Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26060224›Full record

ArticleJournal of oncology practice2015

How Do Payers Respond to Regulatory Actions? The Case of Bevacizumab.

Stacie B Dusetzina, Shellie Ellis, Rachel A Freedman, Rena M Conti, Aaron N Winn, James D Chambers, G Caleb Alexander, Haiden A Huskamp, Nancy L Keating

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

9 authors.

Stacie B DusetzinaUNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health; UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, Chapel Hill, NC; University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies; Harvard Medical School; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD Dusetzina@unc.edu.
Shellie EllisUNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health; UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, Chapel Hill, NC; University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies; Harvard Medical School; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Rachel A FreedmanUNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health; UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, Chapel Hill, NC; University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies; Harvard Medical School; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Rena M ContiUNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health; UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, Chapel Hill, NC; University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies; Harvard Medical School; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Aaron N WinnUNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health; UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, Chapel Hill, NC; University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies; Harvard Medical School; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
James D ChambersUNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health; UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, Chapel Hill, NC; University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies; Harvard Medical School; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
G Caleb AlexanderUNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health; UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, Chapel Hill, NC; University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies; Harvard Medical School; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Haiden A HuskampUNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health; UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, Chapel Hill, NC; University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies; Harvard Medical School; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Nancy L KeatingUNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health; UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, Chapel Hill, NC; University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, KS; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Tufts Medical Center Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies; Harvard Medical School; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA; University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Center for Health Policy and Outcomes, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY; and Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD.

Funding

North Carolina Translational & Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)UL1TR001111 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, CAREY, TIMOTHY S · 2013 to 2017
$43.9M
Behavioral Economics and Improving Chemotherapy Decisions for Advanced CancerK24CA181510 · NCI · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI KEATING, NANCY L · 2014 to 2018
$867k
Oncology R&D: Expanding the Role of Economics to Aid Public PolicyK07CA138906 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI CONTI, RENA MARIE · 2009 to 2013
$672k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS0189960NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001111NCI NIH HHS K07 CA138906NCI NIH HHS K24 CA181510
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn February 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for bevacizumab for metastatic breast cancer. After public hearings in July 2010, and June 2011, the FDA revoked this approved indication in November 2011, on the basis of additional evidence regarding its risk/benefit profile. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, local Medicare contractors, and commercial payers varied in their stated intentions to cover bevacizumab after FDA's regulatory actions. We examined payer-specific trends in bevacizumab use after the FDA's regulatory actions.

methodsWe used outpatient medical claims compiled by IMS Health to evaluate trends in bevacizumab use for breast cancer for Medicare-insured and commercially insured patients (N = 102,906) using segmented regression. Given that Medicare coverage policies may vary across regional contractors, we estimated trends in bevacizumab use across 10 local coverage areas. In a sensitivity analysis, we estimated trends in bevacizumab use for breast cancer compared with trends in use for lung cancer using difference-in-differences models.

resultsAmong chemotherapy infusions for breast cancer, bevacizumab use decreased from 31% in July 2010, to 4% in September 2012. Use decreased by 11% among commercially insured and 13% among Medicare-insured patients after July 2010 (interaction P = .68) and continued to decline by 9% per month (interaction P = .61). We observed no contractor-level variation in bevacizumab use among Medicare beneficiaries. During the same period, bevacizumab use for lung cancer was stable.

conclusionAlthough insurers varied in public statements regarding coverage intentions, bevacizumab use declined similarly among all payers, suggesting that provider decision making, rather than payer-specific coverage policies, drove reductions.

Indexed as

Insurance, Health, ReimbursementAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumabBreast NeoplasmsContract ServicesDrug ApprovalFemaleHumansInsurance CoverageInsurance, HealthLung NeoplasmsMedicareMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisPractice Patterns, Physicians'United StatesAngiogenesis InhibitorsBevacizumab

Identifiers

PMID26060224
PMCPMC4507391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.