PURPOSE: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides access to timely breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services to women who have low incomes and are uninsured or underinsured. Documenting the number of women eligible and the proportion of eligible women who receive NBCCEDP-funded services is important for identifying opportunities to increase screening and diagnostic services among those who would not otherwise have access. METHODS: Using the Census Bureau's Small Area Health Insurance Estimates data, we estimated the number of women who met the NBCCEDP eligibility criteria based on age, income, and insurance status. We used these estimates along with the number of women served by the NBCCEDP to calculate the percent of women served by race/ethnicity and state. We calculated the percent of eligible women who are up to date with screening using the 2019 National Health Interview Survey. RESULTS: The NBCCEDP served 15.0% of women ages 40-64 eligible for breast cancer services in 2018-2019 and 5.6% of women ages 21-64 eligible for cervical cancer services in 2018-2020. The NBCCEDP served 13.5% of women ages 40-64 eligible for breast cancer services in 2020-2021 and 5.9% of women ages 21-64 eligible for cervical cancer services in 2019-2021. The percent of women ages 40-64 who received breast cancer services declined by 1.5 percentage points between 2018-2019 and 2020-2021. The percent of women ages 21-64 who received cervical cancer services increased by 0.3 percentage points between 2018-2020 and 2019-2021. The percent of eligible women served varied among states. The state interquartile ranges of the percent of women served were 12.3-27.7% for breast cancer services in 2018-2019 and 3.9-14.7% for cervical cancer services in 2018-2020. Among women eligible for the NBCCEDP, 61.4% are not up to date with breast cancer screening and 40.6% are not up to date with cervical cancer screening. CONCLUSION: There is wide variation between states in the share of eligible women served for breast and cervical cancer screening services. We found that both the number and the percentage of eligible women who received NBCCEDP breast cancer services declined during a period that overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic. A large proportion of eligible women did not receive breast or cervical cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic options for men with metastatic prostate cancer have increased in the past decade. We studied recent treatment patterns for men with metastatic prostate cancer and how treatment patterns have changed over time. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results‒Medicare database, we identified fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who either were diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer or developed metastases following diagnosis, as indicated by the presence of claims with diagnoses codes for metastatic disease, between 2007 and 2017. We evaluated treatment patterns using claims. RESULTS: We identified 29,800 men with metastatic disease, of whom 4721 (18.8%) had metastatic disease at their initial diagnosis. The mean age was 77 years, and 77.9% of patients were non-Hispanic White. The proportion receiving antineoplastic agents within 3 years of the index date increased over time (from 9.7% in 2007 to 25.9% in 2017; P < .001). Opioid use within 3 years of prostate cancer diagnosis was stable during 2007 to 2013 (around 73%) but decreased through 2017 to 65.5% (P < .001). Patients diagnosed during 2015 to 2017 had longer median survival (32.6 months) compared to those diagnosed during 2007 to 2010 (26.6 months; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Most metastatic prostate cancer patients do not receive life-prolonging antineoplastic therapies. Improved adoption of effective cancer therapies when appropriate may increase length and quality of survival among metastatic prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have comprehensively compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between metastatic prostate cancer survivors, survivors with non-metastatic disease, and men without a cancer history. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (SEER-MHOS) data linkage to identify men aged ≥ 65 years enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. Prostate cancer survivors were diagnosed between 1988 and 2017 and completed MHOS surveys between 1998 and 2019. We analyzed data from 752 metastatic prostate cancer survivors (1040 survey records), 19,583 localized or regional prostate cancer survivors (non-metastatic; 30,121 survey records), and 784,305 men aged ≥ 65 years without a cancer history in the same SEER regions (1.15 million survey records). We used clustered linear regressions to compare HRQoL measures at the person-level using the Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) T-scores for general health and physical and mental component summaries. RESULTS: Compared to men without a cancer history, prostate cancer survivors were older, more likely to be married, and had higher socioeconomic status. Compared to men without a cancer history, metastatic prostate cancer survivors reported lower general health (T-score differences [95% confidence interval]: - 6.26, [- 7.14, - 5.38], p < .001), physical health (- 4.33, [- 5.18, - 3.48], p < .001), and mental health (- 2.64, [- 3.40, - 1.88], p < .001) component summaries. Results were similar for other VR-12 T-scores. In contrast, non-metastatic prostate cancer survivors reported similar VR-12 T-scores as men without a cancer history. Further analyses comparing metastatic and non-metastatic prostate cancer survivors support these findings. CONCLUSION: Interventions to improve health-related quality of life for men diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer merit additional investigation. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Interventions to improve health-related quality of life for metastatic prostate cancer survivors merit additional investigation.

BACKGROUND: Recent advancements in the clinical management of metastatic prostate cancer include several costly therapies and diagnostic tests. The objective of this study was to provide updated information on the cost to payers attributable to metastatic prostate cancer among men aged 18 to 64 years with employer-sponsored health plans and men aged 18 years or older covered by employer-sponsored Medicare supplement insurance. METHODS: By using Merative MarketScan commercial and Medicare supplemental data for 2009-2019, the authors calculated differences in spending between men with metastatic prostate cancer and their matched, prostate cancer-free controls, adjusting for age, enrollment length, comorbidities, and inflation to 2019 US dollars. RESULTS: The authors compared 9011 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by commercial insurance plans with a group of 44,934 matched controls and also compared 17,899 patients who had metastatic prostate cancer and were covered by employer-sponsored Medicare supplement plans with a group of 87,884 matched controls. The mean age of patients with metastatic prostate cancer was 58.5 years in the commercial samples and 77.8 years in the Medicare supplement samples. Annual spending attributable to metastatic prostate cancer was $55,949 per person-year (95% confidence interval [CI], $54,074-$57,825 per person-year) in the commercial population and $43,682 per person-year (95% CI, $42,022-$45,342 per person-year) in the population covered by Medicare supplement plans, both in 2019 US dollars. CONCLUSIONS: The cost burden attributable to metastatic prostate cancer exceeds $55,000 per person-year among men with employer-sponsored health insurance and $43,000 among those covered by employer-sponsored Medicare supplement plans. These estimates can improve the precision of value assessments of clinical and policy approaches to the prevention, screening, and treatment of prostate cancer in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The uninsured rate declined following passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. It is unclear how this decrease affected the size of the population eligible for existing safety net programs. We evaluated trends in the number of women eligible for breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services under the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and the reach of the program. METHODS: Using the Census Bureau's Small Area Health Insurance Estimates data, we calculated the number of women who met the NBCCEDP eligibility criteria based on age, income, and insurance status. We used these data in conjunction with program to estimate the proportion of eligible women served by the NBCCEDP. RESULTS: The number of women eligible for breast cancer screening and diagnostic services under the program declined from 5.4 (90% CI 5.2-5.6) to 2.8 (90% CI 2.6-3.0) million from 2011 to 2017. The number of women eligible for cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services declined from 10.3 (90% CI 10.0-10.6) to 5.3 (90% CI 5.1-5.6) million. The share of eligible women served by the program was 15.0% (90% CI 14.8-15.1%) for breast services in 2016-2017 and 6.8% (90% CI 6.7-6.8%) for cervical services in 2015-2017. CONCLUSION: Insurance coverage expansions may have contributed to a decrease in the number of program-eligible women. There are many more women eligible for the program than are served.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to estimate per patient and annual aggregate health care costs related to metastatic prostate cancer. METHODS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, we identified fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries ages 66 and older diagnosed with metastatic prostate cancer or claims with diagnosis codes for metastatic disease (indicating tumor progression following diagnosis) between 2007 and 2017. We measured annual health care costs and compared costs between cases and a sample of beneficiaries without prostate cancer. RESULTS: We estimate that per-patient annual costs attributable to metastatic prostate cancer are $31,427 (95% CI: $31,219-$31,635; 2019 dollars). Annual attributable costs rose over time, from $28,311 (95% CI: $28,047-$28,575) in 2007-2013 to $37,055 (95% CI: $36,716-$37,394) in 2014-2017. In aggregate, health costs attributable to metastatic prostate cancer are $5.2 to $8.2 billion per year. CONCLUSIONS: The per patient annual health care costs attributable to metastatic prostate cancer are substantial and have increased over time, corresponding to the approval of new oral therapies used in treating metastatic prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis and treatment of cancer may impair patients' ability to continue to work. We assessed the impact of a prior prostate cancer diagnosis on employment and labor force participation. METHODS: Using the National Health Interview Surveys for 2010 to 2018, we identified sample adults previously diagnosed with prostate cancer aged <65 years (prostate cancer survivors) who were currently or previously employed. We matched each prostate survivor to comparison sample adults based on age, race/ethnicity, education level, and survey year. We compared employment-related outcomes between prostate cancer survivors and comparison males, overall and as a function of time since diagnosis, and other respondent characteristics. RESULTS: The final sample had 571 prostate cancer survivors and 2,849 matched comparison males. The proportions of survivors and comparison males who were employed (ie, worked for pay in the week prior to the survey) were similar (60.4% and 60.6%; adjusted difference 0.6 [95% CI: -5.2 to 6.3]), as were labor force participation rates (67.3% vs 67.3%; adjusted difference 0.7 [95% CI: -4.7 to 6.1]). Survivors were slightly more likely to be not working due to disability (16.7% vs 13.3%; adjusted difference 2.7 [95% CI: -1.2 to 6.5]), though the difference was not significant. Survivors had more bed days than comparison males (8.0 vs 5.7; adjusted difference 2.8 [95% CI: 2.0 to 3.6]) and missed more workdays (7.4 vs 3.3; adjusted difference 4.5 [95% CI: 3.6 to 5.3]). CONCLUSIONS: Employment rates were similar between prostate cancer survivors and matched comparison males, though survivors missed work more often.

OBJECTIVES: Mammography is a screening tool for early detection of breast cancer. Uptake in screening use in states can be influenced by Medicaid coverage and eligibility policies, public health outreach efforts, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. We described state-specific mammography use in 2020 and changes as compared with 2012. METHODS: We estimated the proportion of women aged ≥40 years who reported receiving a mammogram in the past 2 years, by age group, state, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, using 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data. We also compared 2020 state estimates with 2012 estimates. RESULTS: The proportion of women aged 50-74 years who received a mammogram in the past 2 years was 78.1% (95% CI, 77.4%-78.8%) in 2020. Across measures of socioeconomic status, mammography use was generally lower among women who did not have health insurance (52.0%; 95% CI, 48.3%-55.6%) than among those who did (79.9%; 95% CI, 79.3%-80.6%) and among those who had a usual source of care (49.4%; 95% CI, 46.1%-52.7%) than among those who did not (81.0%; 95% CI, 80.4%-81.7%). Among women aged 50-74 years, mammography use varied across states, from a low of 65.2% (95% CI, 61.4%-69.0%) in Wyoming to a high of 86.1% (95% CI, 83.8%-88.3%) in Massachusetts. Four states had significant increases in mammography use from 2012 to 2020, and 8 states had significant declines. CONCLUSION: Mammography use varied widely among states. Use of evidence-based interventions tailored to the needs of local populations and communities may help close gaps in the use of mammography.

BACKGROUND: The treatment for men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer has changed over time given the increased attention to the harms associated with over-diagnosis and the development of protocols for active surveillance. METHODS: We examined trends in the treatment of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2004 and 2015, using the most recently available data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare. Patients were stratified by Gleason score, age, and race groups. RESULTS: The use of active surveillance increased from 22% in 2004-2005 to 50% in 2014-2015 for patients with a Gleason score of 6 or below and increased from 9% in 2004-2005 to 13% in 2014-2015 for patients with a Gleason score of 7 or above. Patients with a Gleason score of 7 or above had increased use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and prostatectomy, especially among patients aged 75 years and older. Among patients with a Gleason score of 6 or below non-Hispanic black men were less likely to undergo active surveillance than non-Hispanic white men. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a large increase in the use of active surveillance among men with a Gleason score of 6 or below. However, non-Hispanic black men with a Gleason score of 6 or below are less likely to receive active surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: Research suggests that persons who are aware of the risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) are more likely to engage in healthy behaviors than persons who are not aware of the risk factors. We examined whether patients whose insurance claims included an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) code associated with hypertension who self-reported high blood pressure were more likely to fill antihypertensive medication prescriptions and less likely to have CVD-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations (hereinafter, CVD-related events) and related medical expenditures than patients with these codes who did not self-report high blood pressure. METHODS: We used a large convenience sample from the MarketScan Commercial Database linked with the MarketScan Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Database to identify patients aged 18-64 in the United States whose insurance claims included an ICD-9 code associated with hypertension and who completed an HRA from 2008 through 2012 (n = 111 655). We used multivariate logistic regression analysis to examine the association between self-reported high blood pressure and (1) filling prescriptions for antihypertensive medications and (2) CVD-related events. Because most patients with hypertension will not have a CVD-related event, we used a 2-part model to analyze medical expenditures. The first part estimated the likelihood of a CVD-related event, and the second part estimated expenditures. RESULTS: Patients with an ICD-9 code of hypertension who self-reported high blood pressure had a significantly higher predicted probability of filling antihypertensive medication prescriptions (26.5%; 95% confidence interval, 25.7-27.3; P < .001), had a significantly lower predicted probability of a CVD-related event (0.6%, P < .001), and on average spent significantly less on CVD-related events ($251, P = .01) than patients who did not self-report high blood pressure. CONCLUSION: This study affirms that self-knowledge of high blood pressure, even among patients who are diagnosed and treated for hypertension, can be improved. Interventions that improve patients' awareness of their hypertension may improve antihypertensive medication use and reduce adverse CVD-related events.

We used administrative claims data from 2014 on people with employer-sponsored health insurance to assess the proportion of patients taking antihypertensive medications, rates of nonadherence to these medication regimens, and out-of-pocket costs paid by patients. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to examine the association between out-of-pocket costs and nonadherence. Results indicated that patients filled the equivalent of 13 monthly prescriptions and paid $76 out of pocket over the calendar year; the likelihood of nonadherence increased as out-of-pocket costs increased (adjusted odds ratios ranged from 1.04 to 1.78; P < .001). These findings suggest a need for improvement in adherence among patients with employer-sponsored insurance.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine mammography screening for women aged 40-49 years. This revised recommendation was widely criticized and has sparked off intense debate. The objectives of this study are to examine the impact of the revised recommendation on the proportion of women receiving mammograms and how the effect varied by age. METHODS: We identified women who had continuous health insurance coverage and who did not have breast cancer between 2008 and 2011 in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims Databases using mammogram procedure codes. Using women aged 50-59 years as a control group, we used a differences-in-differences approach to estimate the impact of the revised recommendation on the proportion of women ages 40-49 years who received at least one mammogram. We also compared the age-specific changes in the proportion of women ages 35-59 years who were screened before and after the release of the revised recommendation. RESULTS: The proportion of women screened among the 40-49 and 50-59 age groups were 58.5 and 62.5%, respectively, between 2008 and 2009, and 56.9 and 62.0%, respectively, between 2010 and 2011. After 2009, the proportion of women screened declined by 1.2 percentage point among women aged 40-49 years (P < 0.01). The proportion of women screened decreased for all ages, and decreases were larger among women closer to the 40-year threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The 2009 USPSTF breast cancer recommendation was followed by a small reduction in the proportion of insured women aged 40-49 years who were screened. Reductions were larger among women at the younger end of the age range, who presumably had less prior experience with mammography than women nearing 50.

INTRODUCTION: Employers may incur costs related to absenteeism among employees who have chronic diseases or unhealthy behaviors. We examined the association between employee absenteeism and 5 conditions: 3 risk factors (smoking, physical inactivity, and obesity) and 2 chronic diseases (hypertension and diabetes). METHODS: We identified 5 chronic diseases or risk factors from 2 data sources: MarketScan Health Risk Assessment and the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Absenteeism was measured as the number of workdays missed because of sickness or injury. We used zero-inflated Poisson regression to estimate excess absenteeism as the difference in the number of days missed from work by those who reported having a risk factor or chronic disease and those who did not. Covariates included demographics (eg, age, education, sex) and employment variables (eg, industry, union membership). We quantified absenteeism costs in 2011 and adjusted them to reflect growth in employment costs to 2015 dollars. Finally, we estimated absenteeism costs for a hypothetical small employer (100 employees) and a hypothetical large employer (1,000 employees). RESULTS: Absenteeism estimates ranged from 1 to 2 days per individual per year depending on the risk factor or chronic disease. Except for the physical inactivity and obesity estimates, disease- and risk-factor-specific estimates were similar in MEPS and MarketScan. Absenteeism increased with the number of risk factors or diseases reported. Nationally, each risk factor or disease was associated with annual absenteeism costs greater than $2 billion. Absenteeism costs ranged from $16 to $81 (small employer) and $17 to $286 (large employer) per employee per year. CONCLUSION: Absenteeism costs associated with chronic diseases and health risk factors can be substantial. Employers may incur these costs through lower productivity, and employees could incur costs through lower wages.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed the impact of antihypertensive medication (AHM) adherence on the incidence and associated Medicaid costs of acute cardiovascular disease (CVD) events among Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: The study cohort (n=59,037) consists of nonelderly adults continuously enrolled (36 mo and above) in a Medicaid fee-for-service program. AHM adherence was calculated using the medication possession ratio (MPR) and stratified to low (MPR<60%), moderate (60%≤MPR<80%), and high (MPR≥80%) levels. We used a proportional hazard model to estimate risk for acute CVD events and generalized linear models to estimate Medicaid per-patient-per-year costs. RESULTS: Low and moderate adherence subgroups had about 1.8 and 1.4 times higher risk of acute CVD events, compared with high adherence subgroup. By adherence level, Medicaid per-patient per-year costs for (1) CVD-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations were $661 (low), $479 (moderate), and $343 (high) and (2) AHMs were $430 (low), $604 (moderate), and $664 (high). Costs for CVD events and AHMs combined were similar across adherence subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Lower adherence to AHM was associated with progressively higher CVD risk. The increase in medication cost from higher AHM adherence was offset solely by reduced Medicaid spending on acute CVD events.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the number and proportion of eligible women receiving mammograms funded by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). METHODS: Low-income, uninsured, and underinsured women aged 40-64 are eligible for mammography screening through the NBCCEDP. We used data from the NBCCEDP, the Current Population Survey, and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to describe the number and proportion of women screened by the NBCCEDP and overall. RESULTS: In 2011 and 2012, the NBCCEDP screened 549,043 women aged 40-64, an estimated 10.6 % (90 % confidence interval [CI] 10.4-10.9 %) of the eligible population. We estimate that 30.6 % (90 % CI 26.4-34.8 %) of eligible women aged 40-64 were screened outside the NBCCEDP, and 58.8 % (90 % CI 54.6-63.0 %) were not screened. The proportion of eligible women screened by the NBCCEDP varied across states, with an estimated range of 3.2 % (90 % CI 2.9-3.5 %) to 52.8 % (90 % CI 36.1-69.6 %) and a median of 13.7 % (90 % CI 11.0-16.4 %). The estimated proportion of eligible women aged 40-64 who received mammograms through the NBCCEDP was relatively constant over time, 11.1 % (90 % CI 10.2-11.9 %) in 1998-1999 and 10.6 % (90 % CI 10.4-11.9 %) in 2011-2012 (p = 0.23), even as the number of women screened increased from 343,692 to 549,043. CONCLUSIONS: Although the NBCCEDP provided screening services to over a half million low-income uninsured women for mammography, it served a small percentage of those eligible. The majority of low-income, uninsured women were not screened.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening recommendations are based on results from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The authors determined how the screening-eligible US population differs from NLST participants in terms of characteristics that affect their ability to benefit from screening. METHODS: The authors identified respondents to the 2012 Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a national survey of individuals aged ≥50 years who are eligible for screening based on US Preventive Services Task Force and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services criteria. Comorbidities, life expectancy, smoking history, and other characteristics were compared between the screening-eligible population and NLST participants. RESULTS: The authors estimated that in 2013, 8.4 million individuals (95% confidence interval, 7.9-8.9 million individuals) would have met the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening established by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Compared with NLST participants, HRS screening-eligible respondents were older, more likely to be current smokers, and more likely to have been diagnosed with comorbidities. The 5-year survival rate was 87% in the HRS screening-eligible individuals versus 93% in the NLST participants (P<.001, based on a 2-sided test). Life expectancy was 18.7 years in the HRS screening-eligible individuals versus 21.2 years in the NLST participants. CONCLUSIONS: The US population eligible for lung cancer screening is probably less likely to benefit from early detection than NLST participants because they face a high risk of death from competing causes. The results of the current study highlight the need for smoking cessation interventions targeting those patients eligible for screening and tools to help clinicians determine the potential benefits of screening in individual patients.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals have not received recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening before they become Medicare eligible at the age of 65. We aimed to estimate the long-term implications of increased CRC screening in the pre-Medicare population (50-64 y) on costs in the pre-Medicare and Medicare populations (65+ y). METHODS: We used 2 independently developed microsimulation models [Microsimulation Screening Analysis Colon (MISCAN) and Simulation Model of CRC (SimCRC)] to project CRC screening and treatment costs under 2 scenarios, starting in 2010: "current trends" (60% of the population up-to-date with screening recommendations) and "enhanced participation" (70% up-to-date). The population was scaled to the projected US population for each year between 2010 and 2060. Costs per year were derived by age group (50-64 and 65+ y). RESULTS: By 2060, the discounted cumulative total costs in the pre-Medicare population were $35.7 and $28.1 billion higher with enhanced screening participation, than in the current trends scenario ($252.1 billion with MISCAN and $239.5 billion with SimCRC, respectively). Because of CRC treatment savings with enhanced participation, cumulative costs in the Medicare population were $18.3 and $32.7 billion lower (current trends: $423.5 billion with MISCAN and $372.8 billion with SimCRC). Over the 50-year time horizon an estimated 60% (MISCAN) and 89% (SimCRC) of the increased screening costs could be offset by savings in Medicare CRC treatment costs. CONCLUSION: Increased CRC screening participation in the pre-Medicare population could reduce CRC incidence and mortality, whereas the additional screening costs can be largely offset by long-term Medicare treatment savings.

OBJECTIVE: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides breast and cervical cancer screens to low-income, uninsured, and underinsured women. We describe the number and proportion of women eligible for cervical cancer screening services and the proportion of eligible women screened over the period 1997-2012. METHODS: Low-income, uninsured, and underinsured women aged 18-64 years who have not had a hysterectomy are eligible for cervical cancer screening through the NBCCEDP. We estimated the number of low-income, uninsured women using data from the US Census Bureau. We adjusted our estimates for hysterectomy status using the National Health Interview Survey and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We used data from the NBCCEDP to describe the number of women receiving NBCCEDP-funded screening and calculated the proportion of eligible women who received screening through the NBCCEDP at the national level (by age group, race/ethnicity) and at the state level by age group. We used the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey to estimate the proportion of NBCCEDP-eligible women who were screened outside the NBCCEDP and the proportion that are not screened. RESULTS: We estimate that in 2010-2012, 705,970 women aged 18-64 years, 6.5 % (705,970 of 9.8 million) of the eligible population, received NBCCEDP-funded Pap tests. We estimate that 60.2 % of eligible women aged 18-64 years were screened outside the NBCCEDP and 33.3 % were not screened. The NBCCEDP provided 623,603 screens to women aged 40-64 years, an estimated 16.5 % of the eligible population, and 83,660 screens to women aged 18-39 years, representing an estimated 1.2 % of the eligible population. The estimated proportions of eligible women screened in each state ranged from 1.5 to 32.7 % and 5 % to 73.2 % among the 18-64 and 40-64 years age groups, respectively. Changes in the proportion of eligible women screened over the study period were nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Although the program provided cervical screening to over 700,000 women between 2010 and 2012, it served a small percent of those eligible. The proportion of women screened varied substantially across age groups, racial/ethnic groups, and states. Many low-income, uninsured women are not being screened.

The US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requires nursing homes and long-term-care facilities to document residents' vaccination status on the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI). Vaccinating residents can prevent costly hospital admissions and deaths. CMS and public health officials use RAI data to measure vaccination rates in long-term-care residents and assess the quality of care in nursing homes. We assessed the accuracy of RAI data against medical records in 39 nursing homes in Florida, Georgia, and Wisconsin. We randomly sampled residents in each home during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 influenza seasons. We collected data on receipt of influenza vaccination from charts and RAI data. Our final sample included 840 medical charts with matched RAI records. The agreement rate was 0.86. Using the chart as a gold standard, the sensitivity of the RAI with respect to influenza vaccination was 85% and the specificity was 77%. Agreement rates varied within facilities from 55% to 100%. Monitoring vaccination rates in the population is important for gauging the impact of programmes and policies to promote adherence to vaccination recommendations. Use of data from RAIs is a reasonable approach for gauging influenza vaccination rates in nursing-home residents.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify end-of-life (EOL) medical costs for adult Medicaid beneficiaries diagnosed with cancer. DATA SOURCES: We linked Medicaid administrative data with 2000-2003 cancer registry data to identify 3,512 adult Medicaid beneficiaries who died after a cancer diagnosis and matched them to a cohort of beneficiaries without cancer who died during the same period. STUDY DESIGN: We used multivariable regression analysis to estimate incremental per-person EOL cost after controlling for beneficiaries' age, race/ethnicity, sex, cancer site, and state of residence. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: End-of-life costs during the final 4 months of life were about $10,000 higher for Medicaid cancer patients than for those without cancer. Medicaid cancer patients are more intensive users of inpatient and ambulatory services than are Medicaid patients without cancer. Medicaid cancer patients who die soon after diagnosis have higher costs of care and use inpatient services more intensely than do Medicaid patients without cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid cancer patients incur substantially higher EOL costs than noncancer patients. This increased cost may reflect the cost of palliative care. Future studies should assess the types and timing of services provided to Medicaid cancer patients at the EOL.

BACKGROUND: Although state Medicaid programs cover cancer screening, Medicaid beneficiaries are less likely to be screened for cancer and are more likely to present with tumors of an advanced stage than are those with other insurance. The current study was performed to determine whether state Medicaid eligibility and reimbursement policies affect the receipt of breast, cervical, and colon cancer screening among Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: Cross-sectional regression analyses of 2007 Medicaid data from 46 states and the District of Columbia were performed to examine associations between state-specific Medicaid reimbursement/eligibility policies and receipt of cancer screening. The study sample included individuals aged 21 years to 64 years who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicaid for at least 4 months. Subsamples eligible for each screening test were: Papanicolaou test among 2,136,511 patients, mammography among 792,470 patients, colonoscopy among 769,729 patients, and fecal occult blood test among 753,868 patients. State-specific Medicaid variables included median screening test reimbursement, income/financial asset eligibility requirements, physician copayments, and frequency of eligibility renewal. RESULTS: Increases in screening test reimbursement demonstrated mixed associations (positive and negative) with the likelihood of receiving screening tests among Medicaid beneficiaries. In contrast, increased reimbursements for office visits were found to be positively associated with the odds of receiving all screening tests examined, including colonoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.06-1.08), fecal occult blood test (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10), Papanicolaou test (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03), and mammography (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02-1.03). Effects of other state-specific Medicaid policies varied across the screening tests examined. CONCLUSIONS: Increased reimbursement for office visits was consistently associated with an increased likelihood of being screened for cancer, and may be an important policy tool for increasing screening among this vulnerable population.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Screen for Life: National Colorectal Cancer Action Campaign (SFL) is one of the longest running national multimedia campaigns to promote colorectal cancer screening. Since its inception in 1999, no study has quantified the benefits and costs of SFL. We modeled the impact of SFL campaign on screening rates, assuming that the effect size would range from 0.5% to 10% of the unscreened population exposed to the campaign in the last 14 years. Given the estimated benefits of the campaign and costs, we calculated the cost per person screened (2012 dollars). We hypothesize that if 0.5% of the population exposed to campaign messages were screened for colorectal cancer, an additional 251,000 previously unscreened individuals would be screened. The average cost of SFL per person screened would be $2.44. On the other hand, if 10% of the population exposed to campaign messages were screened, an additional 5.01 million individuals would be screened. The average cost per person screened would be $0.12. Results indicate that SFL improves screening rates at a relatively low cost per person screened. The findings in this study provide an important starting point and benchmark for future research efforts to determine the benefits and costs of health communication campaigns to promote cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND: Special events are common community-based strategies for health promotion. This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review on the impact of special events to promote breast, cervical or colorectal cancer education and screening. METHODS: Articles in English that focused on special events involving breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer conducted in the U.S. and published between January 1990 and December 2011 were identified from seven databases: Ovid, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstract, Cochrane Libraries, and EconLit. Study inclusion and data extraction were independently validated by two researchers. RESULTS: Of the 20 articles selected for screening out of 1,409, ten articles on special events reported outcome data. Five types of special events were found: health fairs, parties, cultural events, special days, and plays. Many focused on breast cancer only, or in combination with other cancers. Reach ranged from 50-1732 participants. All special events used at least one evidence-based strategy suggested by the Community Guide to Preventive Services, such as small media, one-on-one education, and reducing structural barriers. For cancer screening as an outcome of the events, mammography screening rates ranged from 4.8% to 88%, Pap testing was 3.9%, and clinical breast exams ranged from 9.1% to 100%. For colorectal screening, FOBT ranged from 29.4% to 76%, and sigmoidoscopy was 100% at one event. Outcome measures included intentions to get screened, scheduled appointments, uptake of clinical exams, and participation in cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Special events found in the review varied and used evidence-based strategies. Screening data suggest that some special events can lead to increases in cancer screening, especially if they provide onsite screening services. However, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that special events are effective in increasing cancer screening. The heterogeneity of populations served, event activities, outcome variables assessed, and the reliance on self-report to measure screening limit conclusions. This study highlights the need for further research to determine the effectiveness of special events to increase cancer screening.

In 2008 the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended against screening men ages 75 and older for prostate cancer. Using Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey Access to Care files and linked claims, we compared trends in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing rates between men ages 75 and older and men ages 65-74. We estimate that the revised recommendation led to a 7.9-percentage-point decline in annual PSA testing rates over two years among men ages 75 and older. Although 42 percent of men in this age group continue to receive PSA tests, our results highlight the potential of guidelines with negative recommendations to reduce the use of low-value medical care.

BACKGROUND: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides free or low-cost breast and cervical cancer screening to low-income, uninsured or underinsured women. The authors analyzed the impact of the NBCCEDP on breast cancer mortality rates. METHODS: The data consisted of observations for each state and year for the period from 1990 through 2004. The outcome variable was the breast cancer mortality rate for women ages 40 to 64 years. Independent variables included the proportion of women ages 40 to 64 years screened under NBCCEDP. The impact of screening intensity was estimated using least-squares regression with state and year fixed effects. RESULTS: In 2004, 1.2% of women ages 40 to 64 years were screened under NBCCEDP. The NBCCEDP screening rate was related significantly and negatively to breast cancer mortality in the same year. Results indicate that, for every 1000 women screened, there were 0.6 fewer deaths because of breast cancer among women ages 40 to 64 years. Changes in screening rates were unrelated to breast cancer mortality≥2 years in the future. CONCLUSIONS: In the current study, there was some evidence suggesting that the NBCCEDP led to a reduction in breast cancer mortality rates. However, the failure to detect an impact of screening on mortality rates in subsequent years suggests that caution is needed in interpreting these results as strong evidence in favor of the effectiveness of the NBCCEDP in reducing breast cancer mortality.