Insurance Coverage Mandates and the Adoption of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Importance: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a breast cancer screening modality that has gained popularity in recent years. Although insurance coverage for DBT is not mandated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, several states have required coverage without cost sharing for private insurers. Objective: To evaluate the association between state-level insurance coverage mandates for DBT and changes in DBT use, price, and out-of-pocket payments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used an event-study design with repeated cross-sectional observations of US states. Data were obtained from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis database for commercially insured women aged 40 to 64 years who underwent screening mammography between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. Data were analyzed between January 14, 2021, and January 20, 2022. Interventions: Passage of state-level legislation requiring insurance coverage of DBT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in DBT use among women screened for breast cancer, overall DBT price, and out-of-pocket payments for DBT in states with mandates for coverage of DBT compared with states that did not pass legislation. Results: This study included 9 604 084 screening mammograms from 5 754 123 women (mean [SD] age, of 53 [6.7] years). During the study period, 15 states enacted DBT coverage mandates and 34 states did not. In states with coverage mandates, DBT use increased by 9.0 percentage points (95% CI, 1.8-16.3 percentage points; P = .02) 2 years after the mandate compared with states without coverage mandates. Coverage mandates were also associated with a net $38.7 (95% CI, $13.4-$63.9; P = .003) decrease in the mean price of DBT compared with no coverage mandates. There was no association between coverage mandates and out-of-pocket payments 2 years after mandate passage ($-2.1; 95% CI, $-5.3 to $1.0; P = .18). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, DBT coverage mandates were associated with an increase in DBT use but not with any change in out-of-pocket payments. The findings suggest that coverage mandates for DBT may have been associated with broader use but were not associated with changes in direct costs to patients.

Integrating Financial Coaching and Referrals into a Smoking Cessation Program for Low-income Smokers: a Randomized Waitlist Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Financial distress is a barrier to cessation among low-income smokers. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an intervention that integrated financial coaching and benefits referrals into a smoking cessation program for low-income smokers. DESIGN: Randomized waitlist control trial conducted from 2017 to 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Adult New York City residents were eligible if they reported past 30-day cigarette smoking, had income below 200% of the federal poverty level, spoke English or Spanish, and managed their own funds. Pregnant or breastfeeding people were excluded. Participants were recruited from two medical centers and from the community. INTERVENTION: The intervention (n = 208) offered smoking cessation coaching, nicotine replacement therapy, money management coaching, and referral to financial benefits and empowerment services. The waitlist control (n=202) was usual care during a 6-month waiting period. MAIN MEASURES: Treatment engagement, self-reported 7-day abstinence, and financial stress at 6 months. KEY RESULTS: At 6 months, intervention participants reported higher abstinence (17% vs. 9%, P=0.03), lower stress about finances (ß, -0.8 [SE, 0.4], P=0.02), and reduced frequency of being unable to afford activities (ß, -0.8 [SE, 0.4], P=0.04). Outcomes were stronger among participants recruited from the medical centers (versus from the community). Among medical center participants, the intervention was associated with higher abstinence (20% vs. 8%, P=0.01), higher satisfaction with present financial situation (ß, 1.0 [SE, 0.4], P=0.01), reduced frequency of being unable to afford activities (ß, -1.0 [SE, 0.5], P=0.04), reduced frequency in getting by paycheck-to-paycheck (ß, -1.0 [SE, 0.4], P=0.03), and lower stress about finances in general (ß, -1.0 [SE, 0.4], P = 0.02). There were no group differences in outcomes among people recruited from the community (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among low-income smokers recruited from medical centers, the intervention produced higher abstinence rates and reductions in some markers of financial distress than usual care. The intervention was not efficacious with people recruited from the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03187730.

Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Mammography in Older Women.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has become a prevalent mode of breast cancer screening in recent years. Although older women are commonly screened for breast cancer, little is known about screening outcomes using DBT among older women. OBJECTIVE: To assess proximal screening outcomes with DBT compared to traditional two-dimensional(2-D) mammography among women 67-74 and women 75 and older. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 67 years and older with no history of prior cancer who received a screening mammogram in 2015. MAIN MEASURES: Use of subsequent imaging (ultrasound and diagnostic mammography) as an indication of recall, breast cancer detection, and characteristics of breast cancer at the time of diagnosis. Analyses used weighted logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders. KEY RESULTS: Our study included 26,406 women aged 67-74 and 17,001 women 75 and older who were screened for breast cancer. Among women 75 and older, the rate of subsequent imaging among women screened with DBT did not differ significantly from 2-D mammography (91.8 versus 97.0 per 1,000 screening mammograms, p=0.37). In this age group, DBT was associated with 2.1 additional cancers detected per 1,000 screening mammograms compared to 2D (11.5 versus 9.4, p=0.003), though these additional cancers were almost exclusively in situ and stage I invasive cancers. For women 67-74 years old, DBT was associated with a higher rate of subsequent imaging than 2-D mammography (113.9 versus 100.3, p=0.004) and a higher rate of stage I invasive cancer detection (4.7 versus 3.7, p=0.002), but not other stages. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer screening with DBT was not associated with lower rates of subsequent imaging among older women. Most additional cancers detected with DBT were early stage. Whether detecting these additional early-stage cancers among older women improves health outcomes remains uncertain.

Comparative Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening Among Women 40-64 Years Old.

BACKGROUND: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may have a higher cancer detection rate and lower recall compared with 2-dimensional (2 D) mammography for breast cancer screening. The goal of this study was to evaluate screening outcomes with DBT in a real-world cohort and to characterize the population health impact of DBT as it is widely adopted. METHODS: This observational study evaluated breast cancer screening outcomes among women screened with 2 D mammography vs DBT. We used deidentified administrative data from a large private health insurer and included women aged 40-64 years screened between January 2015 and December 2017. Outcomes included recall, biopsy, and incident cancers detected. We used 2 complementary techniques: a patient-level analysis using multivariable logistic regression and an area-level analysis evaluating the relationship between population-level adoption of DBT use and outcomes. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Our sample included 7 602 869 mammograms in 4 580 698 women, 27.5% of whom received DBT. DBT was associated with modestly lower recall compared with 2 D mammography (113.6 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% confidence interval [CI] = 113.0 to 114.2 vs 115.4, 99% CI = 115.0 to 115.8, P < .001), although younger women aged 40-44 years had a larger reduction in recall (153 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 151 to 155 vs 164 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 163 to 166, P < .001). DBT was associated with higher biopsy rates than 2 D mammography (19.6 biopsies per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 19.3 to 19.8 vs 15.2, 99% CI = 15.1 to 15.4, P < .001) and a higher cancer detection rate (4.9 incident cancers per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 4.7 to 5.0 vs 3.8, 99% CI = 3.7 to 3.9, P < .001). Point estimates from the area-level analysis generally supported these findings. CONCLUSIONS: In a large population of privately insured women, DBT was associated with a slightly lower recall rate than 2 D mammography and a higher cancer detection rate. Whether this increased cancer detection improves clinical outcomes remains unknown.

Understanding Regional Variation in the Cost of Breast Cancer Screening Among Privately Insured Women in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer screening for women aged 40-49 years is prevalent and costly, with costs varying substantially across US regions. Newer approaches to mammography may improve cancer detection but also increase screening costs. We assessed factors associated with regional variation in screening costs. METHODS: We used Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, a large US commercial claims database accessed through secure portal, to assess regional variation in screening utilization and costs. We included screening mammography±digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), screening ultrasound, diagnostic mammography±DBT, diagnostic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy, and evaluated their utilization and costs. We assessed regional variation in annual per-screened-beneficiary costs and examined potential savings from reducing regional variation. RESULTS: Of the 2,257,393 privately insured women, 41.2% received screening mammography in 2017 (range: 26.6%-54.2% across regions). Wide regional variation was found in the DBT proportion (0.7%-91.1%) and mean costs of DBT ($299; range: $113-714) and 2-dimensional (D) mammograms ($213; range: $107-471). In one-fourth of the regions, the mean DBT cost was lower than the mean 2D mammography cost in the full sample. Regional variation in the per-screened-beneficiary cost (mean: $353; range: $151-751) was mainly attributable to variation in the cost of DBT (accounting for 23.4% of regional variation) and 2D mammography (23.0%). Reducing regional variation by decreasing the highest values to the national mean was projected to save $79-335 million annually. CONCLUSIONS: The mean mammogram cost for privately insured women ages 40-49 varies 7-fold across regions, driving substantial variation in breast cancer screening costs. Reducing this regional variation would substantially decrease the screening costs.

Breast cancer supplemental screening: Women's knowledge and utilization in the era of dense breast legislation.

BACKGROUND: Given the growth in dense breast notification (DBN) legislation in the United States, we examined the association between different types of DBN laws and supplemental screening behaviors among women. METHODS: We surveyed in March-April 2018 a nationally representative sample of women aged 40-59 years who received a routine screening mammogram in the past 18 months. Survey items included the following topics regarding supplemental screening: discussing risks or benefits with a provider, knowledge about the risk of false positives, and utilization. We grouped women by state DBN into non-DBN, generic DBN (mentions breast density but not supplemental screening), DBN that mentions supplemental screening (DBN-SS), and DBN with mandated insurance coverage for supplemental screening (DBN-coverage), and estimated adjusted predicted probabilities for supplemental screening behaviors. RESULTS: Of 1641 women surveyed, 21.3% resided in non-DBN, 41.2% in generic DBN, 25.8% in DBN-SS, and 12.5% in DBN-coverage states. Overall, 23.0% of respondents had discussed supplemental screening with a provider, 11.3% of whom discussed the risks, and 49.5% discussed the benefits. In adjusted analysis, women living in DBN-coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening (27.5%) than women in non-DBN states (13.6%); pairwise contrast 13.8% (95% CI, 2.1% to 25.6%; P = .01). They were also more likely to have received supplemental screening for increased breast density (19.3%) compared to women living in non-DBN (9.9%); contrast 9.4% (95% CI, 1.6% to 17.3%; P = .01), Generic DBN (7.3%); difference 12.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 19.4%; P =< .001), and DBN-SS (8.8%); contrast 10.5% (95% CI, 2.6% to 18.5%; P < .01) states. CONCLUSIONS: Women in DBN-coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening with their providers, and to undergo supplemental screening, compared to women in states with other types of DBN laws, or without DBN laws.

Dense Breast Notification Laws, Education, and Women's Awareness and Knowledge of Breast Density: a Nationally Representative Survey.

BACKGROUND: To date, 38 states have enacted dense breast notification (DBN) laws mandating that mammogram reports include language informing women of risks related to dense breast tissue. OBJECTIVE: Nationally representative survey to assess the association between residing in a state with a DBN law and women's awareness and knowledge about breast density, and breast cancer anxiety. DESIGN: Internet survey conducted in 2018 with participants in KnowledgePanel®, an online research panel. PARTICIPANTS: English-speaking US women ages 40-59 years without a personal history of breast cancer who had received at least one screening mammogram (N = 1928; survey completion rate 68.2%). MAIN MEASURES: (1) Reported history of increased breast density, (2) knowledge of the increased risk of breast cancer with dense breasts, (3) knowledge of the masking effect of dense breasts on mammography, and (4) breast cancer anxiety. KEY RESULTS: Women residing in DBN states were more likely to report increased breast density (43.6%) compared with women residing in non-DBN states (32.7%, p < 0.01, adjusted odds ratio, 1.70, 95% CI,1.34-2.17). Interaction effect between DBN states and education status showed that the impact of DBN on women's reporting of dense breasts was significant for women with greater than high school education, but not among women with a high school education or less (p value = 0.01 for interaction). Only 23.0% of women overall knew that increased breast density was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer, and 68.0% of women understood that dense breasts decreased the sensitivity of mammography. There were no significant differences between women in DBN states and non-DBN states for these outcomes, or for breast cancer-related anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: State DBN laws were not associated with increased understanding of the clinical implications of breast density. DBN laws were associated with a higher likelihood of women reporting increased breast density, though not among women with lower education.

Financial Hardship, Motivation to Quit and Post-Quit Spending Plans among Low-Income Smokers Enrolled in a Smoking Cessation Trial.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco spending may exacerbate financial hardship in low-income populations by using funds that could go toward essentials. This study examined post-quit spending plans among low-income smokers and whether financial hardship was positively associated with motivation to quit in the sample. METHODS: We analyzed data from the baseline survey of a randomized controlled trial testing novel a smoking cessation intervention for low-income smokers in New York City (N = 410). Linear regression was used to examine the relationship between financial distress, food insecurity, smoking-induced deprivation (SID) and motivation to quit (measured on a 0-10 scale). We performed summative content analyses of open-ended survey questions to identify the most common plans among participants with and without SID for how to use their tobacco money after quitting. RESULTS: Participants had an average level of motivation to quit of 7.7 (SD = 2.5). Motivation to quit was not significantly related to having high financial distress or food insecurity (P > .05), but participants reporting SID had significantly lower levels of motivation to quit than those without SID (M = 7.4 versus 7.9, P = .04). Overall, participants expressed an interest in three main types of spending for after they quit: Purchases, Activities, and Savings/Investing, which could be further conceptualized as spending on Oneself or Family, and on Needs or Rewards. The top three spending plans among participants with and without SID were travel, clothing and savings. There were three needs-based spending plans unique to a small number of participants with SID: housing, health care and education. CONCLUSIONS: Financial distress and food insecurity did not enhance overall motivation to quit, while smokers with SID were less motivated to quit. Most low-income smokers, including those with SID, did not plan to use their tobacco money on household essentials after quitting.

Association of State Dense Breast Notification Laws With Supplemental Testing and Cancer Detection After Screening Mammography.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association of state dense breast notification (DBN) laws with use of supplemental tests and cancer diagnosis after screening mammography. METHODS: We examined screening mammograms (n = 1 441 544) performed in 2014 and 2015 among privately insured women aged 40 to 59 years living in 9 US states that enacted DBN laws in 2014 to 2015 and 25 US states with no DBN law in effect. DBN status at screening mammography was categorized as no DBN, generic DBN, and DBN that mandates notification of possible benefits of supplemental screening (DBN+SS). We used logistic regression to examine the change in rate of supplemental ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, breast biopsy, and breast cancer detection. RESULTS: DBN+SS laws were associated with 10.5 more ultrasounds per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 3.0, 17.6 per 1000; P = .006) and 0.37 more breast cancers detected per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 0.05, 0.69 per 1000; P = .02) compared with no DBN law. No significant differences were found for generic DBN laws in either ultrasound or cancer detection. CONCLUSIONS: DBN legislation is associated with increased use of ultrasound and cancer detection after implementation only when notification of the possible benefits of supplemental screening is required.