符合条件的随机对照试验患者的保险拒绝护理:允许患者继续符合试验条件的对等授权的发生率和成功率。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q4 ONCOLOGY American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-10 DOI:10.1097/COC.0000000000001054
Shearwood McClelland, Melissa Brately, Raed J Zuhour, Yilun Sun, Daniel E Spratt
{"title":"符合条件的随机对照试验患者的保险拒绝护理:允许患者继续符合试验条件的对等授权的发生率和成功率。","authors":"Shearwood McClelland, Melissa Brately, Raed J Zuhour, Yilun Sun, Daniel E Spratt","doi":"10.1097/COC.0000000000001054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Insurance denials for clinical trials serve as a pertinent barrier for patients to remain trial-eligible, thus hindering the development of therapies and the overall advancement of health care. We present results from an ongoing oncology randomized clinical trial regarding insurance denials and peer-to-peer authorization (P2PA) success rate in allowing patients to remain trial-eligible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The ongoing Spine Patient Optimal Radiosurgery Treatment for Symptomatic Metastatic Neoplasms Phase II trial randomizes spine cancer patients to treatment with spine radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Trial-eligible patients during the first 3 months of enrollment are examined to determine whether the option of SBRT was denied by their insurance. Advocacy for overcoming SBRT denial in P2PA centered on SBRT being recommended as a preferred treatment modality in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, and the recent level I evidence demonstrating the advantages of SBRT over EBRT for symptomatic spine cancer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 15 trial-eligible patients, 3 (20%) experienced insurance denials for SBRT. P2PA resulted in the reversal of denials in all 3 patients, allowing each to remain trial-eligible for randomization between SBRT and cEBRT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite a clinical oncologic treatment modality for which recent Level 1 evidence is available, the insurance denial rate was 20%. A vigilant P2PA strategy focusing on highlighting National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and the supporting Level 1 evidence resulted in a very high rate of reversing initial denial.</p>","PeriodicalId":50812,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":"56-57"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Insurance Denial of Care for Randomized Controlled Trial-Eligible Patients: Incidence and Success Rate of Peer-To-Peer Authorization in Allowing Patients to Remain Trial-Eligible.\",\"authors\":\"Shearwood McClelland, Melissa Brately, Raed J Zuhour, Yilun Sun, Daniel E Spratt\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/COC.0000000000001054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Insurance denials for clinical trials serve as a pertinent barrier for patients to remain trial-eligible, thus hindering the development of therapies and the overall advancement of health care. We present results from an ongoing oncology randomized clinical trial regarding insurance denials and peer-to-peer authorization (P2PA) success rate in allowing patients to remain trial-eligible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The ongoing Spine Patient Optimal Radiosurgery Treatment for Symptomatic Metastatic Neoplasms Phase II trial randomizes spine cancer patients to treatment with spine radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Trial-eligible patients during the first 3 months of enrollment are examined to determine whether the option of SBRT was denied by their insurance. Advocacy for overcoming SBRT denial in P2PA centered on SBRT being recommended as a preferred treatment modality in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, and the recent level I evidence demonstrating the advantages of SBRT over EBRT for symptomatic spine cancer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 15 trial-eligible patients, 3 (20%) experienced insurance denials for SBRT. P2PA resulted in the reversal of denials in all 3 patients, allowing each to remain trial-eligible for randomization between SBRT and cEBRT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite a clinical oncologic treatment modality for which recent Level 1 evidence is available, the insurance denial rate was 20%. A vigilant P2PA strategy focusing on highlighting National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and the supporting Level 1 evidence resulted in a very high rate of reversing initial denial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50812,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"56-57\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000001054\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Clinical Oncology-Cancer Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000001054","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:临床试验的保险拒绝是患者保持试验资格的相关障碍,从而阻碍了疗法的发展和医疗保健的整体进步。我们介绍了一项正在进行的肿瘤学随机临床试验的结果,该试验涉及保险拒绝和对等授权(P2PA)成功率,使患者保持试验资格。方法:正在进行的脊柱患者最佳放射外科治疗症状性转移性肿瘤II期试验将脊柱癌症患者随机分为脊柱放射外科/立体定向身体放射治疗(SBRT)和常规外束放射治疗(EBRT)。在入组的前3个月,对符合试验条件的患者进行检查,以确定SBRT的选择是否被他们的保险拒绝。在P2PA中,关于克服SBRT拒绝的宣传集中在SBRT被推荐为国家综合癌症网络指南中的首选治疗模式,以及最近的I级证据表明SBRT优于EBRT治疗有症状的癌症。结果:在15名符合试验条件的患者中,有3名(20%)经历了SBRT保险拒绝。P2PA在所有3名患者中都逆转了否认,使每个患者都有资格在SBRT和cEBRT之间进行随机化试验。结论:尽管临床肿瘤学治疗模式最近有1级证据,但保险拒绝率为20%。专注于强调国家癌症综合网络指南和支持性1级证据的警惕性P2PA策略导致了非常高的逆转率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Insurance Denial of Care for Randomized Controlled Trial-Eligible Patients: Incidence and Success Rate of Peer-To-Peer Authorization in Allowing Patients to Remain Trial-Eligible.

Introduction: Insurance denials for clinical trials serve as a pertinent barrier for patients to remain trial-eligible, thus hindering the development of therapies and the overall advancement of health care. We present results from an ongoing oncology randomized clinical trial regarding insurance denials and peer-to-peer authorization (P2PA) success rate in allowing patients to remain trial-eligible.

Methods: The ongoing Spine Patient Optimal Radiosurgery Treatment for Symptomatic Metastatic Neoplasms Phase II trial randomizes spine cancer patients to treatment with spine radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) versus conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Trial-eligible patients during the first 3 months of enrollment are examined to determine whether the option of SBRT was denied by their insurance. Advocacy for overcoming SBRT denial in P2PA centered on SBRT being recommended as a preferred treatment modality in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, and the recent level I evidence demonstrating the advantages of SBRT over EBRT for symptomatic spine cancer.

Results: Of 15 trial-eligible patients, 3 (20%) experienced insurance denials for SBRT. P2PA resulted in the reversal of denials in all 3 patients, allowing each to remain trial-eligible for randomization between SBRT and cEBRT.

Conclusions: Despite a clinical oncologic treatment modality for which recent Level 1 evidence is available, the insurance denial rate was 20%. A vigilant P2PA strategy focusing on highlighting National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and the supporting Level 1 evidence resulted in a very high rate of reversing initial denial.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
130
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​​​American Journal of Clinical Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal for cancer surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, GYN oncologists, and pediatric oncologists. The emphasis of AJCO is on combined modality multidisciplinary loco-regional management of cancer. The journal also gives emphasis to translational research, outcome studies, and cost utility analyses, and includes opinion pieces and review articles. The editorial board includes a large number of distinguished surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, GYN oncologists, pediatric oncologists, and others who are internationally recognized for expertise in their fields.
期刊最新文献
Geospatial Mapping of Head and Neck Cancer Research: Assessing Access, Disparities, and Characteristics of Head and Neck Cancer Clinical Trials Across the United States. Phase 2, Multicenter, Open-label, Nonrandomized Study of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Liposomal Irinotecan With 5-Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin, Followed by Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Rectal Cancer in a Watch-and-Wait Program. Complications, Costs, and Health Care Resource Use with Tissue Biopsy Followed by Liquid Biopsy Versus Tissue Re-biopsy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Nonsmall-cell Lung Cancer. Evaluating N-acetylcysteine as a Protective Agent Against Chemotherapy-induced Neuropathy in Breast Cancer: A Triple-blind, Randomized Clinical Trial. Efficacy and Safety of BRCA-targeted Therapy (Polyadenosine Diphosphate-ribose Polymerase Inhibitors) in Treatment of BRCA-mutated Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1