Prior authorization sausage factory turns approvals into denials

“We are just statistics, born to consume resources.” –Horace

You know the winter is coming when rheumatologists spend their weekends writing appeal letters for sildenafil.

I inherited a scleroderma patient from a retired colleague. She has had severe Raynaud’s for which she’d been on sildenafil since 2013. On Nov. 23, 2015, I received a letter stating that the medication would no longer be covered because the patient did not meet criteria (in this case, pulmonary arterial hypertension).

I had to submit a letter of appeal, in which I explained how, despite maximum tolerated doses of nifedipine and pentoxifylline, she continued to have digital ischemia, and how, when she finally started the sildenafil, which they had approved prior, the problem went away. I continued to say:

“In the medical literature on this problem, the PDE-5 inhibitors, of which sildenafil is one, is typically recommended, after vasodilation, on the basis of Level I evidence (that is, evidence from high quality randomized controlled trials). Sildenafil has been shown to promote complete healing of digital ulcers and prevents the formation of new ulcers. Thought leaders in the field uniformly recommend this drug as an important part of therapy particularly in patients who have already had digital ulcers. I am happy to provide you with the literature upon request.

“I urge you to reconsider your decision. If you withhold this drug there is a chance that the patient will end up with ulcers again and this could potentially cost you even more. Not only would it impair the patient’s ability to work, which leads to loss of income for her, it would also cost you more in terms of paying for her health care.”

On Nov. 28, I received a second denial, no different than the first letter: “Your request was reviewed by a Medical Doctor specialized in Internal Medicine/Rheumatology. Upon review of the available information, it was determined that the previous decision should be upheld because the Prior Authorization criteria is not met. This determination was made based upon our review of your health condition in relation to the prior authorization criteria and/or guidelines listed below. You have CREST ... with Raynaud’s phenomenon which is not a covered diagnosis. You do not have Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Therefore the requested drug sildenafil citrate is not medically necessary according to plan criteria. The denial is therefore appropriate and consistent with your benefits.

“Sildenafil will be approved based on one of the following criteria:

(1) All of the following:

(A) Pulmonary arterial hypertension is symptomatic; AND

(B) Submission of medical records documenting diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension that is confirmed by right heart catheterization; OR

(2) Patient is currently on any therapy for the diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension.”

On Dec. 4, I fired off the following response:

“I received your decision letter dated 11/28/2015 in which you reiterate that your criteria for approval requires a diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension, as if you had not read my first letter at all. This request is not for pulmonary hypertension, it is to prevent limb-threatening gangrene and ischemia from Raynaud’s phenomenon. Please reconsider your decision. We do not want this young patient to lose any digits.”

It’s quite ironic that on the same weekend that I wrote my first letter, a mentor and friend of mine who is a rheumatologist also wrote a letter of appeal to get a prescription for sildenafil approved for a scleroderma patient with Raynaud’s who failed previous medications. She got sildenafil approved. At her suggestion, I attached a copy of the 2005 study published in Circulation demonstrating the efficacy of sildenafil for Raynaud’s to support my letter after the second denial (Circulation. 2005 Nov 8;112[19]:2980-5). As of this writing, I still have not heard back.

Dr. Chan practices rheumatology in Pawtucket, R.I.

“We are just statistics, born to consume resources.” –Horace

You know the winter is coming when rheumatologists spend their weekends writing appeal letters for sildenafil.

I inherited a scleroderma patient from a retired colleague. She has had severe Raynaud’s for which she’d been on sildenafil since 2013. On Nov. 23, 2015, I received a letter stating that the medication would no longer be covered because the patient did not meet criteria (in this case, pulmonary arterial hypertension).

I had to submit a letter of appeal, in which I explained how, despite maximum tolerated doses of nifedipine and pentoxifylline, she continued to have digital ischemia, and how, when she finally started the sildenafil, which they had approved prior, the problem went away. I continued to say:

“In the medical literature on this problem, the PDE-5 inhibitors, of which sildenafil is one, is typically recommended, after vasodilation, on the basis of Level I evidence (that is, evidence from high quality randomized controlled trials). Sildenafil has been shown to promote complete healing of digital ulcers and prevents the formation of new ulcers. Thought leaders in the field uniformly recommend this drug as an important part of therapy particularly in patients who have already had digital ulcers. I am happy to provide you with the literature upon request.

“I urge you to reconsider your decision. If you withhold this drug there is a chance that the patient will end up with ulcers again and this could potentially cost you even more. Not only would it impair the patient’s ability to work, which leads to loss of income for her, it would also cost you more in terms of paying for her health care.”

On Nov. 28, I received a second denial, no different than the first letter: “Your request was reviewed by a Medical Doctor specialized in Internal Medicine/Rheumatology. Upon review of the available information, it was determined that the previous decision should be upheld because the Prior Authorization criteria is not met. This determination was made based upon our review of your health condition in relation to the prior authorization criteria and/or guidelines listed below. You have CREST ... with Raynaud’s phenomenon which is not a covered diagnosis. You do not have Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Therefore the requested drug sildenafil citrate is not medically necessary according to plan criteria. The denial is therefore appropriate and consistent with your benefits.

“Sildenafil will be approved based on one of the following criteria:

(1) All of the following:

(A) Pulmonary arterial hypertension is symptomatic; AND

(B) Submission of medical records documenting diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension that is confirmed by right heart catheterization; OR

(2) Patient is currently on any therapy for the diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension.”

On Dec. 4, I fired off the following response:

“I received your decision letter dated 11/28/2015 in which you reiterate that your criteria for approval requires a diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension, as if you had not read my first letter at all. This request is not for pulmonary hypertension, it is to prevent limb-threatening gangrene and ischemia from Raynaud’s phenomenon. Please reconsider your decision. We do not want this young patient to lose any digits.”

It’s quite ironic that on the same weekend that I wrote my first letter, a mentor and friend of mine who is a rheumatologist also wrote a letter of appeal to get a prescription for sildenafil approved for a scleroderma patient with Raynaud’s who failed previous medications. She got sildenafil approved. At her suggestion, I attached a copy of the 2005 study published in Circulation demonstrating the efficacy of sildenafil for Raynaud’s to support my letter after the second denial (Circulation. 2005 Nov 8;112[19]:2980-5). As of this writing, I still have not heard back.

Dr. Chan practices rheumatology in Pawtucket, R.I.

“We are just statistics, born to consume resources.” –Horace

You know the winter is coming when rheumatologists spend their weekends writing appeal letters for sildenafil.

I inherited a scleroderma patient from a retired colleague. She has had severe Raynaud’s for which she’d been on sildenafil since 2013. On Nov. 23, 2015, I received a letter stating that the medication would no longer be covered because the patient did not meet criteria (in this case, pulmonary arterial hypertension).

I had to submit a letter of appeal, in which I explained how, despite maximum tolerated doses of nifedipine and pentoxifylline, she continued to have digital ischemia, and how, when she finally started the sildenafil, which they had approved prior, the problem went away. I continued to say:

“In the medical literature on this problem, the PDE-5 inhibitors, of which sildenafil is one, is typically recommended, after vasodilation, on the basis of Level I evidence (that is, evidence from high quality randomized controlled trials). Sildenafil has been shown to promote complete healing of digital ulcers and prevents the formation of new ulcers. Thought leaders in the field uniformly recommend this drug as an important part of therapy particularly in patients who have already had digital ulcers. I am happy to provide you with the literature upon request.

“I urge you to reconsider your decision. If you withhold this drug there is a chance that the patient will end up with ulcers again and this could potentially cost you even more. Not only would it impair the patient’s ability to work, which leads to loss of income for her, it would also cost you more in terms of paying for her health care.”

On Nov. 28, I received a second denial, no different than the first letter: “Your request was reviewed by a Medical Doctor specialized in Internal Medicine/Rheumatology. Upon review of the available information, it was determined that the previous decision should be upheld because the Prior Authorization criteria is not met. This determination was made based upon our review of your health condition in relation to the prior authorization criteria and/or guidelines listed below. You have CREST ... with Raynaud’s phenomenon which is not a covered diagnosis. You do not have Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Therefore the requested drug sildenafil citrate is not medically necessary according to plan criteria. The denial is therefore appropriate and consistent with your benefits.

“Sildenafil will be approved based on one of the following criteria:

(1) All of the following:

(A) Pulmonary arterial hypertension is symptomatic; AND

(B) Submission of medical records documenting diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension that is confirmed by right heart catheterization; OR

(2) Patient is currently on any therapy for the diagnosis of pulmonary arterial hypertension.”

On Dec. 4, I fired off the following response:

“I received your decision letter dated 11/28/2015 in which you reiterate that your criteria for approval requires a diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension, as if you had not read my first letter at all. This request is not for pulmonary hypertension, it is to prevent limb-threatening gangrene and ischemia from Raynaud’s phenomenon. Please reconsider your decision. We do not want this young patient to lose any digits.”

It’s quite ironic that on the same weekend that I wrote my first letter, a mentor and friend of mine who is a rheumatologist also wrote a letter of appeal to get a prescription for sildenafil approved for a scleroderma patient with Raynaud’s who failed previous medications. She got sildenafil approved. At her suggestion, I attached a copy of the 2005 study published in Circulation demonstrating the efficacy of sildenafil for Raynaud’s to support my letter after the second denial (Circulation. 2005 Nov 8;112[19]:2980-5). As of this writing, I still have not heard back.

Dr. Chan practices rheumatology in Pawtucket, R.I.