Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25154930›Full record

ArticleCancer2014

Impact of state-specific Medicaid reimbursement and eligibility policies on receipt of cancer screening.

Michael T Halpern, Melissa A Romaire, Susan G Haber, Florence K Tangka, Susan A Sabatino, David H Howard

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
20.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. The role of advanced technologies in improving diabetes outcomes.The American journal of managed care · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Enhancing Health Equity Through Cancer Health Economics Research.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Initiation of Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Medicaid Enrollees.American journal of preventive medicine · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Impact of Insurance Status on Stage, Treatment, and Survival in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Michael T HalpernRTI International, Washington, DC.
Melissa A Romaire
Susan G Haber
Florence K Tangka
Susan A Sabatino
David H Howard
RTI International · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USEmory University · US

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough state Medicaid programs cover cancer screening, Medicaid beneficiaries are less likely to be screened for cancer and are more likely to present with tumors of an advanced stage than are those with other insurance. The current study was performed to determine whether state Medicaid eligibility and reimbursement policies affect the receipt of breast, cervical, and colon cancer screening among Medicaid beneficiaries.

methodsCross-sectional regression analyses of 2007 Medicaid data from 46 states and the District of Columbia were performed to examine associations between state-specific Medicaid reimbursement/eligibility policies and receipt of cancer screening. The study sample included individuals aged 21 years to 64 years who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicaid for at least 4 months. Subsamples eligible for each screening test were: Papanicolaou test among 2,136,511 patients, mammography among 792,470 patients, colonoscopy among 769,729 patients, and fecal occult blood test among 753,868 patients. State-specific Medicaid variables included median screening test reimbursement, income/financial asset eligibility requirements, physician copayments, and frequency of eligibility renewal.

resultsIncreases in screening test reimbursement demonstrated mixed associations (positive and negative) with the likelihood of receiving screening tests among Medicaid beneficiaries. In contrast, increased reimbursements for office visits were found to be positively associated with the odds of receiving all screening tests examined, including colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.06-1.08), fecal occult blood test (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10), Papanicolaou test (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03), and mammography (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03). Effects of other state-specific Medicaid policies varied across the screening tests examined.

conclusionsIncreased reimbursement for office visits was consistently associated with an increased likelihood of being screened for cancer, and may be an important policy tool for increasing screening among this vulnerable population.

Indexed as

Eligibility DeterminationMedicaidVulnerable PopulationsAdultBreast NeoplasmsColonic NeoplasmsColonoscopyCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInsurance CoverageMaleMammographyMass Screeningaccess to health carecancer screeningcolonoscopyhealth care disparitieshealth insurance reimbursementmammographyMedicaidPapanicolaou test

Identifiers

PMID25154930
PMCPMC4788961
OpenAlexW1598960382

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.