Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30557675›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2019

The Insurance Approval Process for Proton Radiation Therapy: A Significant Barrier to Patient Care.

Matthew S Ning, Daniel R Gomez, Aashish K Shah, Charissa R Kim, Matthew B Palmer, Nikhil G Thaker, David R Grosshans, Zhongxing Liao, Bhavana V Chapman, Eric D Brooks and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
16.2field-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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Proton Therapy Utilization Among Adult Cancer Patients.International journal of particle therapy · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew S NingDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Daniel R GomezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Aashish K ShahProton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Charissa R KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Matthew B PalmerProton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Nikhil G ThakerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Arizona Oncology, The US Oncology Network, Tucson, Arizona.
David R GrosshansDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Zhongxing LiaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Bhavana V ChapmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Eric D BrooksDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Chad TangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
David I RosenthalDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Adam S GardenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Steven J FrankDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
G Brandon GunnDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: gbgunn@mdanderson.org.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USArizona Oncology · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProton therapy is increasingly prescribed for cancer treatment, given its potential for improvements in clinical outcomes and toxicity reduction; however, insurance coverage continues to be a barrier to patient access. This study examined insurance approval and appeal outcomes at a large-volume proton therapy center to clarify the process and identify areas for improvement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 2013 to 2016, 1753 patients with thoracic or head and neck cancer were considered for proton therapy; 903 (553 thoracic, 350 head and neck) entered the insurance process. Rates of and times to approval and successful appeal after initial denial were calculated. Clinical factors were evaluated for association with insurance outcomes via logistic regression.

resultsApproval rates by Medicare (n = 538) and private insurance (n = 365) were 91% and 30% on initial request, at a median 3 days and 14 days from inquiry to determination. Of the 306 patients initially denied coverage, 276 appealed the decision, and denial was overturned for 189 patients (68%; median time, 21 days from initial inquiry). On multivariable analysis, Medicare (odds ratio [OR], 14.20; P < .001) was the strongest predictor of initial approval. Approval rates decreased from 2013 to 2014 versus 2015 to 2016 (OR 0.54; P = .001). For patients who appealed denial, multivariable analysis found no associations between approval and trial enrollment or tumor type. Submission of a comparison treatment plan (proton vs photon) indicating dosimetric advantage to normal tissues was associated with decreased likelihood of approval (OR 0.43; P = .006), as was a prescribed dose of ≥66 Gy (OR 0.48; P = .019).

conclusionsDespite an 87% ultimate approval rate for proton therapy, the insurance process is a resource-intensive barrier to patient access associated with significant time delays to cancer treatment. These findings, plus the lack of clinical correlates with insurance outcomes, highlight a need for increased efficiency, transparency, and collaboration among stakeholders to promote timely patient care and research.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansInsurance Claim ReviewInsurance CoverageInsurance, Health, ReimbursementMaleMedicareMiddle AgedPrior AuthorizationProton TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID30557675
OpenAlexW2904856669

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.