The US Preventive Services Task Force has never evaluated a multicancer screening test for endorsement, which may make the process even longer, said Patricia Deverka, MD, MS, senior researcher, deputy director at the Center for Translational and Policy Research and Precision Medicine, University of California San Francisco.
Patricia Deverka, MD, MS, senior researcher, deputy director at the Center for Translational and Policy Research and Precision Medicine, University of California San Francisco, talks about the 2 main paths for multicancer early detection (MCED) tests to be covered by Medicare.
Transcript
What needs to happen for MCED tests to receive an endorsement by the USPSTF and/or Medicare coverage? Do you think one path is more likely than the other?
The Medicare population is obviously a logical target for MCED tests, given that advancing age is a powerful predictor of increased risk of cancer. I think there's really 2 possible paths to Medicare coverage. One would be facilitating passage of new legislation that creates a specific screening exception for MCED screening tests, and the second would be to get a US Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF] rating of A or B. That's a pretty long process—highly evidence-based—and it's worth pointing out that, to date, the USPSTF has never had to evaluate a multicancer screening test. The paradigm is typically 1 test, 1 cancer, so [the process comes] with all those caveats.
It's also important to point out that, regardless of either of those 2 pathways, both of those strategies would still require a national coverage determination before Medicare beneficiaries would obtain access through traditional Medicare. In terms of which one is longer, both paths have tremendous uncertainty. Because of the reason that multicancer early detection is an unprecedented testing paradigm, I think it's really difficult to predict which 1 of the 2 pathways is more likely to succeed, but hopefully I've pointed out how they're interrelated.
What's at Stake as Oral Arguments Are Presented in the Braidwood Case? Q&A With Richard Hughes IV
April 21st 2025Richard Hughes IV, JD, MPH, spoke about the upcoming oral arguments to be presented to the Supreme Court regarding the Braidwood case, which would determine how preventive services are guaranteed insurance coverage.
Read More
Personalized Care Key as Tirzepatide Use Expands Rapidly
April 15th 2025Using commercial insurance claims data and the US launch of tirzepatide as their dividing point, John Ostrominski, MD, Harvard Medical School, and his team studied trends in the use of both glucose-lowering and weight-lowering medications, comparing outcomes between adults with and without type 2 diabetes.
Listen
Orca-T showed lower rates of graft-vs-host disease or infection compared with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or acute leukemias in the Precision-T trial, Caspian Oliai, MD, MS, UCLA Bone Marrow Transplantation Stem Cell Processing Center, said.
Read More
Navigating Sport-Related Neurospine Injuries, Surgery, and Managed Care
February 25th 2025On this episode of Managed Care Cast, we speak with Arthur L. Jenkins III, MD, FACS, CEO of Jenkins NeuroSpine, to explore the intersection of advanced surgical care for sport-related neurospine injuries and managed care systems.
Listen
What the Updated Telephone Consumer Protection Act Rules Mean for Health Care Messaging
April 4th 2025As new Federal Communications Commission rules take effect April 11, 2025, mPulse CEO Bob Farrell explains how health organizations can stay compliant while building patient trust through transparency and personalized engagement.
Read More
High-Impact Trials at ACC.25 Signal Shift in Chronic Disease Treatment
April 4th 2025Experts highlight groundbreaking research presented at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session (ACC.25), which emphasized a shift toward more personalized, evidence-based treatment strategies.
Read More