Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21844812›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2011

Eligibility criteria in private and public coverage policies for BRCA genetic testing and genetic counseling.

Grace Wang, Mary S Beattie, Ninez A Ponce, Kathryn A Phillips

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Self-rated family health history knowledge among All of Us program participants.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. EXAMINING EVIDENCE IN U.S. PAYER COVERAGE POLICIES FOR MULTI-GENE PANELS AND SEQUENCING TESTS.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2017
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Grace WangCenter for Translational and Policy Research on Personalized Medicine (TRANSPERS), Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of California, San Francisco, USA. wangg@pharmacy.ucsf.edu
Mary S Beattie
Ninez A Ponce
Kathryn A Phillips
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Tissue and Outcomes CoreP50CA058207 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MOORE, DAN H · 1992 to 2012
$32.7M
UTILIZATION OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE USING GENOMICSP01CA130818 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI PHILLIPS, KATHRYN A · 2008 to 2010
$5.1M
NCI NIH HHS 2P50 CA058207NCI NIH HHS P01 CA130818NCI NIH HHS P01CA130818NCI NIH HHS P50 CA058207
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose: Coverage policies for genetic services for hereditary cancers are of interest because the services influence cancer risk reduction for both persons with cancer and their family members. We compared coverage policies for BRCA genetic testing and genetic counseling among selected payers in the United States to illuminate eligibility criteria variation that may explain differential access by insurance type. We compared these policies with policies for breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging to consider whether payers apply a unique policy approach to genetic services.

methods: We conducted a case study of large private and public payers selected on number of covered lives. We examined coverage policies for BRCA genetic testing, genetic counseling, and screening with magnetic resonance imaging and the eligibility criteria for each. We compared eligibility criteria against National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

results: Eligibility criteria for BRCA testing were related to personal history and family history of cancer. Although private payers covered BRCA testing for persons with and without cancer, the local Medicare carrier in our study only covered testing for persons with cancer. In contrast, Arizona's Medicaid program did not cover BRCA testing. Few payers had detailed eligibility criteria for genetic counseling. Private payers have more detailed coverage policies for both genetic services and screening with magnetic resonance imaging in comparison with public payers.

conclusion: Despite clinical guidelines establishing standards for BRCA testing, we found differences in coverage policies particularly between private and public payers. Future research and policy discussions can consider how differences in private and public payer policies influence access to genetic technologies and health outcomes.

Indexed as

AdultBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinBreast NeoplasmsEligibility DeterminationFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingHumansInsurance CoverageMagnetic Resonance ImagingMedicaidMedicareMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsReimbursement MechanismsBRCA1 ProteinBRCA1 protein, humanBRCA2 ProteinBRCA2 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID21844812
PMCPMC4537294
OpenAlexW2020350407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.