More on the travesty of pre-authorization
We were delighted to read Dr. Nasrallah’s coruscating editorial about the deceptive, unethical, and clinically harmful practice of insurance companies requiring pre-authorization before granting coverage of psychotropic medications that are not on their short list of inexpensive alternatives (“Pre-authorization is illegal, unethical, and adversely disrupts patient care.” From the Editor,
Brian S. Barnett, MD
Staff Psychiatrist
Cleveland Clinic
Lutheran Hospital
Cleveland, Ohio
J. Alexander Bodkin, MD
Chief
Clinical Psychopharmacology
Research Program
McLean Hospital
Harvard Medical School
Belmont, Massachusetts
Disclosures: The authors report no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
I thank Dr. Nasrallah for bringing up the issue of pre-authorization in his editorial and could not agree with him more. As a practicing geriatric psychiatrist—for several decades—I experienced all of what he so nicely summarized, and more. The amount and degree of humiliation, frustration, and (mainly) waste of time have been painful and unacceptable. As he said: It must be stopped! The question is “How?” Hopefully this editorial triggers some activity against pre-authorization. It was time somebody addressed this problem.
Istvan Boksay, MD, PhD
Private psychiatric practice
New York, New York
Disclosure: The author reports no financial relationships with any companies whose products are mentioned in this article, or with manufacturers of competing products.
Continue to: I thank Dr. Nasrallah...