ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2021
State Standards for Insurance Access to Oncologists.
Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the market for health insurance plans expands, each state is responsible for setting standards to ensure that plans contain adequate coverage for cancer care. Little is currently known about what criteria states use for network adequacy of insurance plans. We contacted representatives of the Department of Insurance (or equivalent) for 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as searched official state websites to compile data on network adequacy standards for cancer care nationwide. The standards of 16 (31.4%) states contained only qualitative elements for access to an oncologist (eg, "reasonable access"), 7 (13.7%) states included only quantitative elements (eg, travel distance and time restrictions), and 24 (47.1%) states included standards with both qualitative and quantitative elements. Standards from 4 states were not available. States should make certain that robust, transparent protections exist to ensure that patients are able to access high-quality cancer care without experiencing the financial toxicity associated with out-of-network billing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.