Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35333358›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Insurance Coverage Mandates and the Adoption of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Ilana B Richman, Jessica B Long, Kelly A Kyanko, Xiao Xu, Cary P Gross, Susan H Busch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ilana B RichmanSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Jessica B LongSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Kelly A KyankoDepartment of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York.
Xiao XuCancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, Yale Cancer Center and Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Cary P GrossSection of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Susan H BuschCancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research Center, Yale Cancer Center and Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Funding

Supporting Personalized Decision Making for Breast Cancer Screening among Older WomenK08CA248725 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI RICHMAN, ILANA · 2021 to 2025
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS K08 CA248725
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a breast cancer screening modality that has gained popularity in recent years. Although insurance coverage for DBT is not mandated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, several states have required coverage without cost sharing for private insurers. Objective: To evaluate the association between state-level insurance coverage mandates for DBT and changes in DBT use, price, and out-of-pocket payments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used an event-study design with repeated cross-sectional observations of US states. Data were obtained from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis database for commercially insured women aged 40 to 64 years who underwent screening mammography between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. Data were analyzed between January 14, 2021, and January 20, 2022. Interventions: Passage of state-level legislation requiring insurance coverage of DBT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in DBT use among women screened for breast cancer, overall DBT price, and out-of-pocket payments for DBT in states with mandates for coverage of DBT compared with states that did not pass legislation. Results: This study included 9 604 084 screening mammograms from 5 754 123 women (mean [SD] age, of 53 [6.7] years). During the study period, 15 states enacted DBT coverage mandates and 34 states did not. In states with coverage mandates, DBT use increased by 9.0 percentage points (95% CI, 1.8-16.3 percentage points; P = .02) 2 years after the mandate compared with states without coverage mandates. Coverage mandates were also associated with a net $38.7 (95% CI, $13.4-$63.9; P = .003) decrease in the mean price of DBT compared with no coverage mandates. There was no association between coverage mandates and out-of-pocket payments 2 years after mandate passage ($-2.1; 95% CI, $-5.3 to $1.0; P = .18). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, DBT coverage mandates were associated with an increase in DBT use but not with any change in out-of-pocket payments. The findings suggest that coverage mandates for DBT may have been associated with broader use but were not associated with changes in direct costs to patients.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammographyCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansInsurance CoverageMiddle AgedPatient Protection and Affordable Care ActUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35333358
PMCPMC8956980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.