Discordance Between Inflammatory Bowel Disease Specialists and Insurance Authorization Denials-A Survey of Specific Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treatment Scenarios

Background Prior authorizations are generally required by insurers for gastroenterologists to prescribe biologics and small-molecule drugs to treat inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Authorization denials occur in a wide variety of clinical scenarios, including denials of standard and nonstandard medication dosing.Methods We performed a national cross-sectional survey on a broad variety of specific clinical scenarios to assess experience and opinions on whether or not insurance authorization denials are in accordance with clinical expertise.Results Eighty-four gastroenterologists completed the survey. Denial experience was common for infliximab dose modifications, vedolizumab dose modifications, ustekinumab first-time therapy, and maintenance dosing. The bulk of disagreement with authorization denials involved scenarios of dose escalation and re-induction guided by both loss of clinical response and/or therapeutic drug monitoring, denial of re-authorizations of stable dosing, and use of non-anti-TNFs in specific patient populations including the elderly and patients with multiple comorbidities. Respondents unanimously agreed that insurance companies do not play an adequate role in helping patients obtain PA. Furthermore, most of the respondents agree that to decrease the burden of the PA process, peer-peer processes should be between other IBD-trained providers who understand these complex treatment strategies.Conclusions Our cross-sectional survey highlights the degree of discordance in clinical decision-making between insurers and gastroenterologists. Further engagement between gastroenterologists and insurers is needed to foster common understanding on these discordant authorization denials in these real-world clinical IBD scenarios. Cross-sectional survey on a broad variety of specific clinical scenarios assessing common experience among gastroenterologists with authorization denials and the degree of discordance in clinical decision-making between insurers and gastroenterologists. Graphical Abstract