James A. Simon, MD

Since its introduction in 1950, the combined oral contraceptive pill has been used by countless women as a method for birth control (Liao P. Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec; 58[12]:e757-e760).

Hormonal contraception (HC) provides women with both contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits, most notably a method for avoiding unintended pregnancy. In addition to being an effective method of contraception, oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are well established for treating conditions such as hirsutism, pain symptoms associated with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease, among others (Schindler A. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Winter;11[1]:41-7).

IntimMedicine Specialists

Combined hormonal contraceptives are also first-line treatment for women with menstrual disorders, and in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, can offer an effective long-term method to regulate their menstrual cycle, decrease androgens, clear up oily skin and acne, and reduce facial hair while also providing them with effective contraception (de Melo et al. Open Access J Contracept. 2017;8:13-23).
 

Associations between ‘the pill’ and mood effects remain controversial

More than 100 million women worldwide use hormonal contraceptives today, yet despite this, the data are mixed regarding the prevalence and extent of neuropsychiatric symptoms and mood changes associated with use of “the pill.” Some studies show combined oral contraceptives are associated with a decrease in general well-being, but had no effect on depression, in women compared with placebo (Zethraeus N et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107[5]:1238-45).

However, a large Danish study published in JAMA Psychiatry of more than 1 million women found a significant association between use of hormonal contraception and antidepressant use or first diagnosis of depression, with adolescents having a higher rate of first depression diagnosis and antidepressant use compared with women 20–30 years old (Skovlund C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 1;73[11]:1154-62).

Studies have also shown long-term exposure to levonorgestrel is significantly associated with anxiety and sleep problems in women without a history of these issues (Slattery J et al. Drug Saf. 2018 Oct;41[10]:951-8). A recent small nationwide cohort study in France suggests this may also be true of levonorgestrel delivered by intrauterine devices (IUD) and the association may be dose-dependent (Roland N et al. JAMA. 2023;329[3]:257-9).

Of note, a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found a nearly twofold risk of suicide attempt and over threefold risk of suicide among women taking hormonal contraception compared with women who had never used hormonal contraceptives (Skovlund et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Nov 17:appiajp201717060616).
 

Knowledge gaps make drawing conclusions difficult

The latest information on use of antidepressant and antianxiety medications in women of reproductive age (18-44 years) is sparse and, in some cases, outdated. According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 18.6% of adult women 18 years or older reported using antidepressant medications within the last 30 days in 2017-2018, an increase from 13.8% in 2009-2010. Among women aged 15-44 year with private employer–sponsored insurance surveyed during 2008-2013, the results showed 15.4% of women filled a prescription for an antidepressant. We must look back further to find data on antianxiety medication use among women aged 18-44 years where use of antianxiety drugs (anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics) was 4.3% between 2005 and 2008.

A lack of literature in this area is likely due to significant underreporting, and an inability to select patients who are sensitive to or at risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms resulting from hormonal contraception use because the true pathophysiology is unknown. Existing studies tend to use varying methods to assess mood changes, and do not usually specify hormonal contraceptive use type in their analyses (Schaffir J et al. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Oct;21[5]:347-55).

Studies of this nature also require large sample sizes, but the percentage of women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use has historically been relatively small. In the late 1990s, Rosenberg and colleagues found 46% of 1,657 women discontinued oral contraceptives due to side effects within 6 months of starting a new prescription; of these women, 5% reported mood changes as their reason for discontinuing oral contraceptives (Rosenberg M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;179[3 Pt 1]:577-82).

One might expect that, as lower dosage combined hormonal contraceptives were developed in the 1980s, that the rate of reporting psychological side effects would continue to decrease as well. Yet greater awareness of the potential for mood changes while on “the pill” as outlined by the lay press and social media may be leading to increased reporting of neuropsychiatric effects in women. In a recent cross-sectional survey of 188 women in New York, 43.6% said they experienced mood changes while on hormonal contraceptives, and 61.2% of women with histories of psychiatric illness reported mood changes they attributed to hormonal contraceptives (Martell S et al. Contracept Reprod Med. 2023;8:9).

Martell and colleagues found 48.3% of women cited side effects as a reason for discontinuing hormonal contraception, and 43 participants mentioned psychological side effects unprompted, including 2 patients with suicidal thoughts. The authors said this suggests “psychological side effects, at least in part, may have impacted” HC users’ decisions to switch from OCPs to an alternative method of contraception.

It is also not clear what risk factors exist for women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use. First, it is important to note that both progestin-only contraceptives and combined hormonal contraceptives are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 as having no restrictions for use, including among patients with depression. While women in a smaller subgroup have significant neuropsychiatric symptoms related to their hormonal contraceptives, the underlying mechanism is unknown, and is thought to be largely related to the progestogen component of combined hormonal contraceptives or progestogen-only contraceptives (Mu E. Aust Prescr. 2022 Jun; 45[3]:75-9). We know that some women are hormone sensitive, while others are less so, and some not at all. Progestogens could affect mood as a direct action of the progestogen, because progestogens can be neurosteroids, or the progestogen effect could be mediated secondarily through a change in that woman’s own production of or bioavailability of androgens or naturally occurring estrogens (Giatti S. J Mol Endocrinol. 2016 Aug;57[2]:R109-26).

Here, we also find that currently available evidence limits our ability to draw firm conclusions. A study by Berry-Bibee and colleagues found a “low concern for clinically significant interactions” between hormonal contraception and psychotropic drugs, but was limited by quality/quantity of evidence (Berry-Bibee E et al. Contraception. 2016 Dec;94[6]:650-67). Interestingly, a study by Robinson and colleagues from the mid-2000s posited based on low evidence that “psychological response to the practice of contraception” was a potential explanation for the side effect profile of hormonal contraception (Robinson S et al. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63[2]:268-73).

Further, it may be that women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) might be selected for oral contraceptives, and they are predisposed to other neuropsychiatric problems. Estimates have placed the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, major depression, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder as high as 70% for women with PMDD (Sepede G et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:415-26). This phenomenon is not new, having been characterized in the lay literature nearly 20 years ago, by endocrinologist Geoffrey P. Redmond, MD (Redmond GP. The Hormonally Vulnerable Woman. New York: HarperCollins; 2005).

While the cause is not exactly idiosyncratic, there do appear to be some women who are more sensitive, either mood-related or otherwise, directly or indirectly to their contraceptive progestogens in terms of mood. They tend to have an entire spectrum of responses to the progestogens in combined or progestin-only contraceptives, ranging from just a flattened affect – which could easily be explained by their flattened level of endogenous hormones – to frank depression. Their frank depression, in turn, can be demonstrated to include suicidal ideation and actual suicide.

Compounding this issue is a woman’s perception of her sexuality. Some women with low sexual desire or sexual problems who are younger may have more distress about their problems compared with women of older reproductive age. While the reason for that is not clear, it may be that in the sexual arena, it is more important for some younger women to be a sexual person than in perimenopausal women, or that women who are younger are more likely to be partnered than women of older reproductive age. While the European Society of Sexual Medicine concluded in a 2019 position statement that there is inconclusive evidence whether hormonal contraception may be contributing to changes in sexual desire and sexual dysfunction, it appears that “a minority of women” experience “better or worse sexual functioning” from taking combined oral contraceptives (Both S et al. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16[11]:1681-95), suggesting that the majority of women report no significant changes.
 

Practitioners should discuss mood effects during consultation

An ob.gyn., primary care physicians, or others with prescriptive authority (i.e. nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in clinical practice may encounter a patient who seems to have mood side effects owing to progestogen-containing contraceptives that they prescribe. However, many ob.gyns. are likely unaware of the prevalence, or that some of those same patients can have such significant mood effects that they would become or are suicidal.

I believe questioning patients about mood effects during consultation and particularly during follow-up following the initiation of any hormonal contraceptive is worth a passing comment for every patient, which should include mood effects in broader discussion for anyone currently using an antidepressant, patients with a history of antidepressant use, and patients who have considered suicide. As we do with other drugs, these questions can be posed in the form of a questionnaire followed up by the practitioner in counseling.

Practitioners who encounter a patient with mood changes as a result of hormonal contraceptive use can consider changing to a nonhormonal method of birth control, or recommending the patient use a barrier method during sexual activity, as none of these options have neuropsychiatric side effects.

Ultimately, practitioners of all types need to engage in shared decision-making to identify the key benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptive use for each patient, which may involve trial and error to determine the ideal treatment. It is critical that practitioners of all types strike a balance between alleviating patient concerns about potential mood changes, monitoring patients with an appreciable risk of mood changes, and continuing patients on hormonal contraception for whom the benefits outweigh the risks.
 

Dr. Simon is a clinical professor at George Washington University and the medical director and founder of IntimMedicine Specialists in Washington, which provides patient-focused care for women across the reproductive life cycle. He is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Simon has been a consultant to, received grant and research support from, and served on the speakers bureau for various pharmaceutical companies that develop combination hormonal contraceptives. Email Dr. Simon at obnews@mdedge.com.

Since its introduction in 1950, the combined oral contraceptive pill has been used by countless women as a method for birth control (Liao P. Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec; 58[12]:e757-e760).

Hormonal contraception (HC) provides women with both contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits, most notably a method for avoiding unintended pregnancy. In addition to being an effective method of contraception, oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are well established for treating conditions such as hirsutism, pain symptoms associated with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease, among others (Schindler A. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Winter;11[1]:41-7).

IntimMedicine Specialists

Combined hormonal contraceptives are also first-line treatment for women with menstrual disorders, and in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, can offer an effective long-term method to regulate their menstrual cycle, decrease androgens, clear up oily skin and acne, and reduce facial hair while also providing them with effective contraception (de Melo et al. Open Access J Contracept. 2017;8:13-23).
 

Associations between ‘the pill’ and mood effects remain controversial

More than 100 million women worldwide use hormonal contraceptives today, yet despite this, the data are mixed regarding the prevalence and extent of neuropsychiatric symptoms and mood changes associated with use of “the pill.” Some studies show combined oral contraceptives are associated with a decrease in general well-being, but had no effect on depression, in women compared with placebo (Zethraeus N et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107[5]:1238-45).

However, a large Danish study published in JAMA Psychiatry of more than 1 million women found a significant association between use of hormonal contraception and antidepressant use or first diagnosis of depression, with adolescents having a higher rate of first depression diagnosis and antidepressant use compared with women 20–30 years old (Skovlund C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 1;73[11]:1154-62).

Studies have also shown long-term exposure to levonorgestrel is significantly associated with anxiety and sleep problems in women without a history of these issues (Slattery J et al. Drug Saf. 2018 Oct;41[10]:951-8). A recent small nationwide cohort study in France suggests this may also be true of levonorgestrel delivered by intrauterine devices (IUD) and the association may be dose-dependent (Roland N et al. JAMA. 2023;329[3]:257-9).

Of note, a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found a nearly twofold risk of suicide attempt and over threefold risk of suicide among women taking hormonal contraception compared with women who had never used hormonal contraceptives (Skovlund et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Nov 17:appiajp201717060616).
 

Knowledge gaps make drawing conclusions difficult

The latest information on use of antidepressant and antianxiety medications in women of reproductive age (18-44 years) is sparse and, in some cases, outdated. According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 18.6% of adult women 18 years or older reported using antidepressant medications within the last 30 days in 2017-2018, an increase from 13.8% in 2009-2010. Among women aged 15-44 year with private employer–sponsored insurance surveyed during 2008-2013, the results showed 15.4% of women filled a prescription for an antidepressant. We must look back further to find data on antianxiety medication use among women aged 18-44 years where use of antianxiety drugs (anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics) was 4.3% between 2005 and 2008.

A lack of literature in this area is likely due to significant underreporting, and an inability to select patients who are sensitive to or at risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms resulting from hormonal contraception use because the true pathophysiology is unknown. Existing studies tend to use varying methods to assess mood changes, and do not usually specify hormonal contraceptive use type in their analyses (Schaffir J et al. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Oct;21[5]:347-55).

Studies of this nature also require large sample sizes, but the percentage of women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use has historically been relatively small. In the late 1990s, Rosenberg and colleagues found 46% of 1,657 women discontinued oral contraceptives due to side effects within 6 months of starting a new prescription; of these women, 5% reported mood changes as their reason for discontinuing oral contraceptives (Rosenberg M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;179[3 Pt 1]:577-82).

One might expect that, as lower dosage combined hormonal contraceptives were developed in the 1980s, that the rate of reporting psychological side effects would continue to decrease as well. Yet greater awareness of the potential for mood changes while on “the pill” as outlined by the lay press and social media may be leading to increased reporting of neuropsychiatric effects in women. In a recent cross-sectional survey of 188 women in New York, 43.6% said they experienced mood changes while on hormonal contraceptives, and 61.2% of women with histories of psychiatric illness reported mood changes they attributed to hormonal contraceptives (Martell S et al. Contracept Reprod Med. 2023;8:9).

Martell and colleagues found 48.3% of women cited side effects as a reason for discontinuing hormonal contraception, and 43 participants mentioned psychological side effects unprompted, including 2 patients with suicidal thoughts. The authors said this suggests “psychological side effects, at least in part, may have impacted” HC users’ decisions to switch from OCPs to an alternative method of contraception.

It is also not clear what risk factors exist for women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use. First, it is important to note that both progestin-only contraceptives and combined hormonal contraceptives are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 as having no restrictions for use, including among patients with depression. While women in a smaller subgroup have significant neuropsychiatric symptoms related to their hormonal contraceptives, the underlying mechanism is unknown, and is thought to be largely related to the progestogen component of combined hormonal contraceptives or progestogen-only contraceptives (Mu E. Aust Prescr. 2022 Jun; 45[3]:75-9). We know that some women are hormone sensitive, while others are less so, and some not at all. Progestogens could affect mood as a direct action of the progestogen, because progestogens can be neurosteroids, or the progestogen effect could be mediated secondarily through a change in that woman’s own production of or bioavailability of androgens or naturally occurring estrogens (Giatti S. J Mol Endocrinol. 2016 Aug;57[2]:R109-26).

Here, we also find that currently available evidence limits our ability to draw firm conclusions. A study by Berry-Bibee and colleagues found a “low concern for clinically significant interactions” between hormonal contraception and psychotropic drugs, but was limited by quality/quantity of evidence (Berry-Bibee E et al. Contraception. 2016 Dec;94[6]:650-67). Interestingly, a study by Robinson and colleagues from the mid-2000s posited based on low evidence that “psychological response to the practice of contraception” was a potential explanation for the side effect profile of hormonal contraception (Robinson S et al. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63[2]:268-73).

Further, it may be that women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) might be selected for oral contraceptives, and they are predisposed to other neuropsychiatric problems. Estimates have placed the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, major depression, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder as high as 70% for women with PMDD (Sepede G et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:415-26). This phenomenon is not new, having been characterized in the lay literature nearly 20 years ago, by endocrinologist Geoffrey P. Redmond, MD (Redmond GP. The Hormonally Vulnerable Woman. New York: HarperCollins; 2005).

While the cause is not exactly idiosyncratic, there do appear to be some women who are more sensitive, either mood-related or otherwise, directly or indirectly to their contraceptive progestogens in terms of mood. They tend to have an entire spectrum of responses to the progestogens in combined or progestin-only contraceptives, ranging from just a flattened affect – which could easily be explained by their flattened level of endogenous hormones – to frank depression. Their frank depression, in turn, can be demonstrated to include suicidal ideation and actual suicide.

Compounding this issue is a woman’s perception of her sexuality. Some women with low sexual desire or sexual problems who are younger may have more distress about their problems compared with women of older reproductive age. While the reason for that is not clear, it may be that in the sexual arena, it is more important for some younger women to be a sexual person than in perimenopausal women, or that women who are younger are more likely to be partnered than women of older reproductive age. While the European Society of Sexual Medicine concluded in a 2019 position statement that there is inconclusive evidence whether hormonal contraception may be contributing to changes in sexual desire and sexual dysfunction, it appears that “a minority of women” experience “better or worse sexual functioning” from taking combined oral contraceptives (Both S et al. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16[11]:1681-95), suggesting that the majority of women report no significant changes.
 

Practitioners should discuss mood effects during consultation

An ob.gyn., primary care physicians, or others with prescriptive authority (i.e. nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in clinical practice may encounter a patient who seems to have mood side effects owing to progestogen-containing contraceptives that they prescribe. However, many ob.gyns. are likely unaware of the prevalence, or that some of those same patients can have such significant mood effects that they would become or are suicidal.

I believe questioning patients about mood effects during consultation and particularly during follow-up following the initiation of any hormonal contraceptive is worth a passing comment for every patient, which should include mood effects in broader discussion for anyone currently using an antidepressant, patients with a history of antidepressant use, and patients who have considered suicide. As we do with other drugs, these questions can be posed in the form of a questionnaire followed up by the practitioner in counseling.

Practitioners who encounter a patient with mood changes as a result of hormonal contraceptive use can consider changing to a nonhormonal method of birth control, or recommending the patient use a barrier method during sexual activity, as none of these options have neuropsychiatric side effects.

Ultimately, practitioners of all types need to engage in shared decision-making to identify the key benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptive use for each patient, which may involve trial and error to determine the ideal treatment. It is critical that practitioners of all types strike a balance between alleviating patient concerns about potential mood changes, monitoring patients with an appreciable risk of mood changes, and continuing patients on hormonal contraception for whom the benefits outweigh the risks.
 

Dr. Simon is a clinical professor at George Washington University and the medical director and founder of IntimMedicine Specialists in Washington, which provides patient-focused care for women across the reproductive life cycle. He is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Simon has been a consultant to, received grant and research support from, and served on the speakers bureau for various pharmaceutical companies that develop combination hormonal contraceptives. Email Dr. Simon at obnews@mdedge.com.

Since its introduction in 1950, the combined oral contraceptive pill has been used by countless women as a method for birth control (Liao P. Can Fam Physician. 2012 Dec; 58[12]:e757-e760).

Hormonal contraception (HC) provides women with both contraceptive and noncontraceptive benefits, most notably a method for avoiding unintended pregnancy. In addition to being an effective method of contraception, oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are well established for treating conditions such as hirsutism, pain symptoms associated with endometriosis and adenomyosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease, among others (Schindler A. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Winter;11[1]:41-7).

IntimMedicine Specialists

Combined hormonal contraceptives are also first-line treatment for women with menstrual disorders, and in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, can offer an effective long-term method to regulate their menstrual cycle, decrease androgens, clear up oily skin and acne, and reduce facial hair while also providing them with effective contraception (de Melo et al. Open Access J Contracept. 2017;8:13-23).
 

Associations between ‘the pill’ and mood effects remain controversial

More than 100 million women worldwide use hormonal contraceptives today, yet despite this, the data are mixed regarding the prevalence and extent of neuropsychiatric symptoms and mood changes associated with use of “the pill.” Some studies show combined oral contraceptives are associated with a decrease in general well-being, but had no effect on depression, in women compared with placebo (Zethraeus N et al. Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107[5]:1238-45).

However, a large Danish study published in JAMA Psychiatry of more than 1 million women found a significant association between use of hormonal contraception and antidepressant use or first diagnosis of depression, with adolescents having a higher rate of first depression diagnosis and antidepressant use compared with women 20–30 years old (Skovlund C et al. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Nov 1;73[11]:1154-62).

Studies have also shown long-term exposure to levonorgestrel is significantly associated with anxiety and sleep problems in women without a history of these issues (Slattery J et al. Drug Saf. 2018 Oct;41[10]:951-8). A recent small nationwide cohort study in France suggests this may also be true of levonorgestrel delivered by intrauterine devices (IUD) and the association may be dose-dependent (Roland N et al. JAMA. 2023;329[3]:257-9).

Of note, a study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry found a nearly twofold risk of suicide attempt and over threefold risk of suicide among women taking hormonal contraception compared with women who had never used hormonal contraceptives (Skovlund et al. Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Nov 17:appiajp201717060616).
 

Knowledge gaps make drawing conclusions difficult

The latest information on use of antidepressant and antianxiety medications in women of reproductive age (18-44 years) is sparse and, in some cases, outdated. According to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 18.6% of adult women 18 years or older reported using antidepressant medications within the last 30 days in 2017-2018, an increase from 13.8% in 2009-2010. Among women aged 15-44 year with private employer–sponsored insurance surveyed during 2008-2013, the results showed 15.4% of women filled a prescription for an antidepressant. We must look back further to find data on antianxiety medication use among women aged 18-44 years where use of antianxiety drugs (anxiolytics, sedatives, and hypnotics) was 4.3% between 2005 and 2008.

A lack of literature in this area is likely due to significant underreporting, and an inability to select patients who are sensitive to or at risk of developing neuropsychiatric symptoms resulting from hormonal contraception use because the true pathophysiology is unknown. Existing studies tend to use varying methods to assess mood changes, and do not usually specify hormonal contraceptive use type in their analyses (Schaffir J et al. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016 Oct;21[5]:347-55).

Studies of this nature also require large sample sizes, but the percentage of women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use has historically been relatively small. In the late 1990s, Rosenberg and colleagues found 46% of 1,657 women discontinued oral contraceptives due to side effects within 6 months of starting a new prescription; of these women, 5% reported mood changes as their reason for discontinuing oral contraceptives (Rosenberg M et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Sep;179[3 Pt 1]:577-82).

One might expect that, as lower dosage combined hormonal contraceptives were developed in the 1980s, that the rate of reporting psychological side effects would continue to decrease as well. Yet greater awareness of the potential for mood changes while on “the pill” as outlined by the lay press and social media may be leading to increased reporting of neuropsychiatric effects in women. In a recent cross-sectional survey of 188 women in New York, 43.6% said they experienced mood changes while on hormonal contraceptives, and 61.2% of women with histories of psychiatric illness reported mood changes they attributed to hormonal contraceptives (Martell S et al. Contracept Reprod Med. 2023;8:9).

Martell and colleagues found 48.3% of women cited side effects as a reason for discontinuing hormonal contraception, and 43 participants mentioned psychological side effects unprompted, including 2 patients with suicidal thoughts. The authors said this suggests “psychological side effects, at least in part, may have impacted” HC users’ decisions to switch from OCPs to an alternative method of contraception.

It is also not clear what risk factors exist for women who develop neuropsychiatric symptoms from hormonal contraceptive use. First, it is important to note that both progestin-only contraceptives and combined hormonal contraceptives are classified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 as having no restrictions for use, including among patients with depression. While women in a smaller subgroup have significant neuropsychiatric symptoms related to their hormonal contraceptives, the underlying mechanism is unknown, and is thought to be largely related to the progestogen component of combined hormonal contraceptives or progestogen-only contraceptives (Mu E. Aust Prescr. 2022 Jun; 45[3]:75-9). We know that some women are hormone sensitive, while others are less so, and some not at all. Progestogens could affect mood as a direct action of the progestogen, because progestogens can be neurosteroids, or the progestogen effect could be mediated secondarily through a change in that woman’s own production of or bioavailability of androgens or naturally occurring estrogens (Giatti S. J Mol Endocrinol. 2016 Aug;57[2]:R109-26).

Here, we also find that currently available evidence limits our ability to draw firm conclusions. A study by Berry-Bibee and colleagues found a “low concern for clinically significant interactions” between hormonal contraception and psychotropic drugs, but was limited by quality/quantity of evidence (Berry-Bibee E et al. Contraception. 2016 Dec;94[6]:650-67). Interestingly, a study by Robinson and colleagues from the mid-2000s posited based on low evidence that “psychological response to the practice of contraception” was a potential explanation for the side effect profile of hormonal contraception (Robinson S et al. Med Hypotheses. 2004;63[2]:268-73).

Further, it may be that women with premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) might be selected for oral contraceptives, and they are predisposed to other neuropsychiatric problems. Estimates have placed the prevalence of comorbid psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, major depression, bipolar disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder as high as 70% for women with PMDD (Sepede G et al. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:415-26). This phenomenon is not new, having been characterized in the lay literature nearly 20 years ago, by endocrinologist Geoffrey P. Redmond, MD (Redmond GP. The Hormonally Vulnerable Woman. New York: HarperCollins; 2005).

While the cause is not exactly idiosyncratic, there do appear to be some women who are more sensitive, either mood-related or otherwise, directly or indirectly to their contraceptive progestogens in terms of mood. They tend to have an entire spectrum of responses to the progestogens in combined or progestin-only contraceptives, ranging from just a flattened affect – which could easily be explained by their flattened level of endogenous hormones – to frank depression. Their frank depression, in turn, can be demonstrated to include suicidal ideation and actual suicide.

Compounding this issue is a woman’s perception of her sexuality. Some women with low sexual desire or sexual problems who are younger may have more distress about their problems compared with women of older reproductive age. While the reason for that is not clear, it may be that in the sexual arena, it is more important for some younger women to be a sexual person than in perimenopausal women, or that women who are younger are more likely to be partnered than women of older reproductive age. While the European Society of Sexual Medicine concluded in a 2019 position statement that there is inconclusive evidence whether hormonal contraception may be contributing to changes in sexual desire and sexual dysfunction, it appears that “a minority of women” experience “better or worse sexual functioning” from taking combined oral contraceptives (Both S et al. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16[11]:1681-95), suggesting that the majority of women report no significant changes.
 

Practitioners should discuss mood effects during consultation

An ob.gyn., primary care physicians, or others with prescriptive authority (i.e. nurse practitioners and physician assistants) in clinical practice may encounter a patient who seems to have mood side effects owing to progestogen-containing contraceptives that they prescribe. However, many ob.gyns. are likely unaware of the prevalence, or that some of those same patients can have such significant mood effects that they would become or are suicidal.

I believe questioning patients about mood effects during consultation and particularly during follow-up following the initiation of any hormonal contraceptive is worth a passing comment for every patient, which should include mood effects in broader discussion for anyone currently using an antidepressant, patients with a history of antidepressant use, and patients who have considered suicide. As we do with other drugs, these questions can be posed in the form of a questionnaire followed up by the practitioner in counseling.

Practitioners who encounter a patient with mood changes as a result of hormonal contraceptive use can consider changing to a nonhormonal method of birth control, or recommending the patient use a barrier method during sexual activity, as none of these options have neuropsychiatric side effects.

Ultimately, practitioners of all types need to engage in shared decision-making to identify the key benefits and risks of hormonal contraceptive use for each patient, which may involve trial and error to determine the ideal treatment. It is critical that practitioners of all types strike a balance between alleviating patient concerns about potential mood changes, monitoring patients with an appreciable risk of mood changes, and continuing patients on hormonal contraception for whom the benefits outweigh the risks.
 

Dr. Simon is a clinical professor at George Washington University and the medical director and founder of IntimMedicine Specialists in Washington, which provides patient-focused care for women across the reproductive life cycle. He is a past president of the International Society for the Study of Women’s Sexual Health and the North American Menopause Society. Dr. Simon has been a consultant to, received grant and research support from, and served on the speakers bureau for various pharmaceutical companies that develop combination hormonal contraceptives. Email Dr. Simon at obnews@mdedge.com.

Before reading this editorial and concluding that the author (me) has lost his grip on reality, I would ask that you consider the facts I provide below and the ramifications incurred by your patients and practices, due to the misbehaviors adopted by the health insurance industry.

• Two of the most common issues discussed in today’s health care environment are revenue generation and provider/staff burnout.

While these issues are impacted by several factors, one of the most common denominators is increasing administrative workloads driven by non–revenue-generating activities. Consider this:

• A recent American Medical Association survey pointed out that during the course of the average workweek, a physician completes an average of 37 prior authorization requests. Physicians and their staff spend an average of 16.4 hours per week completing prior authorization requirements for patient medicines, procedures, and medical services that they may need.¹
• While physicians report that about 65% of prior authorizations take only 1 day, they report that 26% take 3 or more days.²

The potential significance of the generated delays

While this may not seem like a long time (other than the impact it has on staff workload), consider the impact this can have on the patient if the medication being requested is: PrEP, the morning after pill, or other contraceptives? The consequences of the delay or denial could be a lifetime living with HIV, or an unintended pregnancy. This is to say nothing on the larger impact to family, partners, and the potential social stigma faced by all.

Beyond the personal costs and costs within your practice associated with the additional workload, consider the financial costs. The average cost to complete a prior authorization remains the single highest cost for the health care industry at $13.40 per manual transaction, and $7.19 per partially electronic web portal transaction,³ meaning that if I did only one prescription per week, I probably would not mind, but at $13.40 per prior authorization, this burden amounts to millions, actually $767 million by recent estimates.³ Additionally, if you factor in the number of denials and potential follow-ups, this creates a significant amount of waste and spending.

Ultimately, in my experience, I have found that most prior authorizations are simply unnecessary. Here, I’ve picked key examples from just my own recent experiences:

1. My patient was denied access to a particular birth control pill she had been on successfully before, and my office was told she needed to try and fail on 5 different generic pills before she could be approved. However, the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA; aka Obamacare) Contraceptive Mandate requires coverage of all contraceptives determined to be most appropriate between a patient and their provider (see below).
2. A menopausal patient was denied coverage twice (electronically) for generic micronized progesterone, and I was asked to write a letter of appeal because the insurance company wanted me to use medroxyprogesterone acetate instead. Polling my nearby retail independent pharmacy, the total cost difference per year was $19.96 savings/year ($47.01 ‒ $27.05 = $19.96). My pharmacist did note it could have been a different amount at a large chain pharmacy. Really? I had to write a letter, following two denials, to save less than $20, for a full year!
3. A 78-year-old patient using Prolia for severe osteoporosis and preexisting fractures was delayed in getting her next Prolia injection due to a prior authorization snafu. She ended up with multiple additional fractures, a well-described effect of the increase in bone turnover when stopping or delaying this medication. She is now disabled.
4. A 94-year-old patient was sent an email reminder to get the medical practice to authorize a refill of ileostomy bags. The email went to spam, and the patient ran out of bags prior to a holiday weekend. I got them in 2 days on Amazon Prime. But who emails a 94-year-old? And ileostomy bags! When does anyone stop needing ileostomy bags?
5. I requested a prior authorization for Orilissa (clearly off label) because a severely progestogen-sensitive patient (augmented depression) with severe premenstrual dysphoric disorder requiring hospitalization was thought by her psychiatrist to be better off without menstrual periods. I completed the proper paperwork, two electronic appeals, and a letter of explanation including available references on the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for such patients. I was then told I would need to have a peer-to-peer discussion, so I filled out that paperwork, which clearly noted that I am a board-certified reproductive endocrinologist. I got a phone call a few days later by a pleasant, young-sounding pediatric rheumatologist. Our interaction did not go well for him. This was not peer-to-peer!

Let us be clear, prior authorizations have nothing to do with patient care. In fact, they are solely about the money. We in ObGyn have mostly inexpensive and generic products, but even that fact has not lowered the excessive burden of the prior authorization process. In the case of contraception, whether you like the ACA or not it is the law, and it contains specific provisions regarding contraception. With the goals of providing broad access to patients and incentives to developers for new and novel contraceptive methods, these provisions require insurers to cover, without cost-sharing, women’s preventive services including the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives (currently 18 different method categories), and additional methods identified by the FDA as they become available. Further, providers must have an easily accessible, transparent, and sufficiently expedient exceptions process that is not unduly burdensome on the individual or a provider (or other individuals acting as a patient’s authorized representative).

And while I can regale you with chapter and verse and citations of the legal precedent and language, it boils down to this:

• The AMA reported that medical practices spend an average of 2 business days a week per physician to comply with health plans’ inefficient and overused prior-authorization protocols.⁴ To keep up with the administrative burden, 2 out of 5 physicians (40%) employ staff members who work exclusively on tasks associated with prior authorization.⁴
• About 86% of practices reported an increased burden of prior authorizations in the last 5 years.⁵

Continue to: What is to be done?

I do have suggested solutions. Given the insurance industry’s complete lack of progress in voluntarily reducing the burdens of prior authorizations agreed to in their consensus statement with the AMA, American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Pharmacists Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and the Medical Group Management Association, I say, why not fine them? The AMA is calling on Congress to pass legislation that would codify much of the agreement, in which the above parties had already agreed that reforms were needed to reduce prior authorization burdens and enhance patient-centered care.⁶

A good model for enforcement via fines could be based on the old “incident to” rules of Medicare. These state that a physician needs to be “in the space” when advanced practice nurses or physician assistants see Medicare recipients. If they are not actually “in the space” they are subject to a fine. As a completely theoretical example, let’s say the claim was for $100. The practitioner would have to pay it back plus triple that amount in damages, or $400. They can also be fined up to $11,000 per claim and kick you out of Medicare and Medicaid. Take my example of Prolia from above…a single shot of Prolia is about $1,000. The insurer would theoretically have to pay $14,000/claim (the claim + triple damages + $11,000) if it was determined that the prior authorization was unnecessary. Seems about right to me. Or we could just sit the health insurance CEOs and their proxies in the corner on 2-foot-tall plastic Little Tikes® chairs for a “timeout” (dunce cap optional), like the outset of the article says.

Until the detrimental prior authorization process is challenged at all levels, we will continue to see and feel the effects of the harm it causes. Being able to drive change through advocacy and education is the best way we as clinicians can impact not just the future of health care but provide for the daily care of our patients who depend on and trust us to provide for their medical needs. We must be the impactors of change for ourselves, colleagues, staff, and profession if we are to really make advancements into the future.

Oh…and health insurance CEOs and their proxies, to get out of their “time-out” would still be entitled to one phone call to beg forgiveness from their mommies/daddies, priest/ rabbi/pastor, psychologist/psychiatrist/mystic healer, etc., but alas, the average wait time is an hour, and if anyone answers the phone, they have a grade school education used in following an irrelevant algorithm. ●

Before reading this editorial and concluding that the author (me) has lost his grip on reality, I would ask that you consider the facts I provide below and the ramifications incurred by your patients and practices, due to the misbehaviors adopted by the health insurance industry.

• Two of the most common issues discussed in today’s health care environment are revenue generation and provider/staff burnout.

While these issues are impacted by several factors, one of the most common denominators is increasing administrative workloads driven by non–revenue-generating activities. Consider this:

• A recent American Medical Association survey pointed out that during the course of the average workweek, a physician completes an average of 37 prior authorization requests. Physicians and their staff spend an average of 16.4 hours per week completing prior authorization requirements for patient medicines, procedures, and medical services that they may need.¹
• While physicians report that about 65% of prior authorizations take only 1 day, they report that 26% take 3 or more days.²

The potential significance of the generated delays

While this may not seem like a long time (other than the impact it has on staff workload), consider the impact this can have on the patient if the medication being requested is: PrEP, the morning after pill, or other contraceptives? The consequences of the delay or denial could be a lifetime living with HIV, or an unintended pregnancy. This is to say nothing on the larger impact to family, partners, and the potential social stigma faced by all.

Beyond the personal costs and costs within your practice associated with the additional workload, consider the financial costs. The average cost to complete a prior authorization remains the single highest cost for the health care industry at $13.40 per manual transaction, and $7.19 per partially electronic web portal transaction,³ meaning that if I did only one prescription per week, I probably would not mind, but at $13.40 per prior authorization, this burden amounts to millions, actually $767 million by recent estimates.³ Additionally, if you factor in the number of denials and potential follow-ups, this creates a significant amount of waste and spending.

Ultimately, in my experience, I have found that most prior authorizations are simply unnecessary. Here, I’ve picked key examples from just my own recent experiences:

1. My patient was denied access to a particular birth control pill she had been on successfully before, and my office was told she needed to try and fail on 5 different generic pills before she could be approved. However, the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA; aka Obamacare) Contraceptive Mandate requires coverage of all contraceptives determined to be most appropriate between a patient and their provider (see below).
2. A menopausal patient was denied coverage twice (electronically) for generic micronized progesterone, and I was asked to write a letter of appeal because the insurance company wanted me to use medroxyprogesterone acetate instead. Polling my nearby retail independent pharmacy, the total cost difference per year was $19.96 savings/year ($47.01 ‒ $27.05 = $19.96). My pharmacist did note it could have been a different amount at a large chain pharmacy. Really? I had to write a letter, following two denials, to save less than $20, for a full year!
3. A 78-year-old patient using Prolia for severe osteoporosis and preexisting fractures was delayed in getting her next Prolia injection due to a prior authorization snafu. She ended up with multiple additional fractures, a well-described effect of the increase in bone turnover when stopping or delaying this medication. She is now disabled.
4. A 94-year-old patient was sent an email reminder to get the medical practice to authorize a refill of ileostomy bags. The email went to spam, and the patient ran out of bags prior to a holiday weekend. I got them in 2 days on Amazon Prime. But who emails a 94-year-old? And ileostomy bags! When does anyone stop needing ileostomy bags?
5. I requested a prior authorization for Orilissa (clearly off label) because a severely progestogen-sensitive patient (augmented depression) with severe premenstrual dysphoric disorder requiring hospitalization was thought by her psychiatrist to be better off without menstrual periods. I completed the proper paperwork, two electronic appeals, and a letter of explanation including available references on the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for such patients. I was then told I would need to have a peer-to-peer discussion, so I filled out that paperwork, which clearly noted that I am a board-certified reproductive endocrinologist. I got a phone call a few days later by a pleasant, young-sounding pediatric rheumatologist. Our interaction did not go well for him. This was not peer-to-peer!

Let us be clear, prior authorizations have nothing to do with patient care. In fact, they are solely about the money. We in ObGyn have mostly inexpensive and generic products, but even that fact has not lowered the excessive burden of the prior authorization process. In the case of contraception, whether you like the ACA or not it is the law, and it contains specific provisions regarding contraception. With the goals of providing broad access to patients and incentives to developers for new and novel contraceptive methods, these provisions require insurers to cover, without cost-sharing, women’s preventive services including the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives (currently 18 different method categories), and additional methods identified by the FDA as they become available. Further, providers must have an easily accessible, transparent, and sufficiently expedient exceptions process that is not unduly burdensome on the individual or a provider (or other individuals acting as a patient’s authorized representative).

And while I can regale you with chapter and verse and citations of the legal precedent and language, it boils down to this:

• The AMA reported that medical practices spend an average of 2 business days a week per physician to comply with health plans’ inefficient and overused prior-authorization protocols.⁴ To keep up with the administrative burden, 2 out of 5 physicians (40%) employ staff members who work exclusively on tasks associated with prior authorization.⁴
• About 86% of practices reported an increased burden of prior authorizations in the last 5 years.⁵

Continue to: What is to be done?

I do have suggested solutions. Given the insurance industry’s complete lack of progress in voluntarily reducing the burdens of prior authorizations agreed to in their consensus statement with the AMA, American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Pharmacists Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and the Medical Group Management Association, I say, why not fine them? The AMA is calling on Congress to pass legislation that would codify much of the agreement, in which the above parties had already agreed that reforms were needed to reduce prior authorization burdens and enhance patient-centered care.⁶

A good model for enforcement via fines could be based on the old “incident to” rules of Medicare. These state that a physician needs to be “in the space” when advanced practice nurses or physician assistants see Medicare recipients. If they are not actually “in the space” they are subject to a fine. As a completely theoretical example, let’s say the claim was for $100. The practitioner would have to pay it back plus triple that amount in damages, or $400. They can also be fined up to $11,000 per claim and kick you out of Medicare and Medicaid. Take my example of Prolia from above…a single shot of Prolia is about $1,000. The insurer would theoretically have to pay $14,000/claim (the claim + triple damages + $11,000) if it was determined that the prior authorization was unnecessary. Seems about right to me. Or we could just sit the health insurance CEOs and their proxies in the corner on 2-foot-tall plastic Little Tikes® chairs for a “timeout” (dunce cap optional), like the outset of the article says.

Until the detrimental prior authorization process is challenged at all levels, we will continue to see and feel the effects of the harm it causes. Being able to drive change through advocacy and education is the best way we as clinicians can impact not just the future of health care but provide for the daily care of our patients who depend on and trust us to provide for their medical needs. We must be the impactors of change for ourselves, colleagues, staff, and profession if we are to really make advancements into the future.

Oh…and health insurance CEOs and their proxies, to get out of their “time-out” would still be entitled to one phone call to beg forgiveness from their mommies/daddies, priest/ rabbi/pastor, psychologist/psychiatrist/mystic healer, etc., but alas, the average wait time is an hour, and if anyone answers the phone, they have a grade school education used in following an irrelevant algorithm. ●

Before reading this editorial and concluding that the author (me) has lost his grip on reality, I would ask that you consider the facts I provide below and the ramifications incurred by your patients and practices, due to the misbehaviors adopted by the health insurance industry.

• Two of the most common issues discussed in today’s health care environment are revenue generation and provider/staff burnout.

While these issues are impacted by several factors, one of the most common denominators is increasing administrative workloads driven by non–revenue-generating activities. Consider this:

• A recent American Medical Association survey pointed out that during the course of the average workweek, a physician completes an average of 37 prior authorization requests. Physicians and their staff spend an average of 16.4 hours per week completing prior authorization requirements for patient medicines, procedures, and medical services that they may need.¹
• While physicians report that about 65% of prior authorizations take only 1 day, they report that 26% take 3 or more days.²

The potential significance of the generated delays

While this may not seem like a long time (other than the impact it has on staff workload), consider the impact this can have on the patient if the medication being requested is: PrEP, the morning after pill, or other contraceptives? The consequences of the delay or denial could be a lifetime living with HIV, or an unintended pregnancy. This is to say nothing on the larger impact to family, partners, and the potential social stigma faced by all.

Beyond the personal costs and costs within your practice associated with the additional workload, consider the financial costs. The average cost to complete a prior authorization remains the single highest cost for the health care industry at $13.40 per manual transaction, and $7.19 per partially electronic web portal transaction,³ meaning that if I did only one prescription per week, I probably would not mind, but at $13.40 per prior authorization, this burden amounts to millions, actually $767 million by recent estimates.³ Additionally, if you factor in the number of denials and potential follow-ups, this creates a significant amount of waste and spending.

Ultimately, in my experience, I have found that most prior authorizations are simply unnecessary. Here, I’ve picked key examples from just my own recent experiences:

1. My patient was denied access to a particular birth control pill she had been on successfully before, and my office was told she needed to try and fail on 5 different generic pills before she could be approved. However, the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA; aka Obamacare) Contraceptive Mandate requires coverage of all contraceptives determined to be most appropriate between a patient and their provider (see below).
2. A menopausal patient was denied coverage twice (electronically) for generic micronized progesterone, and I was asked to write a letter of appeal because the insurance company wanted me to use medroxyprogesterone acetate instead. Polling my nearby retail independent pharmacy, the total cost difference per year was $19.96 savings/year ($47.01 ‒ $27.05 = $19.96). My pharmacist did note it could have been a different amount at a large chain pharmacy. Really? I had to write a letter, following two denials, to save less than $20, for a full year!
3. A 78-year-old patient using Prolia for severe osteoporosis and preexisting fractures was delayed in getting her next Prolia injection due to a prior authorization snafu. She ended up with multiple additional fractures, a well-described effect of the increase in bone turnover when stopping or delaying this medication. She is now disabled.
4. A 94-year-old patient was sent an email reminder to get the medical practice to authorize a refill of ileostomy bags. The email went to spam, and the patient ran out of bags prior to a holiday weekend. I got them in 2 days on Amazon Prime. But who emails a 94-year-old? And ileostomy bags! When does anyone stop needing ileostomy bags?
5. I requested a prior authorization for Orilissa (clearly off label) because a severely progestogen-sensitive patient (augmented depression) with severe premenstrual dysphoric disorder requiring hospitalization was thought by her psychiatrist to be better off without menstrual periods. I completed the proper paperwork, two electronic appeals, and a letter of explanation including available references on the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues for such patients. I was then told I would need to have a peer-to-peer discussion, so I filled out that paperwork, which clearly noted that I am a board-certified reproductive endocrinologist. I got a phone call a few days later by a pleasant, young-sounding pediatric rheumatologist. Our interaction did not go well for him. This was not peer-to-peer!

Let us be clear, prior authorizations have nothing to do with patient care. In fact, they are solely about the money. We in ObGyn have mostly inexpensive and generic products, but even that fact has not lowered the excessive burden of the prior authorization process. In the case of contraception, whether you like the ACA or not it is the law, and it contains specific provisions regarding contraception. With the goals of providing broad access to patients and incentives to developers for new and novel contraceptive methods, these provisions require insurers to cover, without cost-sharing, women’s preventive services including the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives (currently 18 different method categories), and additional methods identified by the FDA as they become available. Further, providers must have an easily accessible, transparent, and sufficiently expedient exceptions process that is not unduly burdensome on the individual or a provider (or other individuals acting as a patient’s authorized representative).

And while I can regale you with chapter and verse and citations of the legal precedent and language, it boils down to this:

• The AMA reported that medical practices spend an average of 2 business days a week per physician to comply with health plans’ inefficient and overused prior-authorization protocols.⁴ To keep up with the administrative burden, 2 out of 5 physicians (40%) employ staff members who work exclusively on tasks associated with prior authorization.⁴
• About 86% of practices reported an increased burden of prior authorizations in the last 5 years.⁵

Continue to: What is to be done?

I do have suggested solutions. Given the insurance industry’s complete lack of progress in voluntarily reducing the burdens of prior authorizations agreed to in their consensus statement with the AMA, American Hospital Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, American Pharmacists Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and the Medical Group Management Association, I say, why not fine them? The AMA is calling on Congress to pass legislation that would codify much of the agreement, in which the above parties had already agreed that reforms were needed to reduce prior authorization burdens and enhance patient-centered care.⁶

A good model for enforcement via fines could be based on the old “incident to” rules of Medicare. These state that a physician needs to be “in the space” when advanced practice nurses or physician assistants see Medicare recipients. If they are not actually “in the space” they are subject to a fine. As a completely theoretical example, let’s say the claim was for $100. The practitioner would have to pay it back plus triple that amount in damages, or $400. They can also be fined up to $11,000 per claim and kick you out of Medicare and Medicaid. Take my example of Prolia from above…a single shot of Prolia is about $1,000. The insurer would theoretically have to pay $14,000/claim (the claim + triple damages + $11,000) if it was determined that the prior authorization was unnecessary. Seems about right to me. Or we could just sit the health insurance CEOs and their proxies in the corner on 2-foot-tall plastic Little Tikes® chairs for a “timeout” (dunce cap optional), like the outset of the article says.

Until the detrimental prior authorization process is challenged at all levels, we will continue to see and feel the effects of the harm it causes. Being able to drive change through advocacy and education is the best way we as clinicians can impact not just the future of health care but provide for the daily care of our patients who depend on and trust us to provide for their medical needs. We must be the impactors of change for ourselves, colleagues, staff, and profession if we are to really make advancements into the future.

Oh…and health insurance CEOs and their proxies, to get out of their “time-out” would still be entitled to one phone call to beg forgiveness from their mommies/daddies, priest/ rabbi/pastor, psychologist/psychiatrist/mystic healer, etc., but alas, the average wait time is an hour, and if anyone answers the phone, they have a grade school education used in following an irrelevant algorithm. ●