ArticleJournal of health politics, policy and law2026
When Covering and Discovering Are at Odds: How the Logic of US Health Insurance Undercuts the Promise and Equity of Precision Medicine for People with Hereditary Cancer Risks.
Article in Journal of health politics, policy and law, 2026. 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.
- Sequencing for a Lifetime: Professional Perspectives on the Value and Feasibility of Lifelong Genomic Medicine.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
contextDespite precision medicine's promise to revolutionize health care, access remains uneven, and disparities persist. This study examines how conflicts between the institutional logics of genetic science ("discovering") and market-based health insurance ("covering") impede precision-driven health equity.
methodsThe authors conducted 44 semistructured in-depth interviews with individuals at elevated risk for hereditary cancer. Data were analyzed using an abductive approach, combining thematic analysis with grounded theory tools.
findingsAnalysis reveals seven "zones of conflict" where precision medicine's aspirations clash with insurance practices, creating barriers to genetic testing and related services. These zones span initial access barriers (e.g., complex billing, inconsistent guideline uptake) and downstream care factors (e.g., financial concerns, lack of retesting guidelines). The interplay between expanding genomic knowledge and the fragmented American health care system particularly disadvantages underrepresented and minority populations.
conclusionsParticipant experiences reveal more unanticipated sources of inequity than precision medicine proponents anticipated. Incremental reforms targeting these conflict zones-such as guideline harmonization, expanding coverage mandates, and enhancing patient advocacy related to insurance coverage-could mitigate cascading disparities. This study highlights the importance of addressing institutional misalignments to realize the full equitable potential of precision medicine involving genetics.
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.