ArticleJAMA network open2023
Patient Cost-Sharing and Utilization of Breast Cancer Diagnostic Imaging by Patients Undergoing Subsequent Testing After a Screening Mammogram.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Changes in Use, Cost, and Value of Breast Cancer Screening Among Older Women in the US.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Connecting algorithmic fairness and fair outcomes in a sociotechnical simulation case study of AI-assisted healthcare.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Downstream healthcare use following breast cancer screening: a register-based cohort study.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2025Article
- Healthcare Resource Utilization and Cost Comparison Between Palbociclib, Abemaciclib, and Ribociclib Among Patients with HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
- Response to the New USPSTF Recommendations on Breast Cancer Screening: Shared Decision-Making is the Cornerstone of Person-Centered Care.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2024Article
- Association Between False-Positive Results and Return to Screening Mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort.Annals of internal medicine · 2024Article
- Redefining Cancer Screening Coverage-Screening to Diagnosis.JAMA health forum · 2024Article
- Social Determinants of Health and Insurance Claim Denials for Preventive Care.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Social Determinants of Health Framework to Identify and Reduce Barriers to Imaging in Marginalized Communities.Radiology · 2024Review
- American Cancer Society's Report on the Status of Cancer Disparities in the United States, 2025.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byBeyond the2024
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) have been largely eliminated for screening mammography. However, patients still face OOPCs when undergoing subsequent diagnostic tests after the initial screening, which represents a potential barrier to those who require follow-up testing after initial testing. Objective: To examine the association between the degree of patient cost-sharing and the use of diagnostic breast cancer imaging after undergoing a screening mammogram. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used medical claims from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, a commercial claims database derived from a database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The large commercially insured cohort included female patients aged 40 years or older with no prior history of breast cancer undergoing a screening mammogram examination. Data were collected from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, and analysis was conducted from January 2021 to September 2022. Exposures: A k-means clustering machine learning algorithm was used to classify patient insurance plans by dominant cost-sharing mechanism. Plan types were then ranked by OOPCs. Main Outcomes and Measures: A multivariable 2-part hurdle regression model was used to examine the association between patient OOPCs and the number and type of diagnostic breast services undergone by patients observed to undergo subsequent testing. Results: In our sample, 230 845 women (220 023 [95.3%] aged 40 to 64 years; 16 810 [7.3%] Black, 16 398 [7.1%] Hispanic, and 164 702 [71.3%] White) underwent a screening mammogram in 2016. These patients were covered by 22 828 distinct insurance plans associated with 6 025 741 enrollees and 44 911 473 distinct medical claims. Plans dominated by coinsurance were found to have the lowest mean (SD) OOPCs ($945 [$1456]), followed by balanced plans ($1017 [$1386]), plans dominated by copays ($1020 [$1408]), and plans dominated by deductibles ($1186 [$1522]). Women underwent significantly fewer subsequent breast imaging procedures in dominantly copay (24 [95% CI, 11-37] procedures per 1000 women) and dominantly deductible (16 [95% CI, 5-28] procedures per 1000 women) plans compared with coinsurance plans. Patients from all plan types underwent fewer breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans than patients in the lowest OOPC plan (balanced, 5 [95% CI, 2-12] MRIs per 1000 women; copay, 6 [95% CI, 3-6] MRI per 100 women; deductible, 6 [95% CI, 3-9] MRIs per 1000 women. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite policies designed to remove financial barriers to access for breast cancer screening, significant financial barriers remain for women at risk of breast cancer.
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.