ArticleCureus2022
Insurance Coverage of Dermabrasion and Chemical Peel Procedures: A Critical Analysis of 58 American Insurance Companies.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethical Issues Regarding Dermatopathology Care for Service-Members: A Review.Dermatopathology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Dermabrasion and chemical peels are infrequently utilized methods of treatment for medical-grade conditions despite demonstrations of favorable outcomes. Insurance coverage status has previously been shown to impact availability and accessibility to specific treatments. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the rate of insurance coverage provided for dermabrasion and chemical peel procedures in the treatment of acne, acne scarring, and non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC). Methods A cross-sectional analysis of 58 insurance companies by web-based search or phone interview determined the number of insurers with a publicly available policy on dermabrasion or chemical peels. Coverage status and any corresponding criteria were extracted from existing company policies. Results Thirteen (22%) and 22 (38%) policies discussed dermabrasion in the treatment of basal cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis, with 62% and 73% of these policies providing coverage. Acne scarring was discussed in significantly more dermabrasion policies than basal cell carcinoma (45% vs 22%; p=0.018). However, significantly more insurers denied coverage of dermabrasion for active acne and acne scarring when compared to dermabrasion to treat basal cell carcinoma or actinic keratosis (p<0.001). Eighty-seven percent of companies (n=20) with a chemical peel policy for premalignant lesions would provide coverage, with required criteria present in 95% (n=19) of the policies that would cover chemical peels for actinic keratosis specifically. Of the 25 companies (43%) that discussed the treatment of acne with chemical peel procedures, 14 (56%) provided coverage, and 11 (44%) denied coverage. Coverage was denied by significantly less insurers for the treatment of active acne with chemical peel procedures compared to treatment with dermabrasion (44% vs 83%; p<0.006). Conclusion Significant discrepancies were noted in both the presence of a public policy and the coverage status of dermabrasion or chemical peel procedures among the United States health insurance companies. These inconsistencies, along with multiple criteria required for coverage, may create an artificial barrier to receiving care for specific medical-grade conditions.
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.