
Seven Things To Know About Medicare Part D And Prior Authorization
Prior authorization is becoming a bigger issue with Medicare Part D drug plans. getty
Over the last several years, prior authorization has become a hot topic. Nearly all those who have Medicare Advantage plans must deal with it for medical services. You've seen the news stories about the denials and their impact on care. A new rule that will be implemented fully by 2027 is supposed to help resolve the issues but time will tell.
Now, in 2025, a new wrinkle – prior authorization problems with Part D prescription drugs. Drug plans have required authorization of select medications since the program started in 2006. However, I have received several calls and emails about problems getting approval, a new phenomenon for me this year.
Because of the Inflation Reduction Act and the $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket drug costs, Part D drug plans are picking up a larger share of the costs. So, they want to make sure they pay only when it is appropriate. Prior authorization is one way to ensure that. Since more enrollees seem to be dealing with this issue, here are some things to know.
The top-three reasons on my list all connect to reducing the costs a plan may have to cover. There is a lower-cost alternative drug for the situation.
Part A, hospital insurance, or Part B, medical insurance, should cover this drug, not the Part D plan.
This drug being prescribed is not for a medically accepted indication. Part D generally doesn't cover a drug for off-label use, unless it's medically necessary, which may not be easy to prove.
Other reasons for authorization can include: Drugs with special monitoring requirements
Certain dosages or forms of a medication
Controlled substances, and
Drugs that may interact with other drugs.
A man shared with me his issue with prior authorization. His 'rep' found a new plan that would save him several hundred dollars on premiums. However, now he cannot get a Tier 5 specialty drug approved. He is mad at his rep for recommending that plan.
Each drug plan identifies the drugs that will be subject to authorization. It's very possible that costly Tier 4, non-preferred brand, and Tier 5 drugs will require it. After a quick check, I discovered that every plan in the man's area required authorization for his specialty medication so there was no escaping it.
I have also seen many Tier 3, preferred brand, and even an occasional Tier 2, generic drug, requiring authorization. Every drug plan has its own procedure and form.
Another man reported that he had been waiting almost two weeks for approval. A drug plan representative told him they could not approve the request because his physician submitted the wrong form.
The insurers' forms I reviewed range from one to nine pages with some similar questions but enough variation to make using the right form important.
You can find the right form by searching 'Part D prior authorization form for (name of drug plan).' Calling the plan is another option but trying to get through to the person who knows something about authorization could be difficult and time-consuming. The prescriber or the drug plan member can submit the request.
I heard from a woman who ran out of her medication. When she went to get the drug on a Sunday, she was shocked to discover the new plan requires authorization. So she asked the pharmacist to do this.
Pharmacists know the medications but usually are not the prescribers. The physician or healthcare practitioner who knows the rationale for a particular drug would be the best one to handle authorization. But, in a pinch, the plan member has the ability to do this with a supporting statement from the physician. The form must be completed, in its entirety, with information to support the need for the medication.
When preparing the authorization form: Follow the instructions.
Include a pertinent diagnosis and relevant history, symptoms, or findings.
Explain why other drugs (especially less costly ones) likely won't work (could have adverse outcomes or not be as effective). The process can take time.
The same woman thought the pharmacist could get authorization simply by calling the drug plan.
Even if the pharmacist could connect with the right person during a weekend phone call, it's very unlikely that the plan would grant authorization. After receiving the form and supporting documentation, the plan has to notify the prescriber and enrollee withing 72 hours for a standard determination and 24 hours for an expedited one. Being proactive may help prevent some of the problems
Obtaining prior authorization is generally a physician or prescriber issue. However, when able, Part D enrollees should take some responsibility to smooth out the process as much as possible.
Here's a list of some things you can do. Know whether any of your drugs are subject to authorization. Find that information in the plan's documents or the Medicare Plan Finder.
Do not wait until the last minute to deal with this.
Discuss the situation with your physician. If possible, provide a copy of the plan's form.
Watch for notification from the drug plan.
Review other plans during Open Enrollment. You might find one that doesn't require authorization. But then, check the trade-offs – how this plan works and how much you might pay.
Remember, of course, that determining and obtaining prior authorization when necessary is generally your provider's responsibility. But you obviously have skin in the game. So, pay attention and never hesitate to ask your provider if there's anything you can do to facilitate the process.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
30 minutes ago
- Forbes
Republicans Like Health Savings Accounts
Should the government allow HSAs to cover gym memberships? Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are a popular and important way many people pay for medical expenses. They are also a great way to save—better, for example, than an IRA or a 401(k) plan. Because of various quirks in the law, HSAs are not available to a large number of people—including people on Medicaid or Medicare and most people who buy their own insurance in the (Obamacare) exchanges. Under the reconciliation bill just passed in the House of Representatives, more people will have access to these accounts and there will be new opportunities to use them. Currently, individuals and their employers can make tax-free deposits to HSAs, provided the individual is also covered by third-party health insurance with a high deductible. Money can accumulate and grow tax-free. After age 65, the money can be withdrawn for non-health expenses without penalty, but it is subject to normal income taxes. As of 2023, there were 37.4 million accounts with $46.4 billion in assets. Industry experts think the House bill will lead to an additional 20 million people with an HSA. Here is a summary of the hits and misses in the Republican bill, as it faces a vote by the Senate. The Good. By far the best feature of the bill is a provision making all bronze and catastrophic insurance plans offered through the (Obamacare) exchanges automatically eligible for an HSA account. This is likely the main reason why the number of HSA accounts is likely to soar. Another provision would allow the use of HSAs to pay monthly fees for direct primary care (DPC). This used to be called 'concierge care' and in the past it was available only to the rich. But the price has come way down. Atlas MD in Wichita, for example, charges $50 a month for a mother and $10 for a child. In return, the family has 24/7 access to a physician's practice that provides all primary care. Often, the family has the doctor's personal phone number. DPC has become increasingly popular, and employers often pay the monthly fee for their employees. Under current law, however, the employer cannot put funds in an HSA account, let the employee choose a DPC doctor and pay that doctor from the account. The House bill will create that opportunity. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the ten-year cost of all of the HSA changes combined is almost $44 billion. Yet the cost of the two best provisions is less than $6 billion. More on that below. The Questionable. The bill allows annual withdrawals of $500 (individuals) or $1,000 (couples) for gym memberships and other physical activities. (No sailing or golfing expenses, however.) The problem is that these are not medical expenses. If we are going to allow gym memberships, why not hundreds of other nonmedical expenses – including sailing and golfing? The CBO says the cost of this provision is $10 billion. The bill also doubles the annual HSA contribution that is allowable for individuals with incomes up to $75,000 and couples who earn up to $150,000. The problem here is that only about one in ten account holders are contributing the maximum allowable right now. At a cost of more than $8 billion this is an expensive change that will only affect a small part of the market. Instead of these questionable measures, the Senate should consider making all Obamacare silver plans (the most popular choice) automatically eligible for an HSA. Missed opportunities. While the House should be congratulated for making many desirable improvements in the HSA law, it unfortunately failed to correct a fundamental flaw: an inflexible across-the-board deductible. Common sense would suggest that different medical expenses need different deductibles. The biggest problem with chronic illness, for example, is noncompliance with a drug regimen. That is why some Medicare Advantage plans make maintenance drugs for chronic patients (such as insulin for diabetics) available for free or at very low cost. In the first Trump administration, an IRS ruling waived the deductible requirement for 14 specific services and medications that serve as treatments for such conditions as diabetes, asthma, heart disease, and depression. This was an executive branch decision to modify existing legislation, however. To make it permanent, Congress needs to codify it. Ideally, Congress should remove the deductible requirement altogether and let the role of deductibles be determined in the marketplace. One way to think about the combination of allowing gym memberships and failing to address the deductible issue is to see that the House risks being accused of creating benefits for the healthy while ignoring the sick. Another missed opportunity was the failure of House Republicans to give 80 million Medicaid enrollees access to what I will call a Roth HSA. Private companies managing Medicaid (or the state itself) should be able to make deposits to an account that would cover, say, all primary care. Enrollees could use the money for health care during an insurance year. Afterward, they could withdraw any unspent funds for any purpose. If there were no taxes or penalties on non-medical withdrawals, health care and non-health care would trade against each other on a level playing field under the tax law. People wouldn't spend a dollar on health care unless they got a dollar's worth of value. An early study by the RAND Corporation suggests that these accounts would reduce Medicaid spending by 30 percent. Aside from payments for the disabled and nursing home care, if Medicaid spending could be reduced by 30 percent, the savings would amount to almost $1 trillion over ten years. This saving would be shared by the beneficiaries and the taxpayers who fund Medicaid.


New York Times
33 minutes ago
- New York Times
Jillian Sackler, Philanthropist Who Defended Husband's Legacy, Dies at 84
Jillian Sackler, an arts philanthropist who struggled to preserve the reputation of her husband, Arthur, by distinguishing him from his two younger Sackler brothers and their descendants, whose aggressive marketing and false advertising on behalf of their pharmaceutical company, Purdue Pharma, triggered the opioid epidemic, died on May 20 in Manhattan. She was 84. Her death, in a hospital, was from esophageal cancer, said Miguel Benavides, her health proxy. Dr. Arthur Sackler, a psychiatrist and researcher who became a pioneer in medical marketing, bought Purdue Frederick, originally based in New York City, in the 1950s and gave each of his brothers a one-third share. They incorporated the company as Purdue Pharma in 1991. (Its headquarters are now in Stamford, Conn.) Dr. Sackler died in 1987 — nine years before the opioid OxyContin was marketed by the company as a powerful painkiller. Shortly after his death, his estate sold his share of the company to his billionaire brothers, Raymond and Mortimer, for $22.4 million. The company's misleading advertising claim that OxyContin was nonaddictive prompted doctors to overprescribe it beginning in the 1990s. The proliferation of the medication ruined countless lives of people who became dependent on it. In 2021, the company proposed a bankruptcy settlement in which members of the Sackler family agreed to pay $4.2 billion over nine years to resolve civil claims related to the opioid crisis. In return, they sought immunity from future lawsuits. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.


Washington Post
40 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Southern California air regulators reject rules to phase out gas furnaces and water heaters
DIAMOND BAR, Calif. — Air quality regulators in Southern California voted 7 to 5 to reject rules that would have curbed harmful emissions from gas-powered furnaces and water heaters, but the majority voted to send the rules back to committee to be changed and reconsidered. The rules aimed to reduce emissions of smog-contributing nitrogen oxides, also called NOx, a group of pollutants linked to respiratory issues, asthma attacks, worse allergies, decreased lung function in children, premature death and more. Burning natural gas is also one of the primary drivers of climate change.