Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28030476›Full record

ArticleMedical care2017

Socioeconomic Disparities in Mortality Among Women With Incident Breast Cancer Before and After Implementation of Medicare Part D.

Ann B Nattinger, Erica M Wozniak, Emily L McGinley, Jianing Li, Purushottam Laud, Liliana E Pezzin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pharmaceutical policies: effects of regulating drug insurance schemes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Centralization of Initial Care and Improved Survival of Poor Patients With Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Black Women's Perspectives on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Ann B Nattinger*Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin †Center for Patient Care and Outcomes Research, Medical College of Wisconsin ‡Division of Biostatistics, Institute for Health and Society, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Erica M Wozniak
Emily L McGinley
Jianing Li
Purushottam Laud
Liliana E Pezzin

Funding

Mechanisms Underlying SES Disparities in Breast Cancer MortalityR01CA170945 · NCI · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI NATTINGER, ANN B, PEZZIN, LILIANA E. · 2013 to 2015
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA170945
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer patients exhibit survival disparities based on socioeconomic status (SES). Disparities may be attributable to access to expensive oral endocrine agents.

objectivesDefine recent socioeconomic disparities in breast cancer survival and determine whether these improved after implementation of the Medicare Part D program.

designDifference-in-difference natural experiment of women diagnosed and treated before or after implementation of Medicare Part D. SUBJECTS: Female Medicare beneficiaries with early-stage breast cancer: 54,772 diagnosed in 2001 and 46,371 in 2007. MEASURES: SES was based on Medicaid enrollment and zip code per capita income, all-cause mortality from Medicare, and cause of death from National Death Index.

resultsAmong women diagnosed pre-Part D, 40.5% of poor beneficiaries had died within 5 years compared with 20.3% of high-income women (P<0.0001). Post-Part D, 33.6% of poor women and 18.4% of high-income women died by 5 years. After adjustment for potential confounders, improvement in all-cause mortality post-Part D was greater for poorer women compared with more affluent women (P=0.002). However, absolute improvement in breast cancer-specific mortality was 1.8%, 1.2%, and 0.8% (P=0.88 for difference in improvement by SES), respectively for poor, near-poor, and high-income women, whereas analogous improvement in mortality from other causes was 5.1%, 3.8%, and 0.9% (P=0.067 for difference in improvement by SES).

conclusionsLarge survival disparities by SES exist among breast cancer patients. The Part D program successfully ameliorated SES disparities in all-cause mortality. However, improvement was concentrated in causes of death other than breast cancer, suggesting remaining gaps in care.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsEthnicityFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMedicare Part DMiddle AgedPovertySocial ClassUnited States

Identifiers

PMID28030476
PMCPMC5391268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.