ReviewJournal of cancer policy2021
Cancer genetic testing in marginalized groups during an era of evolving healthcare reform.
Review in Journal of cancer policy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized trial promoting cancer genetic risk assessment when genetic counseling cost removed: 1-year follow-up.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2024Trial
- Article
- Solution-Based Research to Address Disparities in Precision Cancer Health: A Case Report Elucidating the Design and Rationale of the Illinois Cancer Health Equity Research (I-CHER) Center.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Racial and socioeconomic disparities in genetic evaluation and testing in the adult patient population.American journal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Article
- Feasibility of an environmental scan-based approach to collecting information about factors impacting cancer genetics services in Latin American countries.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- Racial Disparities in Time to Huntington Disease Diagnosis in North America: An ENROLL-HD Analysis.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2024Article
- Predictors of germline genetic testing referral and completion in ovarian cancer patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.Gynecologic oncology · 2024Article
- Germline Genetic Testing Among Women ≤ 45 Years of Age with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Versus Invasive Breast Cancer in a Large Integrated Health Care System.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Advancing health equity: A qualitative study assessing barriers and facilitators of implementing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk screening tools in community-based organizations.Journal of genetic counseling · 2023Article
- A cost-utility analysis ofFrontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Toward a More Just System of Care in Molecular Pathology.The Milbank quarterly · 2022Article
- Medicaid Expansions: Probing Medicaid's Filling of the Cancer Genetic Testing and Screening Space.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Are beliefs about the importance of genetics for cancer prevention and early detection associated with high risk cancer genetic testing in the U.S. Population?Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Statewide trends and factors associated with genetic testing for hereditary cancer risk in Arkansas 2013-2018.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2022Article
- Socioeconomic Status and Interest in Genetic Testing in a US-Based Sample.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Timing ofCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Affordable Care Act and subsequent reforms pose tradeoffs for racial-ethnic, rural, and sex-related groups in the United States experiencing disparities in BRCA1/2 genetic counseling and testing and colorectal cancer screening, calling for policy changes.
methodsA working group of the American Public Health Association Genomics Forum Policy Committee engaged in monthly meetings to examine ongoing literature and identify policy alternatives in the coverage of cancer genetic services for marginalized groups. 589 items were collected; 408 examined. Efforts continued from February 2015 through September 2020.
resultsAfrican Americans and Latinos have shown 7-8 % drops in uninsured rates since the Exchanges opened. The ACA has increased BRCA1/2 test availability while several disparities remain, including by sex. Rural testing and screening utilization rates have improved. Medicaid expansion and the inclusion of Medicare in the ACA have resulted in mixed improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates in marginalized groups.
conclusionCancer genetic testing and screening to date have only partially benefited from healthcare reforms. Sensitivity to cost concerns and further monitoring of emerging data are needed. A reduction in disparities depends on the availability of private insurance, Medicaid and Medicare to the marginalized. Attention to value-based design and the way cancer benefits are translated into actual testing and screening are crucial. POLICY SUMMARY: The findings suggest the need for further benefits-related health agency interpretation of and amendments to the ACA, continued Medicaid and innovative Medicare expansion, and incorporation of cancer services values-based considerations at several levels, aimed at reducing group disparities.
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.