of the clinic while increasing the profits of the third-party insurer.

4. Patients who have been stable on a medication for months, even years, are forced to switch to another medication if they change jobs and become covered by a different insurance company that does not have the patient’s current medication on their infamous list of “approved drugs,” an evil euphemism for “cheapest drugs.” Switching medications is known to be a possibly hazardous process with lower efficacy and/or tolerability, but that appears to be irrelevant to the insurance company. The welfare of the patient is not on the insurance company’s radar screen, perhaps because it is crowded out by dollar signs. We should all urge policymakers to pass legislation that goes beyond requiring insurance companies to cover “pre-existing conditions” and expands it to cover “pre-existing medications.”

Continue to: Often, frustrated physicians...

5. Often, frustrated physicians who do not want to see their patients receive a medication they do not believe is appropriate may spend valuable time writing letters of appeal, making phone calls, or printing and faxing scientific articles to the insurance company to convince them to authorize a medication that is not on the “approved list.” Based on my own clinical experience, that justification sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t.

6. Physicians are inevitably and understandably demoralized because their expertise and sound clinical judgment are arbitrarily dismissed and overruled by an invisible insurance employee whose knowledge about and compassion for the patient is miniscule at best.

7. New medication development has collided with the biased despotism of pre-authorization, which generally rejects any new medication (always costlier than generics) irrespective of whether the new medication was demonstrated in controlled clinical trials to have a measurably better profile than older generics. This has ominous implications for numerous medical disorders that do not have any approved medications (for psychiatry, a published study¹ found that 82% of DSM disorders do not have a FDA-approved medication).

The lack of utilizing newly introduced medications has discouraged the pharmaceutical industry from investing to develop innovative new mechanisms of action for a variety of complex neuropsychiatric medical conditions. Some companies have already abandoned psychiatric drug development, which is dire for clinical care because pharmaceutical companies are the only entities that develop new treatments for our patients (some health care professionals wish the government had a pharmaceutical agency that develops medications for various illness, but no such agency has ever existed).

8. Hospitalization for a seriously ill patient is either denied, delayed, or eventually approved for an absurdly short period (a few days), which is woefully inadequate, culminating in discharging patients with unresolved symptoms. This can lead to disastrous consequences, including suicide, homicide, or incarceration.

Continue to: I have been personally infuriated...

I have been personally infuriated many times because of the adverse impact pre-authorization had on my patients. One example that still haunts me is a 23-year-old college graduate with severe treatment-resistant depression who failed multiple antidepressant trials, including IV ketamine. She harbored daily thoughts of suicide (throwing herself in front of a train, which she saw daily as she drove to work). She admitted to frequently contemplating which dress she should wear in her coffin. Based on several published double-blind studies showing that modafinil improved bipolar depression,² I prescribed modafinil, 200 mg/d, as adjunctive treatment to venlafaxine, 300 mg/d, and she improved significantly for 10 months. Suddenly, the insurance company refused to renew her refill of modafinil, and it took 4 weeks of incessant communication (phone calls, faxes, letters, sending published articles) before it was finally approved. In the meantime, the patient deteriorated and began to have active suicidal urges. When she was restarted on modafinil, she never achieved the same level of improvement she had prior to discontinuing modafinil. The insurance company damaged this patient’s recovery with its refusal to authorize a medication that was “not approved” for depression despite the clear benefit it had provided this treatment-resistant patient for almost 1 year. Their motive was clearly to avoid covering the high cost of modafinil, regardless of this patient’s high risk of suicide.

Every physician can recite a litany of complaints about the evil of pre-authorizations. We must therefore unite and vigorously lobby legislators to pass laws that protect patients and uphold physicians’ authority to determine the right treatment for their patients. We must terminate the plague of pre-authorization that takes our patients hostage to the greed of insurance companies, who have no regard to the agony of patients who are prevented from receiving the medication that their personal physician prescribes. Physicians’ well-being would be greatly enhanced if they were not enslaved to the avarice of insurance companies.

The travesty of pre-authorization and its pervasive and deleterious effects on medical care, society, and citizens must be stopped. It’s a plague that sacrifices the practice of medicine on the altar of financial greed. Just because it has gone on for many years does not mean it should be accepted as the “new normal.” It must be condemned as the “new abnormal,” a cancerous lesion on health care delivery that must be excised and discarded.

Pre-authorization is a despicable scam. It’s a national racket by avaricious insurance companies, and it must be stopped. Since it first reared its ugly head 2 decades ago, it has inflicted great harm to countless patients, demoralized their physicians, and needlessly imposed higher costs in clinical practice while simultaneously depriving patients of the treatment their physicians prescribed for them.

Pre-authorization has become the nemesis of medical care. It recklessly and arbitrarily vetoes the clinical decision-making of competent physicians doing their best to address their patients’ medical needs. Yet, despite its outrageous disruption of the clinical practice of hundreds of thousands of practitioners, it continues unabated, without a forceful pushback. It has become the “new normal,” but in fact, it is the “new abnormal.” This harassment of clinicians must be outlawed.

Think about it: Pre-authorization is essentially practicing medicine without a license, which is a felony. When a remote and invisible insurance company staff member either prevents a patient from receiving a medication prescribed by that patient’s personal physician following a full diagnostic evaluation or pressures the physician to prescribe a different medication, he/she is basically deciding what the treatment should be for a patient who that insurance company employee has never seen, let alone examined. How did for-profit insurance companies empower themselves to tyrannize clinical practice so that the treatment administered isn’t customized to the patient’s need but instead to fatten the profits of the insurance company? That is patently unethical, in addition to being a felonious practice of medicine by an absentee person unqualified to decide what a patient needs without a direct examination.

Consider the multiple malignant consequences of such brazen and egregious restriction or distortion of medical care:

1. The physician’s clinical judgment is abrogated, even when it is clearly in the patient’s best interest.

2. Patients are deprived of receiving the medication that their personal physician deemed optimal.

3. The physician in private practice has to spend an inordinate amount of time going to web sites, such as CoverMyMeds.com, to fill out extensive forms containing numerous questions about the patient’s illness and diagnosis, and then selecting from a list of medications that the insurance company ironically labels as “smart choices.” These medications often are not necessarily what the physician considers a smart choice, but are the cheapest (regardless of whether their efficacy, safety, or tolerability are the best fit for the patient). After the physician completes the forms, there is a waiting period, followed by additional questions that consume more valuable time and take the physician away from seeing more patients. Some busy colleagues told me they often take the pre-authorization “homework” with them to do at home, consuming part of what should be their family time. For physicians who see patients in an institutional “clinic,” medical assistants or nurses must be hired at significant expense to work full-time on pre-authorizations, adding to the overhead of the clinic while increasing the profits of the third-party insurer.

4. Patients who have been stable on a medication for months, even years, are forced to switch to another medication if they change jobs and become covered by a different insurance company that does not have the patient’s current medication on their infamous list of “approved drugs,” an evil euphemism for “cheapest drugs.” Switching medications is known to be a possibly hazardous process with lower efficacy and/or tolerability, but that appears to be irrelevant to the insurance company. The welfare of the patient is not on the insurance company’s radar screen, perhaps because it is crowded out by dollar signs. We should all urge policymakers to pass legislation that goes beyond requiring insurance companies to cover “pre-existing conditions” and expands it to cover “pre-existing medications.”

Continue to: Often, frustrated physicians...

5. Often, frustrated physicians who do not want to see their patients receive a medication they do not believe is appropriate may spend valuable time writing letters of appeal, making phone calls, or printing and faxing scientific articles to the insurance company to convince them to authorize a medication that is not on the “approved list.” Based on my own clinical experience, that justification sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t.

6. Physicians are inevitably and understandably demoralized because their expertise and sound clinical judgment are arbitrarily dismissed and overruled by an invisible insurance employee whose knowledge about and compassion for the patient is miniscule at best.

7. New medication development has collided with the biased despotism of pre-authorization, which generally rejects any new medication (always costlier than generics) irrespective of whether the new medication was demonstrated in controlled clinical trials to have a measurably better profile than older generics. This has ominous implications for numerous medical disorders that do not have any approved medications (for psychiatry, a published study¹ found that 82% of DSM disorders do not have a FDA-approved medication).

The lack of utilizing newly introduced medications has discouraged the pharmaceutical industry from investing to develop innovative new mechanisms of action for a variety of complex neuropsychiatric medical conditions. Some companies have already abandoned psychiatric drug development, which is dire for clinical care because pharmaceutical companies are the only entities that develop new treatments for our patients (some health care professionals wish the government had a pharmaceutical agency that develops medications for various illness, but no such agency has ever existed).

8. Hospitalization for a seriously ill patient is either denied, delayed, or eventually approved for an absurdly short period (a few days), which is woefully inadequate, culminating in discharging patients with unresolved symptoms. This can lead to disastrous consequences, including suicide, homicide, or incarceration.

Continue to: I have been personally infuriated...

I have been personally infuriated many times because of the adverse impact pre-authorization had on my patients. One example that still haunts me is a 23-year-old college graduate with severe treatment-resistant depression who failed multiple antidepressant trials, including IV ketamine. She harbored daily thoughts of suicide (throwing herself in front of a train, which she saw daily as she drove to work). She admitted to frequently contemplating which dress she should wear in her coffin. Based on several published double-blind studies showing that modafinil improved bipolar depression,² I prescribed modafinil, 200 mg/d, as adjunctive treatment to venlafaxine, 300 mg/d, and she improved significantly for 10 months. Suddenly, the insurance company refused to renew her refill of modafinil, and it took 4 weeks of incessant communication (phone calls, faxes, letters, sending published articles) before it was finally approved. In the meantime, the patient deteriorated and began to have active suicidal urges. When she was restarted on modafinil, she never achieved the same level of improvement she had prior to discontinuing modafinil. The insurance company damaged this patient’s recovery with its refusal to authorize a medication that was “not approved” for depression despite the clear benefit it had provided this treatment-resistant patient for almost 1 year. Their motive was clearly to avoid covering the high cost of modafinil, regardless of this patient’s high risk of suicide.

Every physician can recite a litany of complaints about the evil of pre-authorizations. We must therefore unite and vigorously lobby legislators to pass laws that protect patients and uphold physicians’ authority to determine the right treatment for their patients. We must terminate the plague of pre-authorization that takes our patients hostage to the greed of insurance companies, who have no regard to the agony of patients who are prevented from receiving the medication that their personal physician prescribes. Physicians’ well-being would be greatly enhanced if they were not enslaved to the avarice of insurance companies.

The travesty of pre-authorization and its pervasive and deleterious effects on medical care, society, and citizens must be stopped. It’s a plague that sacrifices the practice of medicine on the altar of financial greed. Just because it has gone on for many years does not mean it should be accepted as the “new normal.” It must be condemned as the “new abnormal,” a cancerous lesion on health care delivery that must be excised and discarded.

Pre-authorization is a despicable scam. It’s a national racket by avaricious insurance companies, and it must be stopped. Since it first reared its ugly head 2 decades ago, it has inflicted great harm to countless patients, demoralized their physicians, and needlessly imposed higher costs in clinical practice while simultaneously depriving patients of the treatment their physicians prescribed for them.

Pre-authorization has become the nemesis of medical care. It recklessly and arbitrarily vetoes the clinical decision-making of competent physicians doing their best to address their patients’ medical needs. Yet, despite its outrageous disruption of the clinical practice of hundreds of thousands of practitioners, it continues unabated, without a forceful pushback. It has become the “new normal,” but in fact, it is the “new abnormal.” This harassment of clinicians must be outlawed.

Think about it: Pre-authorization is essentially practicing medicine without a license, which is a felony. When a remote and invisible insurance company staff member either prevents a patient from receiving a medication prescribed by that patient’s personal physician following a full diagnostic evaluation or pressures the physician to prescribe a different medication, he/she is basically deciding what the treatment should be for a patient who that insurance company employee has never seen, let alone examined. How did for-profit insurance companies empower themselves to tyrannize clinical practice so that the treatment administered isn’t customized to the patient’s need but instead to fatten the profits of the insurance company? That is patently unethical, in addition to being a felonious practice of medicine by an absentee person unqualified to decide what a patient needs without a direct examination.

Consider the multiple malignant consequences of such brazen and egregious restriction or distortion of medical care:

1. The physician’s clinical judgment is abrogated, even when it is clearly in the patient’s best interest.

2. Patients are deprived of receiving the medication that their personal physician deemed optimal.

3. The physician in private practice has to spend an inordinate amount of time going to web sites, such as CoverMyMeds.com, to fill out extensive forms containing numerous questions about the patient’s illness and diagnosis, and then selecting from a list of medications that the insurance company ironically labels as “smart choices.” These medications often are not necessarily what the physician considers a smart choice, but are the cheapest (regardless of whether their efficacy, safety, or tolerability are the best fit for the patient). After the physician completes the forms, there is a waiting period, followed by additional questions that consume more valuable time and take the physician away from seeing more patients. Some busy colleagues told me they often take the pre-authorization “homework” with them to do at home, consuming part of what should be their family time. For physicians who see patients in an institutional “clinic,” medical assistants or nurses must be hired at significant expense to work full-time on pre-authorizations, adding to the overhead of the clinic while increasing the profits of the third-party insurer.

4. Patients who have been stable on a medication for months, even years, are forced to switch to another medication if they change jobs and become covered by a different insurance company that does not have the patient’s current medication on their infamous list of “approved drugs,” an evil euphemism for “cheapest drugs.” Switching medications is known to be a possibly hazardous process with lower efficacy and/or tolerability, but that appears to be irrelevant to the insurance company. The welfare of the patient is not on the insurance company’s radar screen, perhaps because it is crowded out by dollar signs. We should all urge policymakers to pass legislation that goes beyond requiring insurance companies to cover “pre-existing conditions” and expands it to cover “pre-existing medications.”

Continue to: Often, frustrated physicians...

5. Often, frustrated physicians who do not want to see their patients receive a medication they do not believe is appropriate may spend valuable time writing letters of appeal, making phone calls, or printing and faxing scientific articles to the insurance company to convince them to authorize a medication that is not on the “approved list.” Based on my own clinical experience, that justification sometimes works and sometimes doesn’t.

6. Physicians are inevitably and understandably demoralized because their expertise and sound clinical judgment are arbitrarily dismissed and overruled by an invisible insurance employee whose knowledge about and compassion for the patient is miniscule at best.

7. New medication development has collided with the biased despotism of pre-authorization, which generally rejects any new medication (always costlier than generics) irrespective of whether the new medication was demonstrated in controlled clinical trials to have a measurably better profile than older generics. This has ominous implications for numerous medical disorders that do not have any approved medications (for psychiatry, a published study¹ found that 82% of DSM disorders do not have a FDA-approved medication).

The lack of utilizing newly introduced medications has discouraged the pharmaceutical industry from investing to develop innovative new mechanisms of action for a variety of complex neuropsychiatric medical conditions. Some companies have already abandoned psychiatric drug development, which is dire for clinical care because pharmaceutical companies are the only entities that develop new treatments for our patients (some health care professionals wish the government had a pharmaceutical agency that develops medications for various illness, but no such agency has ever existed).

8. Hospitalization for a seriously ill patient is either denied, delayed, or eventually approved for an absurdly short period (a few days), which is woefully inadequate, culminating in discharging patients with unresolved symptoms. This can lead to disastrous consequences, including suicide, homicide, or incarceration.

Continue to: I have been personally infuriated...

I have been personally infuriated many times because of the adverse impact pre-authorization had on my patients. One example that still haunts me is a 23-year-old college graduate with severe treatment-resistant depression who failed multiple antidepressant trials, including IV ketamine. She harbored daily thoughts of suicide (throwing herself in front of a train, which she saw daily as she drove to work). She admitted to frequently contemplating which dress she should wear in her coffin. Based on several published double-blind studies showing that modafinil improved bipolar depression,² I prescribed modafinil, 200 mg/d, as adjunctive treatment to venlafaxine, 300 mg/d, and she improved significantly for 10 months. Suddenly, the insurance company refused to renew her refill of modafinil, and it took 4 weeks of incessant communication (phone calls, faxes, letters, sending published articles) before it was finally approved. In the meantime, the patient deteriorated and began to have active suicidal urges. When she was restarted on modafinil, she never achieved the same level of improvement she had prior to discontinuing modafinil. The insurance company damaged this patient’s recovery with its refusal to authorize a medication that was “not approved” for depression despite the clear benefit it had provided this treatment-resistant patient for almost 1 year. Their motive was clearly to avoid covering the high cost of modafinil, regardless of this patient’s high risk of suicide.

Every physician can recite a litany of complaints about the evil of pre-authorizations. We must therefore unite and vigorously lobby legislators to pass laws that protect patients and uphold physicians’ authority to determine the right treatment for their patients. We must terminate the plague of pre-authorization that takes our patients hostage to the greed of insurance companies, who have no regard to the agony of patients who are prevented from receiving the medication that their personal physician prescribes. Physicians’ well-being would be greatly enhanced if they were not enslaved to the avarice of insurance companies.

The travesty of pre-authorization and its pervasive and deleterious effects on medical care, society, and citizens must be stopped. It’s a plague that sacrifices the practice of medicine on the altar of financial greed. Just because it has gone on for many years does not mean it should be accepted as the “new normal.” It must be condemned as the “new abnormal,” a cancerous lesion on health care delivery that must be excised and discarded.