ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2016
Lessons from state mandates of preventive cancer screenings.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Government regulation of private health insurance.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Socioeconomic Differences in Use of Low-Value Cancer Screenings and Distributional Effects in Medicare.Health services research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We use the 1997-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and variation in the timing of state mandates for coverage of colorectal, cervical, and prostate cancer screenings to investigate the behavioral and financial effects of mandates on privately insured adults. We find that state mandates did not result in increased rates of cancer screening. However, coverage of preventive care, whether mandated or not, moves the cost of care from the consumer's out-of-pocket expense to the premium, resulting in a cross-subsidy of users of the service by non-users. While some cross-subsidies are intentional, others may be unintentional. We find that users of cancer screening have higher levels of income and education, while non-users tend to be racial minorities, lack a usual source of care, and live in communities with fewer physicians per capita. These results suggest that coverage of preventive care may transfer resources from more advantaged individuals to less advantaged individuals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25773049What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.