Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40249617›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Claim Denials for Cancer-Related Next-Generation Sequencing in Medicare.

So-Yeon Kang, Ilina Odouard, Carole Roan Gresenz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

So-Yeon KangDepartment of Health Management and Policy, Georgetown University School of Health, Washington, DC.
Ilina OdouardDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Carole Roan GresenzDepartment of Health Management and Policy, Georgetown University School of Health, Washington, DC.

Funding

Multilevel factors associated with disparities in the use of targeted cancer therapies in MedicareR01CA277599 · NCI · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Anita Y. Kinney, Marc D Schwartz · 2023 to 2026
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA277599
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services implemented a National Coverage Determination (NCD) for genetic testing using next-generation sequencing (NGS) in March 2018 and amended it in January 2020. Little is known about how often NGS insurance claims are denied and what factors are associated with these denials. Objective: To examine the prevalence of and factors associated with claim denials for NGS testing among Medicare enrollees. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a 20% random sample of Medicare claims data from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021. Statistical analysis took place from June to October 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Claim denials were measured based on payment and denial data. Multivariable logistic regression models were estimated with patient and claim characteristics, including testing type, testing site, and time period indicators reflecting the presence and scope of the NCD: no NCD (period 1), first NCD (period 2), and amended NCD (period 3). Results: The study sample included 29 919 cancer-related NGS claims among 24 443 unique Medicare beneficiaries (51.8% males; 44.7% aged >75 years). The number of cancer-related NGS testing claims increased from 1912 in 2016 to 9177 in 2021. Claim denial occurred among 23.3% of the NGS claims in the sample. The claim denial rate was 16.8% before the NCD, 20.3% after the implementation of the NCD in 2018, and 27.4% after the amended NCD in 2020. Claims for NGS testing were more likely to be denied if they were performed in independent laboratories (odds ratio [OR], 2.76 [95% CI, 2.58-2.95]; P < .001) or other nonhospital sites (OR, 2.55 [95% CI, 2.12-3.07]; P < .001) vs a hospital or if they were for 50 or more genes vs 50 or fewer genes for solid tumors (OR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.23-1.43]; P < .001). The likelihood of a claim denial was higher in both time periods after the original 2018 NCD compared with before the NCD (period 2: OR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.10-1.36]; P < .001; period 3: OR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.49-1.80]; P < .001). The claim denial likelihood for period 3 was significantly higher than period 2 (OR, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.24-1.44]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of cancer-related NGS testing claims among Medicare enrollees, denial rates varied by testing type and testing site and increased over time. The findings suggest the continued existence of uncertainty regarding coverage for NGS, despite the NCD. Policy approaches to further reduce uncertainty regarding NGS coverage and raise awareness of potential financial liability warrant consideration.

Indexed as

Genetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingInsurance Claim ReviewInsurance CoverageMedicareNeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40249617
PMCPMC12008754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.