Evidence Hub

Association Between State Medicaid Policies and Accrual of Black or Hispanic Patients to Cancer Clinical Trials

William L. Schpero, S. Takvorian, Daniel Blickstein, Afrah Shafquat, Jingshu Liu, Arnaub K. Chatterjee, Elizabeth B. Lamont, P. Chatterjee

Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2024

47,870 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE It is unknown whether Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or state-level policies mandating Medicaid coverage of the routine costs of clinical trial participation have ameliorated longstanding racial and ethnic disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment. METHODS We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional difference-in-differences analysis examining the effect of Medicaid expansion on rates of enrollment for Black or Hispanic nonelderly adults in nonobservational, US cancer clinical trials using data from Medidata's Rave platform for 2012-2019. We examined heterogeneity in this effect on the basis of whether states had pre-existing mandates requiring Medicaid coverage of the routine costs of clinical trial participation. RESULTS The study included 47,870 participants across 1,353 clinical trials and 344 clinical trial sites. In expansion states, the proportion of participants who were Black or Hispanic increased from 16.7% before expansion to 17.2% after Medicaid expansion (0.5 percentage point [PP] change [95% CI, –1.1 to 2.0]). In nonexpansion states, this proportion increased from 19.8% before 2014 (when the first states expanded eligibility under the ACA) to 20.4% after 2014 (0.6 PP change [95% CI, –2.3 to 3.5]). These trends yielded a nonsignificant difference-in-differences estimate of 0.9 PP (95% CI, –2.6 to 4.4). Medicaid expansion was associated with a 5.3 PP (95% CI, 1.9 to 8.7) increase in the enrollment of Black or Hispanic…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 47,870 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free