Sign up for access to the full survey and more proprietary insights from SamaCare's provider network
By signing up to access this survey you will receive email alerts when SamaCare publishes new proprietary data on specialty medication access from our provider network. You may unsubscribe from these alerts at any time by visiting this link.
It is widely accepted that prior authorization places a heavy burden on providers, so we wanted to know: How equipped are specialty practices to shoulder that burden? Do providers feel supported by pharmaceutical companies’ devoted market access teams in their quest to remove obstacles to patient care? Does the prior authorization process impact patient care and outcomes at speciality practices? Read our survey to find out.
96% of providers agree, prior authorization delays or denials would impact their likelihood to prescribe a drug.
While the majority of respondents indicated their practice is “somewhat efficient” at handling prior authorizations, efficiency varied by specialty. Medical oncology practices were most likely to indicate their practice is “highly efficient” at navigating prior authorizations.
60% of respondents “highly agree”
35% of respondents “somewhat agree”
4% of respondents “neutral”
No respondents disagreed with this statement.
The prior authorization process impacts a providers likelihood to prescribe treatment if an equally effective alternative exists in the market.
The majority of respondents indicated they are “somewhat aware” of the market access and reimbursement services offered by pharmaceutical companies.
2% of respondents indicated “Always”
38% of respondents indicated “Often”
52% of respondents indicated “Occasionally”
6% of respondents indicated “Rarely”
2% of respondents indicated “Never”
20% of respondents indicated “Highly negative”
72% of respondents indicated “Somewhat negative”
8% of respondents indicated “No impact”
34% of respondents indicated “Highly negative”
52% of respondents indicated “Somewhat negative”
14% of respondents indicated “No impact”
20% of respondents indicated “Highly negative”
66% of respondents indicated “Somewhat negative”
14% of respondents indicated “No impact”
Notably, 100% of rheumatologists indicated highly or somewhat negative.
This study focused on community (private practices) in the United States.
Survey respondents represented a mix of medical specialists that commonly prescribe physician-administered medications that require prior authorization.
It is widely accepted that prior authorization places a heavy burden on providers, so we wanted to know: How equipped are specialty practices to shoulder that burden? Do providers feel supported by pharmaceutical companies’ devoted market access teams in their quest to remove obstacles to patient care? Does the prior authorization process impact patient care and outcomes at speciality practices? Read our survey to find out.
96% of providers agree, prior authorization delays or denials would impact their likelihood to prescribe a drug.
While the majority of respondents indicated their practice is “somewhat efficient” at handling prior authorizations, efficiency varied by specialty. Medical oncology practices were most likely to indicate their practice is “highly efficient” at navigating prior authorizations.
60% of respondents “highly agree”
35% of respondents “somewhat agree”
4% of respondents “neutral”
No respondents disagreed with this statement.
The prior authorization process impacts a providers likelihood to prescribe treatment if an equally effective alternative exists in the market.
The majority of respondents indicated they are “somewhat aware” of the market access and reimbursement services offered by pharmaceutical companies.
2% of respondents indicated “Always”
38% of respondents indicated “Often”
52% of respondents indicated “Occasionally”
6% of respondents indicated “Rarely”
2% of respondents indicated “Never”
20% of respondents indicated “Highly negative”
72% of respondents indicated “Somewhat negative”
8% of respondents indicated “No impact”
34% of respondents indicated “Highly negative”
52% of respondents indicated “Somewhat negative”
14% of respondents indicated “No impact”
20% of respondents indicated “Highly negative”
66% of respondents indicated “Somewhat negative”
14% of respondents indicated “No impact”
Notably, 100% of rheumatologists indicated highly or somewhat negative.
This study focused on community (private practices) in the United States.
Survey respondents represented a mix of medical specialists that commonly prescribe physician-administered medications that require prior authorization.
It is widely accepted that prior authorization places a heavy burden on providers, so we wanted to know: How equipped are specialty practices to shoulder that burden? Do providers feel supported by pharmaceutical companies’ devoted market access teams in their quest to remove obstacles to patient care? Does the prior authorization process impact patient care and outcomes at speciality practices? Read our survey to find out.
96% of providers agree, prior authorization delays or denials would impact their likelihood to prescribe a drug.
While the majority of respondents indicated their practice is “somewhat efficient” at handling prior authorizations, efficiency varied by specialty. Medical oncology practices were most likely to indicate their practice is “highly efficient” at navigating prior authorizations.
60% of respondents “highly agree”
35% of respondents “somewhat agree”
4% of respondents “neutral”
No respondents disagreed with this statement.
The prior authorization process impacts a providers likelihood to prescribe treatment if an equally effective alternative exists in the market.
The majority of respondents indicated they are “somewhat aware” of the market access and reimbursement services offered by pharmaceutical companies.
2% of respondents indicated “Always”
38% of respondents indicated “Often”
52% of respondents indicated “Occasionally”
6% of respondents indicated “Rarely”
2% of respondents indicated “Never”
20% of respondents indicated “Highly negative”
72% of respondents indicated “Somewhat negative”
8% of respondents indicated “No impact”
34% of respondents indicated “Highly negative”
52% of respondents indicated “Somewhat negative”
14% of respondents indicated “No impact”
20% of respondents indicated “Highly negative”
66% of respondents indicated “Somewhat negative”
14% of respondents indicated “No impact”
Notably, 100% of rheumatologists indicated highly or somewhat negative.
This study focused on community (private practices) in the United States.
Survey respondents represented a mix of medical specialists that commonly prescribe physician-administered medications that require prior authorization.
It is widely accepted that prior authorization places a heavy burden on providers, so we wanted to know: How equipped are specialty practices to shoulder that burden? Do providers feel supported by pharmaceutical companies’ devoted market access teams in their quest to remove obstacles to patient care? Does the prior authorization process impact patient care and outcomes at speciality practices? Read our survey to find out.
96% of providers agree, prior authorization delays or denials would impact their likelihood to prescribe a drug.
While the majority of respondents indicated their practice is “somewhat efficient” at handling prior authorizations, efficiency varied by specialty. Medical oncology practices were most likely to indicate their practice is “highly efficient” at navigating prior authorizations.
60% of respondents “highly agree”
35% of respondents “somewhat agree”
4% of respondents “neutral”
No respondents disagreed with this statement.
The prior authorization process impacts a providers likelihood to prescribe treatment if an equally effective alternative exists in the market.
The majority of respondents indicated they are “somewhat aware” of the market access and reimbursement services offered by pharmaceutical companies.
2% of respondents indicated “Always”
38% of respondents indicated “Often”
52% of respondents indicated “Occasionally”
6% of respondents indicated “Rarely”
2% of respondents indicated “Never”
20% of respondents indicated “Highly negative”
72% of respondents indicated “Somewhat negative”
8% of respondents indicated “No impact”
34% of respondents indicated “Highly negative”
52% of respondents indicated “Somewhat negative”
14% of respondents indicated “No impact”
20% of respondents indicated “Highly negative”
66% of respondents indicated “Somewhat negative”
14% of respondents indicated “No impact”
Notably, 100% of rheumatologists indicated highly or somewhat negative.
This study focused on community (private practices) in the United States.
Survey respondents represented a mix of medical specialists that commonly prescribe physician-administered medications that require prior authorization.
