How a Real-Time Automated Decision-Support Tool Can Cure the Prior Authorization Time Drain

HEALTHCARE
PRODUCED IN PARTNERSHIP
WITH LEAVITT PARTNERS
How a Real-Time,
Automated Decision-
Support Tool Can Cure
the Prior Authorization
Time Drain
A pilot program to automate medical and administrative
policies conducted by Cognizant, New England Healthcare
Exchange Network and Informatics In Context revealed
significant time and cost savings. This proven solution can be
scaled to produce effective outcomes for health insurance
companies and providers.
June 2017
DIGITAL SYSTEMS & TECHNOLOGY

2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Many existing prior authorization (PA) processes are comprised of submit-and-forget tasks
that drain time, money and resources, both for health insurance companies and healthcare
providers. Working with the New England Healthcare Exchange Network (NEHEN) and
Informatics In Context (IIC), Cognizant tested a real-time, automated PA system for
medical and administrative policies. At completion, this pilot generated projected savings
of $16 per PA ($9,820 over the span of 597 transactions). Leveraging learnings from this
implementation can help health insurance companies and providers achieve cost savings,
streamline rules and create a more effective PA strategy.
This proven solution can be scaled to include related processes and additional payer-provider
partnerships. By investing in custom-fit PA automations, payers and providers can
streamline requirements, reduce administrative burdens, make rules more transparent and
deliver care more efficiently to patients.
Cognizant partnered with Leavitt Partners, a healthcare intelligence company, to document
this PA solution. This white paper contextualizes these promising results and extrapolates
how other organizations can leverage learnings to implement a PA solution that reduces
waste and helps deliver timely care. Key applied learnings include:
• Commit to a real-time, automated, standards-based solution.
• Integrate clinical and business logic.
• Get buy-in from all relevant personnel.
• Choose your processes intentionally.
• Choose collaborative partners with the right expertise.
2
Digital Systems & Technology
| How a Real-Time, Automated Decision-Support Tool Can Cure the Prior Authorization Time Drain

“NEHEN’s real-time prior
authorization is the perfect example
of a successful proof-of-concept pilot.
The pilot has shown tremendous
success in automating the entire
prior authorization process and
reducing the need for human touch
points.”
Dave Delano, Executive Director, NEHEN
3How a Real-Time, Automated Decision-Support Tool Can Cure the Prior Authorization Time Drain | 3

Specialty Drugs on the Rise
By 2020, nine of the 10 top-selling drugs will be specialty
Source: Drug Channels
Figure 1
2010
2020
Specialty Drugs Non-specialty Drugs
4
ASSESSING MARKET NEEDS
Tensions surrounding PAs have intensified over the past several years, as health insurance companies
(e.g., payers) use these processes to rein in costs and avoid the utilization of low-value, overused treat-
ments. The problem with this approach is that it can delay the delivery of care. It has also increased
the administrative burden of getting treatments approved by payers.
Why Prior Authorizations Are Used
An annual survey of 600 large employers by Willis Towers Watson identified minimizing overused
(and often expensive) procedures as one of employers’ major priorities to reduce healthcare costs.1
Additionally, 88% of employers identified managing pharmacy costs (e.g., specialty drugs) as a top
priority. In 2010, 30% of the top-selling drugs were specialty; in 2020, the projection rises to nine of
the 10 top-selling drugs (see Figure 1).2
PAs offer health plans and employers a tool to reduce unwar-
ranted, low-value spending, especially on specialty drugs and overused medical procedures with low
value.3,4,5
Growing Frustration with Prior Authorizations
A risk of reducing expensive medications and overused procedures through PAs, however, is delaying
treatment for patients and exacerbating the administrative burden on providers. Providers indicate
that their staff members spend an average of 20 hours or more per week obtaining PAs.6,7
In a fully
manual process, this includes filling out and submitting supporting documents for each PA request
via paper-based methods.
Likewise, payers receive PA requests, enter them into their care management or utilization man-
agement systems containing business and clinical logic, and then review and approve or deny the
requests. Once a PA request is received by a payer, it can take an average of six to seven days to pass
through the manual review process. Only then can a provider confidently schedule the procedure.

“In addition to reducing
processing times, IIC’s automated
platform has exhibited how
clinical information can be
communicated in a more
systematic way. It’s reduced the
need for human intervention,
while still allowing for effective
evaluation of authorizations.
Being part of this pilot gave us
the opportunity to be part of
something that is innovative and
seldom heard of in the world of
prior authorizations.”
Rhonda Starkey, Director of eBusiness Services,
Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
How a Real-Time, Automated Decision-Support Tool Can Cure the Prior Authorization Time Drain | 5

6 | How a Real-Time, Automated Decision-Support Tool Can Cure the Prior Authorization Time Drain
In a series of provider interviews conducted by Leavitt Partners, one of the most consistent frustra-
tions voiced about the payer/provider relationship was the PA process, specifically the administrative
burden it places on providers and inconsistency across payers. In a qualitative study led by the
American Medical Association, poor EHR usability was found to be physicians’ highest source of dis-
satisfaction, followed directly by dissatisfaction with payers. PAs — which fall at the intersection of
these two frustrations — were often cited by providers as a significant burden. Approximately 90%
of the physicians interviewed reported that the PA process sometimes, often or always delays access
to care.8
Not only do delays in access to care impact providers’ ability to effectively treat patients, but they can
also impact providers’ bottom line — negatively impacting providers’ quality measure results.
For example, delays in access to care can negatively impact providers’ ability to score well on
timeliness-of-care quality standards. The 2016 CAHPS Survey for Accountable Care Organizations
(ACOs) asks patients to rate how easy it was to receive timely care and whether they “got answers
over the phone as soon as they needed.”9
Other quality measures require providers to “act early” to
address chronic problems and “facilitate rapid, effective” treatments and “promptly prescribe” phar-
macological interventions.10
Waiting for a PA to be processed directly interferes with providers’ ability
to give a timely response and potentially meet their quality measure standards.
PA processes augment providers’ frustration by increasing administrative burdens, negatively impact-
ing quality measures and taking the provider away from patients to focus on PA processes.
In January 2017, the AMA called for reform, demanding a system that streamlines requirements,
reduces administrative burdens, and increases timely access and transparency.11
Without a federal
effort to streamline PA processes, 28 states have begun implementing their own legislation.12
The
problem with these efforts, however, is that they aren’t synchronized. For example:
• California legislation calls for an electronic submission for medication PAs using a
standardized form.
• Legislation in Louisiana only dictates that a standard form be used, but does not require electronic
submission.13
• Legislation in Massachusetts requires all health plans to use a standardized form, but that form is
onerous for providers to use and doesn’t necessarily coincide with information required by payers.
As such, payers and providers continue to look for solutions to address the PA time drain.

Adoption of Fully Electronic Transactions
7How a Real-Time, Automated Decision-Support Tool Can Cure the Prior Authorization Time Drain |
Unraveling Prior Authorization Processes
Unraveling complex PA medical and administrative policies is an incredibly cumbersome process, with
a mixture of manual and electronic components for each unique provider/payer relationship. Health
systems are increasingly taking advantage of partially and fully electronic PA support tools, with
adoption rates of fully electronic transactions increasing from 8% in 2014 to 18% in 2015.14
However, compared to 2015 reports of fully electronic claims submission adoption (94%) or eligibility
and benefit verification adoption (76%), the low adoption rates of electronic PAs offer an area for
significant cost and time savings as well as the potential to get treatments to patients more efficiently
(see Figure 2). PAs with attachments have shown a high savings opportunity per transaction, with
estimates upward of $45 per transaction.15
PA processes augment providers’ frustration
by increasing administrative burdens,
negatively impacting quality measures and
taking the provider away from patients to
focus on PA processes.
Claims Submission Eligibility & Benefit Verification Prior Authorization
93% 94%
71%
76%
10%
18%
2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015
Source: 2016 CAQH Index: A Report of Healthcare Industry Adoption of Electronic Business
Transactions and Cost Savings
Figure 2

8
Responding to this need, CAQH CORE — a national initiative to streamline electronic interoperability
— has initiated a series of webinars that evaluate challenges and successes faced while implementing
electronic healthcare claims attachments16,17
and provided an overview of industry efforts to adopt
electronic PA transactions.18
Potential Savings by Switching to Electronic Prior Authorizations
Using staff time and resources to submit, coordinate and follow up on PAs translates into tangible
costs. Both payers and providers could reduce these costs by implementing electronic PA processes.
The 2016 CAQH Index found that health plans could save roughly $90 million, and providers could
save $323 million.19
In addition to potential cost savings, the 2016 CAQH Index reports that both payers and providers
could drastically reduce time spent on each manual PA. Inputting each manual PA takes a provider
an average of 20 minutes per transaction; electronic PA submissions, however, take an average of six
minutes.
Given that providers completed roughly 57 million transactions manually in 2015, they could have
saved 13.3 million hours (798 million minutes) by completing these PAs electronically (see Figure 3,
next page). This estimate, however, does not include time or costs related to preparing materials,
resolving issues or follow-up.
Even processes that use electronic aspects usually include manual components either on the provid-
er’s or the payer’s end. For example, some providers send PAs manually to a clearinghouse or another
partner, which then converts these records to an electronic format for the payer. Conversely, a pro-
vider may have to manually submit information using a payer’s web portal; so while the process is
“electronic” on the payer’s end, the transaction still takes time and resources to be manually inputted
on the provider’s end. Many of these solutions don’t utilize real-time authentication or touchless
technology. If the industry is going to keep up with increasing demands, there needs to be drastic
improvement to prevent a bottleneck of care, mired in paperwork.
When factoring in this additional time and costs, potential industry-wide savings from using a real-
time, automated PA decision-support tool increase astronomically, translating into faster, more
efficient care for patients.
When factoring in this additional time
and costs, potential industry-wide savings
from using a real-time, automated
PA decision-support tool increase
astronomically, translating into faster,
more efficient care for patients.

A BETTER WAY FORWARD
Cognizant’s recent endeavor to develop a truly automated, electronic PA solution reveals promising
results. In partnership, New England Healthcare Exchange Network (NEHEN), Cognizant and Informat-
ics In Context (IIC) have created a real-time, automated solution that has shown significant time and
cost savings in addition to other ancillary benefits.
Developing a Real-Time, Automated Solution
NEHEN spent 12 months conducting interviews with payers and providers on what improvements
are needed in administrative data exchange. The interviews uncovered significant efficiency short-
comings in the PA and referral processes. Based on an analysis of these needs, NEHEN, working in
partnership with Cognizant, selected IIC to conduct a proof-of-concept project. The pilot project was
to develop a rules engine to connect with payer utilization management systems, which would auto-
mate payer-specific medical and administrative policies.
Using the decision-support tool developed by IIC, providers enter and upload information specifically
needed for the clinical service PA being requested via a web portal. The web portal allows them to
submit the necessary data to the payer in real time, leveraging standard EDI 278/275 transactions.
IIC helped automate payers’ business and clinical rules to provide immediate feedback for providers,
while following EDI 278/275 standards. The feedback reveals what information is required to process
an authorization approval in real time — thereby eliminating the manual review process, wait time and
follow-up by providers. This approach significantly simplifies administrative processing for payers and
providers, reduces unnecessary delays and lowers costs.
During implementation, NEHEN, Cognizant and IIC collaborated to adapt processes and add abilities
based on user needs. For example, the system allowed a group of providers to identify upcoming
patients that would likely need PAs. The providers could use a batch format, using scheduled patient
appointments, to process patients’ PAs before their appointments. Once submitted in this manner, the
PAs are prequalified by the payer-specific medical and administrative rules before the patients even
arrive for their appointments.
93% 94%
71%
76%
14 x 57M = 13.3MMINUTES TRANSACTIONS HOURS SAVED
Potential Time Savings for Providers Switching to Electronic PAs
Source: Leavitt Partners analysis using 2016 CAQH Index
Figure 3

10
Selected Medical Policy Categories
The pilot targeted three high-utilization medical policy categories: home healthcare; select phar-
macy drugs (Rituxan, Aloxi, Emend and Anzemet); and select surgical policies (knee arthroplasty,
varicose vein procedures, breast surgeries, hysterectomies and cholecystectomies) in both inpatient
and ambulatory settings.
Home healthcare — which tends to have more business requirements and fewer clinical requirements
than the other two categories — was chosen due to its high-volume, straightforward nature. The
other two processes (pharmacy and surgical) were selected because of their highly complex, clinical
requirements.
Working with Payers and Providers
While operationalizing the PA decision-support tool, the developers considered provider needs,
keeping the process straightforward, standards-based and automated. The developers also built
in the ability for providers to identify errors before PA submission, prompting them to provide
supplemental information within the transaction itself. This real-time, automated decision-support
tool has increased the number of requests that are auto-approved based on providers’ delivery of
requested data.
Initial pilot project participants included:
• Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC).
• VNA Care Network.
• Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Department of Surgery and Ambulatory Operations OBGYN
Services.
• Partners Healthcare.
These providers were trained on the system via online webinars, led by a facilitator. Each webinar
included a representative from the participating payer. These 20-minute training sessions walked the
providers through the process, introducing them to the online portal.
Pilot Results: Time and Cost Savings
Pilot implementation — running November 14, 2016, to April 30, 2017 — revealed a drastic improvement
in the PA process, saving participating payers and providers considerable time and costs.
As of May 5, 2017, 82.2% of the pilot’s PA transactions were touchless — meaning they did not require
either payer intervention or provider follow-up. Additionally, the pilot allowed providers to track sub-
missions with real-time adjudication status rather than submitting a fax to request this information,
or not knowing the status at all. Real-time tracking is projected to generate over 85% in cost and
resource savings.
One pilot participant reported that the IIC platform had reduced its processing time from one week to
20 minutes, allowing highly-skilled clinical staff to focus on care management activities rather than
manual processes.

As of May 5, 2017, 82.2% of the pilot’s PA
transactions were touchless — meaning they
did not require either payer intervention or
provider follow-up.
One pilot participant reported that the IIC
platform had reduced its processing time from
one week to 20 minutes, allowing highly-skilled
clinical staff to focus on care management
activities rather than manual processes.

12
Pre-pilot averages indicated that each transaction could take up to six days to secure PAs; post-pilot
averages report 15 minutes per transaction. CAQH estimates actual costs for both provider and payer
manual processing of PA transactions, with attachments, at $45 per transaction. This pilot used a con-
servative estimate of $20 per manual PA transaction as a baseline for comparison and cost savings.
The results report that of 597 transactions, 491 required no intervention, a net savings of $16 per PA
transaction, or $9,820, conservatively calculated (see Figure 4).
Intangible Benefits
In addition to time and cost savings, intangible benefits from using this automated PA solution were
also realized. Early advantages revealed in the pilot include:
• Easy-to-understand processes and minimized number of input fields.
• The potential to reduce fraud.
• Reconciled requests against payer policies prior to submission, ensuring compliance and reducing
denials, appeals and medical reviews.
• Improved patient outcomes.
• Capacity to concurrently populate payers’ utilization management systems and providers’ com-
plete requests.
• Ability to extend patient visits without additional paperwork.
• Improvements to patient intake and reduced scheduling time.
• Real-time validation, evaluation and adjudication of medical policies.
• Single point of access for PAs and real-time ability to check eligibility.
Provider participants appreciate the partnership they have formed with NEHEN, Cognizant and IIC
through this pilot and have expressed interest in continuing to work on the project post-pilot.
Calculating PA Process Improvements
Source: Cognizant
Figure 4
Transaction Info As of December 1, 2016 As of January 6, 2017 As of April 30, 2017
Total Submitted
68
(HC-61, Surg-7)
243
(HC-213, Rx-2 Surg-28)
597
(HC-531, Rx-16, Surg-50)
Total Touchless 62 (91.2%) 210 (86.42%) 491 (82.24%)
Requiring HPHC
Intervention
6 33 106
Cost Savings
for Providers
& Payers
$1,240 $4,200
$9,820
(Projected)

APPLIED LEARNINGS
The benefits to providers and payers from utilizing this type of system are transferable to the overall
industry. By implementing a true real-time, touchless, transparent PA system, providers can connect
patients with the right care when they need it, while following proper procedure. As other payers and
providers seek to leverage these benefits, they should consider the following learnings.
Commit to a Real-Time, Automated, Standards-Based Solution
Effective PA solutions are real-time, automated and standards-based. The first two characteristics
save both time and money. The third streamlines and simplifies the integration process, similar to
what EDI 270 has enabled for eligibility checks. To maximize efficiency, payers and providers should
look for PA tools that have all three characteristics.
Solutions that stop short of a truly real-time, automated, standards-based process fail to fully lever-
age cost and time efficiencies. Payers, especially, need to commit to a truly automated system,
investing resources up front and trusting that the return on investment will come. Too often, PAs are
submit-and-forget processes. The best results come from end-to-end solutions, in which the provider
is prompted through all requirements and standards, and receives real-time feedback and direction.
Integrate Clinical and Business Logic
Many PA solutions focus on either clinical or business requirements. The most effective solutions,
however, integrate provider, payer and health system knowledge to provide a singular, streamlined
process.
Each payer’s infrastructure is unique, as are its business rules and personnel jurisdictions. Addition-
ally, providers are often confused or unaware of the payer’s unique business logic. To account for
these individualized systems, PA solutions should integrate the payer’s clinical and business require-
ments. If the electronic solution can prompt the provider on what is needed, the payer’s rules become
transparent and actionable. At the end of the process, the provider is clear on what is and what is
not approved — and why — and can move forward to implement a treatment plan knowing it will be
reimbursed.
Get Buy-In from All Relevant Personnel
Change — even positive change — is hard. And the difficulty that comes with change multiplies with
the more people that are involved. In large organizations, the PA process is often decentralized on
both the payer and provider side, with different people involved in different processes. A crucial part
of implementing a real-time solution is identifying who does what and when, and then aligning all
parties.
• On the payer side, make sure to identify and communicate with everyone that contributes to
both the clinical and business requirements associated with PAs, including the clinical, information
technology (IT), operations and revenue teams.
• On the provider side, invest in training once the PA solution has been implemented. These train-
ings can be conducted in person or through webinars. The more streamlined the process is, the
easier it will be to onboard new providers.

14
Choose Your Processes Intentionally
When selecting the PA processes to target for inclusion in a real-time, automated solution, payers
can take different strategies. The key is to intentionally choose a strategy and understand how to
measure its effectiveness. For example, a payer can identify the most complex processes — ones that
require the support of both clinical and medical teams to unravel their internal rules — because these
are the processes that would benefit most from being streamlined. These processes also often have
the highest payoff.
On the other hand, a payer may want to focus first on simple processes that tend to be high-volume,
where mistakes can hide and create a resource-draining, back-and-forth exchange between the payer
and provider.
Choose Collaborative Partners with the Right Expertise
Because payers and providers have unique workflows and each treatment may require individual con-
figurations, it’s critical to work with partners that have both the technical knowledge as well as the
willingness to act and react with flexibility. Each partner organization may have its own expertise, but
they need to share a vision and an agenda. A true partnership brings together a breadth of resources,
where each organization collaborates and is committed to shared success.
A payer can identify the most
complex processes – ones that
require the support of both clinical
and medical teams to unravel their
internal rules – because these are
the processes that would benefit
most from being streamlined.

LOOKING AHEAD
The potential to scale the pilot’s time and cost savings industry-wide is exciting. Shrinking the PA
window from six days to 15 minutes means that patients can receive care when they need it. Integrat-
ing both administrative and clinical requirements in real-time adjudication also drastically increases
system transparency, alleviating tensions between payers and providers. All these changes mean that
patients can receive more streamlined, time-efficient care.
With a proven solution in place, payers and providers can tackle other medical processes to multi-
ply time and cost savings. By investing in custom-fit PA automations, organizations can streamline
requirements, reduce administrative burdens, make rules more transparent and more efficiently
deliver care to patients.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This white paper was written in partnership with Leavitt Partners, a healthcare intelligence business.
The firm helps clients navigate the evolving role of value in healthcare by informing, advising and
convening industry leaders on value market analytics, alternative payment models, federal strategies,
insurance market insights and alliances. Through its family of businesses, the firm provides invest-
ment support, data and analytics, member-based alliances and direct services to clients to support
decision-making strategies in the value economy. For more information, visit leavittpartners.com.
Note: All company names, trade names, trademarks, trade dress, designs/logos, copyrights, images
and products referenced in this white paper are the property of their respective owners. No company
referenced in this white paper sponsored this white paper or the contents thereof.

16
FOOTNOTES
1 High-performance insights — best practices in health care 2016; 21st Annual Willis Towers Watson Best Practices in Health
Care Employer Survey [Internet]. Willis Towers Watson; 2017 Jan [cited 2017 Apr 7]. Available from: www.willistowerswatson.
com/en/insights/2017/01/full-report-2016-21st-annual-willis-towers-watson-best-practices-in-health-care-employer-survey
2 Fein AJ, Ph.D. Future Vision: The Top 10 Drugs of 2020 [Internet]. [cited 2017 Apr 7]. Available from: www.drugchannels.
net/2014/07/future-vision-top-10-drugs-of-2020.html
3 Lotvin AM, Shrank WH, Singh SC, Falit BP, Brennan TA. Specialty Medications: Traditional And Novel Tools Can Address Rising
Spending On These Costly Drugs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Oct 1;33(10):1736–44.
4 Keehan SP, Stone DA, Poisal JA, Cuckler GA, Sisko AM, Smith SD, et al. National Health Expenditure Projections, 2016–25:
Price Increases, Aging Push Sector To 20 Percent Of Economy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Mar 1;36(3):553–63.
5 Mercer | National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, 2016 [Internet]. [cited 2017 Apr 7]. Available from: www.
mercer.com/newsroom/national-survey-of-employer-sponsored-health-plans-2016.html
6 Prior Authorization Hurts Patient Care, AMA Survey Finds | Preauthorization, Health Care Companies, Physicians |
HealthLeaders Media [Internet]. [cited 2017 Apr 7]. Available from: www.healthleadersmedia.com/physician-leaders/prior-au-
thorization-hurts-patient-care-ama-survey-finds#
7 Standardization of prior authorization process for medical services white paper [Internet]. American Medical Association;
2011 Jun [cited 2017 Apr 7]. Available from: http://massneuro.org/Resources/Transfer%20from%20old%20sit/AMA%20
White%20Paper%20on%20Standardizing%20Prior%20Authorization.pdf
8 Colligan L, Sinsky C, Goeders L, Schmidt-Bowman M, Tutty M. Sources of physician satisfaction and dissatisfaction and
review of administrative tasks in ambulatory practice: A qualitative analysis of physician and staff interviews. [Internet].
2016 Oct [cited 2017 Apr 7]. Available from: www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/public/ps2/ps2-dartmouth-
study-111016.pdf
9 CAHPS Survey for Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) Participating in Medicare Initiatives [Internet]. CMS; 2016
[cited 2017 Apr 7]. Available from: http://acocahps.cms.gov/globalassets/aco---epi-2-new-site/pdfs-for-aco/survey-instru-
ments/2016-aco-survey/english/2016_aco-9_mail_survey_english.pdf
10 Accountable Care Organization 2016 Program Quality Measure Narrative Specifications [Internet]. Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services; 2016 Jan [cited 2017 Apr 14]. Available from: www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/
sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/2016-ACO-NarrativeMeasures-Specs.pdf
11 Health Care Coalition Calls for Prior Authorization Reform | American Medical Association [Internet]. [cited 2017 Apr 7].
Available from: www.ama-assn.org/health-care-coalition-calls-prior-authorization-reform
12 2017 Electronic Prior Authorization (ePA ) National Adoption Scorecard [Internet]. [cited 2017 Apr 7]. Available from: https://
epascorecard.covermymeds.com
13 ibid.
14 2016 CAQH Index: A Report of Healthcare Industry Adoption of Electronic Business Transactions and Cost Savings [Internet].
CAQH; 2017 Jan [cited 2017 Apr 4]. Available from: www.caqh.org/sites/default/files/explorations/index/report/2016-caqh-
index-report.pdf
15 2015 CAQH Index: Reporting Standards and Data Submission Guide — Health Plans Numbers of Transactions and Costs
per Transaction [Internet]. [cited 2017 Apr 7]. Available from: www.caqh.org/sites/default/files/explorations/index/report/
index_guide.pdf
16 CAQH CORE Attachments Webinar Series Part 1: Laying the Foundation for Electronic Healthcare Attachments [Internet].
Webinar presented at; 2017 Mar 2 [cited 2017 May 30]. Available from: www.caqh.org/about/event/use-and-adoption-attach-
ments-healthcare-administration-part-i
17 CAQH CORE Attachments Webinar Series: Session 2 [Internet]. Webinar presented at; 2017 May 25 [cited 2017 May 30]. Avail-
able from: www.caqh.org/about/event/use-and-adoption-attachments-healthcare-administration-part-ii
18 CORE Participant Call on Overview of CAQH CORE Approach to Adoption of Electronic Prior Authorization Transactions
[Internet]. Webinar presented at; 2017 Jun 19 [cited 2017 May 30]. Available from: www.caqh.org/about/event/core-partici-
pant-call-overview-caqh-core-approach-adoption-electronic-prior
19 Op Cit. footnote 14.

AT A GLANCE: KEY PARTNERS
Founded in 1998, the New England Healthcare Exchange Network (NEHEN) is a consortium of regional
payers and providers that has designed and implemented a secure and innovative health information
exchange with the intent of reducing administrative costs and improving the quality, safety, and effi-
ciency of patients. NEHEN is known to be an agile, innovative and collaborative organization serving
both payer and provider member organizations. For more information: www.nehen.net
Informatics In Context (IIC) offers payers a transformative standards- based solution that fully auto-
mates their authorization process to become real-time based on the ACA mandated EDI 278 standard
for medical procedures, tests, labs and drugs covered under medical benefits. IIC is able to achieve
a high level of touchless adjudication by automating all of the payer’s policies and guidelines,
including all business and clinical rules, required for real-time responses. For more information:
informaticsincontext.com
Cognizant is a leading provider of information technology, consulting and business process services,
dedicated to helping the world’s leading companies build stronger businesses. Cognizant’s TriZetto
Healthcare Products are software solutions that help organizations enhance revenue growth, drive
administrative efficiency, improve cost and quality of care, and improve the member and patient
experience. For more information: www.cognizant.com
Harvard Pilgrim is a not-for-profit health services company serving members throughout Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Our mission is to improve the quality and value of health
care for the people and communities we serve. For more than 45 years, Harvard Pilgrim has built
a reputation for exceptional clinical quality, preventive care, disease management and member
satisfaction, and has consistently rated among the top plans in the country. For more information:
www.harvardpilgrim.org

18
Patricia Doxey
Senior Analyst, Leavitt
Partners
Patricia Doxey is a Senior Analyst with Leavitt Partners, where
she conducts healthcare research and analysis, and writes briefs,
reports and white papers summarizing research. She has over 10
years of experience in technical writing, research and synthesizing
complex information. Patricia holds an M.A. from the University
of Florida and a B.A. from Brigham Young University. She can be
reached at patricia.doxey@leavittpartners.com | www.linkedin.
com/in/patricia-doxey-5a202427.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Laura Summers
Senior Director of State
Intelligence, Leavitt Partners
Laura Summers is the Senior Director of State Intelligence, with
expertise in economics, healthcare and public policy. Laura is a
thought leader in state-level health reform, with over 10 years of
experience in research and economic analysis. At Leavitt Part-
ners, Laura has provided project management and research to
assist states design and develop state-based health insurance
exchanges, 1115 Medicaid demonstration waivers and amend-
ments, and other state health reforms. Laura holds an M.P.P. with
an emphasis in public economics from Brigham Young University
and a B.A. from Westminster College. She can be reached at laura.
summers@leavittpartners.com | www.linkedin.com/in/laura-sum-
mers-a412b76/.
For additional information, please contact:
• David P. Delano, Executive Director, NEHEN (ddelano@maehc.org)
• Joel Gleason, Senior Vice President, Cognizant (joel.gleason@cognizant.com)
• Vikram Simha, Founder & CEO, Informatics In Context, Inc. (vsimha@informaticsincontext.com)

ABOUT COGNIZANT
Cognizant (NASDAQ-100: CTSH) is one of the world’s leading professional services companies, transforming clients’ business, operating and
technology models for the digital era. Our unique industry-based, consultative approach helps clients envision, build and run more innova-
tive and efficient businesses. Headquartered in the U.S., Cognizant is ranked 230 on the Fortune 500 and is consistently listed among the
most admired companies in the world. Learn how Cognizant helps clients lead with digital at www.cognizant.com or follow us @Cognizant.
© Copyright 2017, Cognizant. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means,electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the express written permission from Cognizant. The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. All
other trademarks mentioned herein are the property of their respective owners.
TL Codex 2728
World Headquarters
500 Frank W. Burr Blvd.
Teaneck, NJ 07666 USA
Phone: +1 201 801 0233
Fax: +1 201 801 0243
Toll Free: +1 888 937 3277
European Headquarters
1 Kingdom Street
Paddington Central
London W2 6BD England
Phone: +44 (0) 20 7297 7600
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7121 0102
India Operations Headquarters
#5/535 Old Mahabalipuram Road
Okkiyam Pettai, Thoraipakkam
Chennai, 600 096 India
Phone: +91 (0) 44 4209 6000
Fax: +91 (0) 44 4209 6060

How a Real-Time Automated Decision-Support Tool Can Cure the Prior Authorization Time Drain

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to How a Real-Time Automated Decision-Support Tool Can Cure the Prior Authorization Time Drain (20)

More from Cognizant (20)

How a Real-Time Automated Decision-Support Tool Can Cure the Prior Authorization Time Drain