(Reuters Health) - In 2017-2019, the health benefits program for U.S. seniors spent an estimated $569 million on four cancer drugs that had received accelerated approval but later proved to have no survival benefit, according to a new study. During the study period, Medicare Parts B and D paid for the four drugs, which have since been confirmed to have no benefit to overall survival for 10 indications originally approved under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's accelerated pathway. Of the total expenditure, $224 million was spent on six indications that were either voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer in the past year or recommended for withdrawal by the FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC), the authors report in JAMA Internal ...

We write in support of state Medicaid coverage for lung cancer screening for individuals at high risk. Lung cancer is the nation’s leading cancer killer of both women and men in the United States. An estimated 228,150 new cases of lung cancer were expected to be diagnosed in 2019, and 142,670 people are expected to lose their lives. Despite the tragic impact lung cancer has on our nation, many state Medicaid programs do not currently cover lung cancer screening for individuals at high risk. Our organizations believe that every state Medicaid program should cover this life-saving preventive health service in all fee-for-service and managed care plans. Detecting lung cancer in the early stages versus the late stages is often the ...

Clinical Question Is screening for lung cancer with low-dose chest computed tomography (CT) cost-effective in high-risk persons? Bottom Line The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) gave lung cancer screening a B recommendation on the basis of the reductions in disease-specific mortality and all-cause mortality seen in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The NLST does not consider cost or cost-effectiveness in its recommendations. This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that screening is most cost-effective for current smokers, for patients in their 60s, and for those who are at higher risk of lung cancer. (Level of Evidence = 1b) Synopsis The USPSTF recently gave screening for lung cancer using low-dose chest CT a B recommendation, largely on the basis of the results ...

Summary of Evidence Table 11 provides a summary of the main findings in this evidence review organized by KQ along with a description of consistency, precision, quality, limitations, the strength of evidence, and applicability. Evidence for Benefits and Harms of Screening For the benefits of screening, the good-quality NLST demonstrated a reduction in lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality with three rounds of annual LDCT screening compared with CXR. Its results indicate an NNS of 323 to prevent one lung cancer death over 6.5 years of follow-up. The fair-quality NELSON trial also demonstrated a reduction in lung cancer mortality, but not all-cause mortality, with four rounds of LDCT screening with increasing intervals; its results indicate a NNS of 130 to ...