Characteristics of Prior Authorization… | 2023

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

36/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Health systems and care delivery

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Plain-language summary

This cross-sectional study examines the characteristics of prior authorization policies for new drugs in Medicare Part D to understand whether they are consistent with US Food and Drug Administration indications.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Naci, H., Forrest, R., Zhai, M., Stofesky, A. R., & Kesselheim, A. S. (2023). Characteristics of Prior Authorization Policies for New Drugs in Medicare Part D. JAMA Health Forum. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.5610

Vancouver

Naci H, Forrest R, Zhai M, Stofesky AR, Kesselheim AS. Characteristics of Prior Authorization Policies for New Drugs in Medicare Part D. JAMA Health Forum. 2023. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.5610.

BibTeX

@article{naci2023-9bc9eb86,
  author  = {Naci, Huseyin and Forrest, Robin and Zhai, Mike and Stofesky, Amanda R. and Kesselheim, Aaron S.},
  title   = {{Characteristics of Prior Authorization Policies for New Drugs in Medicare Part D}},
  journal = {JAMA Health Forum},
  year    = {2023},
  doi     = {10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.5610},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.5610}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

How to read this study

Design: this is a cross-sectional study. Everyone is measured once, so it cannot show which came first. Read it as a snapshot of how two things go together at one moment.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record gives no effect size, so the summary above cannot say how large any difference was.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

This cross-sectional study examines the characteristics of prior authorization policies for new drugs in Medicare Part D to understand whether they are consistent with US Food and Drug Administration indications.

Why it matters

This cross-sectional study examines the characteristics of prior authorization policies for new drugs in Medicare Part D and whether they are consistent with FDA indications. It contains no research findings on treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

Study designcross-sectional
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 36/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JAMA Health Forum)
Journal's citation record	0 / 4	JAMA Health Forum: journal h-index 60 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	4 / 12	A snapshot of people at one point in time
Strength of evidence	1 / 5	Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	3 / 5	2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	0 / 4	Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	0 / 3	Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomized / blinded	0 / 2	No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	1 / 7	Cited 1 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	0 / 5	0.2 citations a year over 5 year(s) since 2023
Impact for its field and year	1 / 6	Cited 0.2× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	0 / 4	Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Aaron Seth Kesselheim: h-index 77 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	3 / 3	Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex)
Multicenter collaboration	2 / 3	OpenAlex lists 5 institution(s) in 2 countries
Indexed in PubMed	1 / 2	Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read	0 / 2	Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total	36 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Health systems and care delivery from nearby years

Also in Health systems and care delivery

172 studies in the library are filed under Health systems and care delivery with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Health systems and care delivery hub.

Similar studies

More on Health systems and care delivery

See all studies in Health systems and care delivery →