MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Procedural Prescription Denials and Risk of Acute Care Utilization and Spending Among Medicaid Patients

2025· article· en· W4406968740 on OpenAlexaff
Bhairavi Muralidharan, Sanjay Basu, Jeffrey Tingen, Sadiq Y. Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesUniversity of California, San FranciscoCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionMedicaidDenialPharmacyEmergency medicineHealth careMedicare Part DAcute careManaged careAmbulatory careExacerbationUtilization managementFamily medicinePrescription drugInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Rising prescription medication costs under Medicaid have led to increased procedural prescription denials by health plans. The effect of unresolved denials on chronic condition exacerbation and subsequent acute care utilization remains unclear. Objective: To examine whether procedural prescription denials are associated with increased net spending through downstream acute care utilization among Medicaid patients not obtaining prescribed medication following a denial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Medicaid claims data from 2022 to 2023 for patients at inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy sites of care across 2 states (Virginia and Washington) and 2 independent health plans. Patients with at least 1 prescription denial in the study period (January 1 through July 31, 2023) were matched to those without denials in a given medication class, based on demographics, health plan data, chronic condition history, and health care utilization. Rates of and spending for physiologically related acute care visits in the 60 days following a medication fill or denial were compared for the study period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were all-cause acute care utilization and total medical spending (in 2023 US dollars per member per year [PMPY]) for principal diagnoses physiologically related to each medication class, in the 60 days following a medication fill or denial. Sensitivity analyses were performed to check for spurious associations or unmeasured confounders. Results: The 19 725 patients in this study had a median age of 41 (IQR, 29-55) years, and most (60.7%) were female. Patients had a mean (SD) of 3.3 (16.1) comorbidities, 1.0 (2.6) all-cause acute care visits, and 5.6 (7.8) primary care visits during the baseline period. Patients experiencing specific procedural prescription denials had a higher risk of physiologically related emergency department visits and hospitalizations compared with those without a denial in the subsequent 60 days (adjusted odds ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.03-1.88] minimum vs 1.75 [95% CI, 1.39-2.20] maximum for exposure and control groups across the 7 medication classes with significant differences). Denials in 6 medication classes were associated with net total medical spending increases, ranging from $624 (95% CI, $435-$813) to $3016 (95% CI, $1483-$4550) in additional expense PMPY after accounting for both prescription and medical costs attributed to denials. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that although procedural prescription denials aimed to curb immediate drug costs, some denials prompted heightened acute care utilization and costs that outweighed the short-term prescription budget savings. Health plans should incorporate this potential unintended consequence when shaping prescription coverage policies. Future research should systematically review all medication classes across plans nationally.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207