↓ Skip to main content

Medical Service Use and Charges for Cancer Care in 2018 for Privately Insured Patients Younger Than 65 Years in the US

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Network Open, October 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
78 news outlets
twitter
28 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Medical Service Use and Charges for Cancer Care in 2018 for Privately Insured Patients Younger Than 65 Years in the US
Published in
JAMA Network Open, October 2021
DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.27784
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas G. Zaorsky, Chachrit Khunsriraksakul, Samantha L. Acri, Dajiang J. Liu, Djibril M. Ba, John L. Lin, Guodong Liu, Joel E. Segel, Joseph J. Drabick, Heath B. Mackley, Douglas L. Leslie

Abstract

Currently, there are limited published data regarding resource use and spending on cancer care in the US. To characterize the most frequent medical services provided and the associated spending for privately insured patients with cancer in the US. This cohort study used data from the MarketScan database for the calendar year 2018 from a sample of 27.1 million privately insured individuals, including patients with a diagnosis of the 15 most prevalent cancers, predominantly from large insurers and self-insured employers. Overall societal health care spending was estimated for each cancer type by multiplying the mean total spending per patient (estimated from MarketScan) by the number of privately insured patients living with that cancer in 2018, as reported by the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Analyses were performed from February 1, 2018, to July 8, 2021. Evaluation and management as prescribed by treating care team. Current Procedural Terminology and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes based on cancer diagnosis code. The estimated cost of cancer care in 2018 for 402 115 patients with the 15 most prevalent cancer types was approximately $156.2 billion for privately insured adults younger than 65 years in the US. There were a total of 38.4 million documented procedure codes for 15 cancers in the MarketScan database, totaling $10.8 billion. Patients with breast cancer contributed the greatest total number of services (10.9 million [28.4%]), followed by those with colorectal cancer (3.9 million [10.2%]) and prostate cancer (3.6 million [9.4%]). Pathology and laboratory tests contributed the highest number of services performed (11.7 million [30.5%]), followed by medical services (6.3 million [16.4%]) and medical supplies and nonphysician services (6.1 million [15.9%]). The costliest cancers were those of the breast ($3.4 billion [31.5%]), followed by lung ($1.1 billion [10.2%]) and colorectum ($1.1 billion [10.2%]). Medical supplies and nonphysician services contributed the highest total spent ($4.0 billion [37.0%]), followed by radiology ($2.1 billion [19.4%]) and surgery ($1.8 billion [16.7%]). This analysis suggests that patients with breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers had the greatest number of services performed, particularly for pathology and laboratory tests, whereas patients with breast, lung, lymphoma, and colorectal cancer incurred the greatest costs, particularly for medical supplies and nonphysician services. The cost of cancer care in 2018 for the 15 most prevalent cancer types was estimated to be approximately $156.2 billion for privately insured adults younger than 65 years in the US.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 9%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 8 25%
Unknown 12 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 577. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2024.
All research outputs
#41,219
of 25,701,027 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Network Open
#443
of 9,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,271
of 438,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Network Open
#26
of 528 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,701,027 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,856 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 127.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 528 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.