The Evidence · Peer-reviewed & survey data

Delays are not hypothetical. The harm is documented.

The estimates in this project rest on published evidence: large physician and clinician surveys, a systematic review of U.S. studies, and a meta-analysis of cancer-treatment-delay mortality. Every figure below links to its source. Nothing here attributes a specific death to a named company — survey figures are clinicians reporting outcomes they observed in their own patients.

How to read this page: survey percentages are self-reported by practicing physicians and clinicians; mortality hazard ratios are pooled estimates from peer-reviewed meta-analysis. These describe association and risk, not proven causation in any individual case.

The headline figures

Across independent surveys and reviews, the same signal recurs: prior-authorization delays are routinely associated with serious patient harm, up to and including death. Each card below carries a real, citable source.

What the studies show

From the strongest causal-adjacent evidence (a dose–response mortality meta-analysis) to systematic reviews and large national surveys. Each entry states the finding, the year, and a direct source link.

In their own words

Direct conclusions and summaries from the source authors and institutions.

From evidence to estimate The studies above establish that delay is associated with measurable harm and that each four-week delay carries a roughly 6–13% higher relative risk of death in common cancer indications (Hanna et al., BMJ 2020). The calculator applies those published hazard ratios to a delay length you enter, and the insurer dashboard pairs them with plans' own published decision-time and denial data — turning peer-reviewed association into a transparent, sourced estimate of excess mortality risk.

Open the calculator Read the methodology