Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Litigating the Science of Breast Cancer Treatment

Litigating the Science of Breast Cancer Treatment Beginning in the late 1980s, many health insurers refused to cover high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant (HDC/ABMT) for high-risk and metastatic breast cancer patients. Insurers denied coverage because there was no persuasive evidence of clinical effectiveness. In response, many women sued to compel coverage. After years of litigation and the expenditure of approximately $3 billion, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed that the procedure was no more effective and possibly more harmful than conventional therapy. To understand whether and how litigation contributed to the diffusion of the procedure, we conducted a series of case studies that examine the litigation tactics and strategies used by defense and plaintiffs' counsel. Despite the fact that HDC/ABMT lacked proven scientific effectiveness, insurance defense attorneys were unable to stop the procedure's diffusion. Plaintiffs' attorneys had a much easier and more sympathetic story to tell and were able to exploit vulnerabilities facing the defense. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law Duke University Press

Litigating the Science of Breast Cancer Treatment

Download PDF
34 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/litigating-the-science-of-breast-cancer-treatment-Pe1ssMmc3H

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
© 2007 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0361-6878
eISSN
0361-6878
DOI
10.1215/03616878-2007-030
pmid
17855717
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Beginning in the late 1980s, many health insurers refused to cover high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant (HDC/ABMT) for high-risk and metastatic breast cancer patients. Insurers denied coverage because there was no persuasive evidence of clinical effectiveness. In response, many women sued to compel coverage. After years of litigation and the expenditure of approximately $3 billion, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed that the procedure was no more effective and possibly more harmful than conventional therapy. To understand whether and how litigation contributed to the diffusion of the procedure, we conducted a series of case studies that examine the litigation tactics and strategies used by defense and plaintiffs' counsel. Despite the fact that HDC/ABMT lacked proven scientific effectiveness, insurance defense attorneys were unable to stop the procedure's diffusion. Plaintiffs' attorneys had a much easier and more sympathetic story to tell and were able to exploit vulnerabilities facing the defense.

Journal

Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law – Duke University Press

Published: Oct 1, 2007

There are no references for this article.