ArticleHealth affairs scholar2023
Perspectives of private payers on multicancer early-detection tests: informing research, implementation, and policy.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 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.
- Payers' Views on Expanding Their Role in Precision Medicine.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- A Socio-ecological Analysis of Factors Influencing the Perceived Value of Multicancer Early Detection Testing in the United States.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026Article
- Urine as a source of biomarkers and biological knowledge in chronic kidney disease.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2026Review
- Navigating and Advancing Market Access for In Vitro Diagnostics: Understanding the Roles of Key Stakeholders and Policy.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Implementation of Cancer Genomics in the United States: Views of Payers and Other Stakeholders on Challenges and the Role of Payers in Solutions.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Transforming cancer screening: the potential of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) technologies.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Understanding the Landscape of Multi-Cancer Detection Tests: The Current Data and Clinical Considerations.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Projecting the Impact of Multi-Cancer Early Detection on Late-Stage Incidence Using Multi-State Disease Modeling.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024Article
- Harnessing liquid biopsies: Exosomes and ctDNA as minimally invasive biomarkers for precision cancer medicine.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2023Review
- Primary Care Patient Interest in Multi-Cancer Early Detection for Cancer Screening.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Cancer screening with multicancer detection tests: A translational science review.CA: a cancer journal for cliniciansReview
- Public Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Early Detection: A Qualitative Study.Cancer 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Emerging blood-based multicancer early-detection (MCED) tests may redefine cancer screening, reduce mortality, and address health disparities if their benefit is demonstrated. U.S. payers' coverage policies will impact MCED test adoption and access; thus, their perspectives must be understood. We examined views, coverage barriers, and evidentiary needs for MCED from 19 private payers collectively covering 150 000 000 enrollees. Most saw an MCED test's potential merit for cancers without current screening (84%), but fewer saw its merit for cancers with existing screening (37%). The largest coverage barriers were inclusion of cancers without demonstrated benefits of early diagnosis (73%), a high false-negative rate (53%), and lack of care protocols for MCED-detected but unconfirmed cancers (53%). The majority (58%) would not require mortality evidence and would accept surrogate endpoints. Most payers (64%) would accept rigorous real-world evidence in the absence of a large randomized controlled trial. The majority (74%) did not expect MCED to reduce disparities due to potential harm from overtreatment resulting from an MCED and barriers to downstream care. Payers' perspectives and evidentiary needs may inform MCED test developers, researchers producing evidence, and health systems framing MCED screening programs. Private payers should be stakeholders of a national MCED policy and equity agenda.
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.