ArticleJCO oncology practice2024
Importance of Patient Health Insurance Coverage and Out-of-Pocket Costs for Genomic Testing in Oncologists' Treatment Decisions.
Article in JCO oncology practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Payer coverage principles for precision medicine biomarker testing in oncology.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- The role of insurance status in molecular testing for thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2026Article
- Commercial price variation in precision oncology testing across US hospitals.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Patient and physician preferences for cancer panel testing in Japan: a best-worst scaling study.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- Utility of the CPS + EG score with real-life data in patients with breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Oncology letters · 2025Article
- A rising tide lifts all boats in the personalized cancer care continuum for mNSCLC: bridging inequities in NGS fosters equity in targeted treatment.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Article
- Widespread Adoption of Precision Anticancer Therapies After Implementation of Pathologist-Directed Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Across a Large US Health System.JCO oncology practice · 2024Article
- Budget Impact Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA Testing for Colon Cancer in Commercial Health and Medicare Advantage Plans.JAMA health forum · 2024Article
- Ethical considerations of genetic and genomic testing in pediatric oncology: A narrative review.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeUse of genomic testing, especially multimarker panels, is increasing in the United States. Not all tests and related treatments are covered by health insurance, which can result in substantial patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs. Little is known about oncologists' treatment decisions with respect to patient insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing.
methodsWe identified 1,049 oncologists who used multimarker tumor panels from the 2017 National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment. Separate multivariable ordinal logistic regressions examined associations of oncologist-, practice-, and area-level characteristics and oncologists' ratings of importance (very, somewhat, or a little/not important) of insurance coverage and OOP costs for genomic testing in treatment decisions, adjusting for oncologist years of experience, sex, race and ethnicity, specialty, use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests, region, tumor boards, patient insurance mix, and area-level socioeconomic characteristics.
resultsAmong oncologists, 47.3%, 32.7%, and 20.0% reported that patient insurance coverage for genomic testing was very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively, in treatment decisions. In addition, 56.9%, 28.0%, and 15.2% reported that OOP costs for testing were very, somewhat, or a little/not important, respectively. In adjusted analyses, oncologists who used NGS tests were more likely to report patient insurance and OOP costs as important (odds ratio [OR], 2.00 [95% CI, 1.16 to 3.45] and OR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.22 to 3.68], respectively) in treatment decisions compared with oncologists who did not use these tests, as were oncologists who treated solid tumors, rather than only hematological cancers. More years of experience and higher percentages of Medicaid or self-paid/uninsured patients in the practice were associated with reporting insurance coverage (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.09 to 1.89]) and OOP costs (OR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.13 to 2.01]) as important. Oncologists in practices with molecular tumor boards for genomic tests were less likely to report coverage (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.85]) and OOP costs (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.97]) as important than their counterparts in practices without these tumor boards.
conclusionMost oncologists rate patient health insurance and OOP costs for genomic tests as important considerations in subsequent treatment recommendations. Modifiable factors associated with these ratings can inform interventions to support patient-physician decision making about care.
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.