Preventive Service Usage and New Chronic Disease Diagnoses: Using PCORnet Data to Identify Emerging Trends, United States, 2018-2022.

Background: Data modernization efforts to strengthen surveillance capacity could help assess trends in use of preventive services and diagnoses of new chronic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic, which broadly disrupted health care access. Methods: This cross-sectional study examined electronic health record data from US adults aged 21 to 79 years in a large national research network (PCORnet), to describe use of 8 preventive health services (N = 30,783,825 patients) and new diagnoses of 9 chronic diseases (N = 31,588,222 patients) during 2018 through 2022. Joinpoint regression assessed significant trends, and health debt was calculated comparing 2020 through 2022 volume to prepandemic (2018 and 2019) levels. Results: From 2018 to 2022, use of some preventive services increased (hemoglobin A1c and lung computed tomography, both P < .05), others remained consistent (lipid testing, wellness visits, mammograms, Papanicolaou tests or human papillomavirus tests, stool-based screening), and colonoscopies or sigmoidoscopies declined (P < .01). Annual new chronic disease diagnoses were mostly stable (6% hypertension; 4% to 5% cholesterol; 4% diabetes; 1% colonic adenoma; 0.1% colorectal cancer; among women, 0.5% breast cancer), although some declined (lung cancer, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or carcinoma in situ, cervical cancer, all P < .05). The pandemic resulted in health debt, because use of most preventive services and new diagnoses of chronic disease were less than expected during 2020; these partially rebounded in subsequent years. Colorectal screening and colonic adenoma detection by age group aligned with screening recommendation age changes during this period. Conclusion: Among over 30 million patients receiving care during 2018 through 2022, use of preventive services and new diagnoses of chronic disease declined in 2020 and then rebounded, with some remaining health debt. These data highlight opportunities to augment traditional surveillance with EHR-based data.

Patterns of Care for Medicare Beneficiaries With Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

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.

Health-related quality of life among prostate cancer survivors with metastatic disease and non-metastatic disease and men without a cancer history in the USA.

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.

The cost burden of metastatic prostate cancer in the US populations covered by employer-sponsored health insurance.

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.

The Cost of Metastatic Prostate Cancer in the United States.

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.

Use Trends and Recent Expenditures for Cervical Cancer Screening-Associated Services in Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries Older Than 65 Years.

Importance: Since 1996, the US Preventive Services Task Force has recommended against cervical cancer screening in average-risk women 65 years or older with adequate prior screening. Little is known about the use of cervical cancer screening-associated services in this age group. Objective: To examine annual use trends in cervical cancer screening-associated services, specifically cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) tests, colposcopy, and cervical procedures (loop electrosurgical excision procedure, cone biopsy, and ablation) in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2019, and estimate expenditures for services performed in 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, cross-sectional analysis included health service use data across 21 years for women aged 65 to 114 years with Medicare fee-for-service coverage (15-16 million women per year). Data analysis was conducted between July 2021 and April 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of testing modalities (cytology alone, cytology plus HPV testing [cotesting], HPV testing alone); annual use rate per 100 000 women of cytology and HPV testing, colposcopy, and cervical procedures from 1999 to 2019; Medicare expenditure for these services in 2019. Results: There were 15 323 635 women 65 years and older with Medicare fee-for-service coverage in 1999 and 15 298 656 in 2019. In 2019, the mean (SD) age of study population was 76.2 (8.1) years, 5.1% were Hispanic, 0.5% were non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Native, 3.0% were non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, 7.4% were non-Hispanic Black, and 82.0% were non-Hispanic White. From 1999 to 2019, the percentage of women who received at least 1 cytology or HPV test decreased from 18.9% (2.9 million women) in 1999 to 8.5% (1.3 million women) in 2019, a reduction of 55.3%; use rates of colposcopy and cervical procedures decreased 43.2% and 64.4%, respectively. Trend analyses showed a 4.6% average annual reduction in use of cytology or HPV testing during 1999 to 2019 (P < .001). Use rates of colposcopy and cervical procedures decreased before 2015 then plateaued during 2015 to 2019. The total Medicare expenditure for all services rendered in 2019 was about $83.5 million. About 3% of women older than 80 years received at least 1 service at a cost of $7.4 million in 2019. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that while annual use of cervical cancer screening-associated services in the Medicare fee-for-service population older than 65 years has decreased during the last 2 decades, more than 1.3 million women received these services in 2019 at substantial costs.

Multilevel Small Area Estimation for County-Level Prevalence of Mammography Use in the United States Using 2018 Data.

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-74 years. We aim to generate county-level prevalence estimates for mammography use to examine disparities among counties. Materials and Methods: We used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n = 111,902 women) and linked them to county-level data from the American Community Survey. We defined two outcomes: mammography within the past 2 years (current); and mammography 5 or more years ago or never (rarely or never). We poststratified the data with U.S. Census estimated county population counts, ran Monte Carlo simulations, and generated county-level estimates. We aggregated estimates to state and national levels. We validated internal consistency between our model-based and BRFSS state estimates using Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: Nationally, more than three in four women [78.7% (95% confidence interval {CI}: 78.2%-79.2%)] were current with mammography, although with large variations among counties. Also, nationally, about one in nine women [11% (95% CI: 10.8%-11.3%)] rarely or never had a mammogram. County estimates for being current ranged from 60.4% in New Mexico to 86.9% in Hawaii. Rarely or never having a mammogram ranged from 6% in Connecticut to 23.0% in Alaska, and on average, almost one in eight women in all the counties. Internal consistency correlation coefficient tests were ≥0.94. Conclusions: Our analyses identified marked county variations in mammography use across the country among women aged 50-74 years. We generated estimates for all counties, which may be helpful for targeted outreach to increase mammography uptake.

Computable Guidelines and Clinical Decision Support for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management to Improve Outcomes and Health Equity.

Cervical cancer is highly preventable when precancerous lesions are detected early and appropriately managed. However, the complexity of and frequent updates to existing evidence-based clinical guidelines make it challenging for clinicians to stay abreast of the latest recommendations. In addition, limited availability and accessibility to information technology (IT) decision supports make it difficult for groups who are medically underserved to receive screening or receive the appropriate follow-up care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Cancer Prevention and Control (DCPC), is leading a multiyear initiative to develop computer-interpretable ("computable") version of already existing evidence-based guidelines to support clinician awareness and adoption of the most up-to-date cervical cancer screening and management guidelines. DCPC is collaborating with the MITRE Corporation, leading scientists from the National Cancer Institute, and other CDC subject matter experts to translate existing narrative guidelines into computable format and develop clinical decision support tools for integration into health IT systems such as electronic health records with the ultimate goal of improving patient outcomes and decreasing disparities in cervical cancer outcomes among populations that are medically underserved. This initiative meets the challenges and opportunities highlighted by the President's Cancer Panel and the President's Cancer Moonshot 2.0 to nearly eliminate cervical cancer.

The use of electronic health records to inform cancer surveillance efforts: a scoping review and test of indicators for public health surveillance of cancer prevention and control.

INTRODUCTION: State cancer prevention and control programs rely on public health surveillance data to set objectives to improve cancer prevention and control, plan interventions, and evaluate state-level progress towards achieving those objectives. The goal of this project was to evaluate the validity of using electronic health records (EHRs) based on common data model variables to generate indicators for surveillance of cancer prevention and control for these public health programs. METHODS: Following the methodological guidance from the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews, we conducted a literature scoping review to assess how EHRs are used to inform cancer surveillance. We then developed 26 indicators along the continuum of the cascade of care, including cancer risk factors, immunizations to prevent cancer, cancer screenings, quality of initial care after abnormal screening results, and cancer burden. Indicators were calculated within a sample of patients from the New York City (NYC) INSIGHT Clinical Research Network using common data model EHR data and were weighted to the NYC population using post-stratification. We used prevalence ratios to compare these estimates to estimates from the raw EHR of NYU Langone Health to assess quality of information within INSIGHT, and we compared estimates to results from existing surveillance sources to assess validity. RESULTS: Of the 401 identified articles, 15% had a study purpose related to surveillance. Our indicator comparisons found that INSIGHT EHR-based measures for risk factor indicators were similar to estimates from external sources. In contrast, cancer screening and vaccination indicators were substantially underestimated as compared to estimates from external sources. Cancer screenings and vaccinations were often recorded in sections of the EHR that were not captured by the common data model. INSIGHT estimates for many quality-of-care indicators were higher than those calculated using a raw EHR. CONCLUSION: Common data model EHR data can provide rich information for certain indicators related to the cascade of care but may have substantial biases for others that limit their use in informing surveillance efforts for cancer prevention and control programs.

Number of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening tests in the last five years reported by men in the United States in 2010, 2015, and 2018.

BACKGROUND: Longer intervals between prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests for routine prostate cancer screening can reduce the harms while maintaining the benefits of screening. Limited information has been published on PSA screening frequency. The purpose of this report is to describe the number of PSA tests in the last 5 years reported by men in the United States. METHODS: Using data from National Health Interview Survey Cancer Control Supplements in 2010, 2015, and 2018, the number of PSA tests in the last 5 years reported by men ≥40 years was categorized as 4 to 5 PSA tests, 1 to 3 PSA tests, and no PSA tests. Logistic regression was used to calculate model-adjusted prevalence risk ratios (aPRs) for the number of PSA tests in the last 5 years, adjusting for age, racial-ethnic group, education, marital status, and health insurance. RESULTS: The proportion of men aged ≥70 years who reported 4 to 5 PSA tests in the last 5 years decreased from 37.2% in 2010 to 31.1% in 2018, while the proportion reporting 1 to 3 PSA tests increased from 25.5% to 31.9%. In 2018, aPRs for 4 to 5 PSA tests vs. 1 to 3 PSA tests in the last 5 years were significantly higher among men aged 70 to 79 years than among men aged 55 to 69 years. CONCLUSIONS: Men aged ≥70 years reported a small shift to less intense PSA testing between 2010 and 2018, but PSA testing intensity remained higher in men aged ≥70 years than in men aged 55 to 69 years.

Human papilloma virus vaccination and cervical cancer screening coverage in managed care plans - United States, 2018.

Human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination for adolescents aged 11-12 years and cervical cancer screening for women aged 21-65 years are recommended to help prevent cervical cancer. The purpose of this study was to describe 2018 National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS®) data for the United States on HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening from 275 commercial preferred provider organizations (PPOs), 219 commercial health maintenance organizations (HMOs), and 204 Medicaid HMOs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and NCQA analyzed the data in 2021. The HEDIS® measure for HPV vaccination was the percentage of male and female adolescents aged 13 years who completed HPV immunization (2- or 3-dose series) on or before their 13th birthday. The measure for cervical cancer screening was the percentage of women screened either with cervical cytology within the last 3 years for women aged 21-64 years or with cervical cytology/HPV co-testing within the last 5 years for women aged 30-64 years. Nationally, the mean rate for HPV vaccination in 2018 was 37.8% in Medicaid HMOs, 30.3% in commercial HMOs, and 24.9% in commercial PPOs. The mean rate for cervical cancer screening was 75.9% in commercial HMOs, 72.6% in commercial PPOs, and 60.3% among Medicaid HMOs. Medicaid HMOs reported higher HPV vaccination rates but lower cervical cancer screening rates than commercial plans. These differences raise questions about explanatory factors and how to improve prevention performance by plan category.

Multilevel small area estimation for county-level prevalence of colorectal cancer screening test use in the United States using 2018 data.

PURPOSE-: National screening estimates mask county-level variations. We aimed to generate county-level colorectal cancer (CRC) screening prevalence estimates for 2018 among adults aged 50-75 years and identify counties with low screening prevalence. METHODS-: We combined individual-level county data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n = 204,947) with the 2018 American Community Survey county poverty data as a covariate, and the 2018 U.S. Census county population count data to generate county-level prevalence estimates for being current with any CRC screening test, colonoscopy, and home stool blood test. Because BRFSS is a state-based survey, and because some counties did not have samples for analysis, we used correlation coefficients to test internal consistency between model-based and BRFSS state estimates. RESULTS-: Correlation coefficients tests were ≥0.97. Model-based national prevalence for any test was 69.9% (95% CI, 69.5% -70.4%) suggesting 30% are not current with screening test use. State mean estimates ranged from 62.1% in Alaska and Wyoming to 76.6% in Maine and Massachusetts. County mean estimates ranged from 42.2% in Alaska to 80.0% in Florida and Rhode Island. Most tests were performed with colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS-: Estimates across all U.S. counties showed large variations. Estimates may be informative for planning by states and local screening programs.

Multilevel Small Area Estimation of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening Test in the United States by Age Group: 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended prostate cancer screening for men aged 55 to 69 years who express a preference for being screened after being informed about and understanding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test benefits and risks. USPSTF recommended against screening men aged ≥70 years. We aim to generate county-level prevalence estimates, masked by national and state estimates, to identify counties with high PSA screening prevalence. METHODS: We fitted multilevel logistic regression mixed models for 4 age groups (≥40, 40 to 54, 55 to 69, ≥70 years), using data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n = 116,654) and other sources. We evaluated consistency between our model-based state and BRFSS direct state estimates with Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: PSA screening prevalence increased with increasing age groups: 7.7% for men aged 40 to 54 years, 27.2% for men aged 55 to 69 years, and 33.7% among men age ≥70 years, and was largely clustered in the South and Appalachia. Many county estimates among men aged ≥70 years exceeded 40%, especially in the South. Correlation coefficients were 0.94 for men aged ≥40, and ≥0.85 for men aged 40 to 54 years, 55 to 69 years, and ≥70 years. CONCLUSIONS: PSA screening was highest among men ≥70 years, for whom it is not recommended, and in the South among all age groups. Screening varied substantially within states. IMPACT: In 2018, on average, more than 1 in 4 men aged 55 to 69 years and 1 in 3 men aged ≥70 years underwent PSA screening in the prior year, suggesting potential overuse among some men.

Prostate Cancer Incidence and Survival, by Stage and Race/Ethnicity - United States, 2001-2017.

Among U.S. men, prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death (1). Past studies documented decreasing incidence of prostate cancer overall since 2000 but increasing incidence of distant stage prostate cancer (i.e., signifying spread to parts of the body remote from the primary tumor) starting in 2010 (2,3). Past studies described disparities in prostate cancer survival by stage, age, and race/ethnicity using data covering ≤80% of the U.S. population (4,5). To provide recent data on incidence and survival of prostate cancer in the United States, CDC analyzed data from population-based cancer registries that contribute to U.S. Cancer Statistics (USCS).* Among 3.1 million new cases of prostate cancer recorded during 2003-2017, localized, regional, distant, and unknown stage prostate cancer accounted for 77%, 11%, 5%, and 7% of cases, respectively, but the incidence of distant stage prostate cancer significantly increased during 2010-2017. During 2001-2016, 10-year relative survival for localized stage prostate cancer was 100%. Overall, 5-year survival for distant stage prostate cancer improved from 28.7% during 2001-2005 to 32.3% during 2011-2016; for the period 2001-2016, 5-year survival was highest among Asian/Pacific Islanders (API) (42.0%), followed by Hispanics (37.2%), American Indian/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) (32.2%), Black men (31.6%), and White men (29.1%). Understanding incidence and survival differences by stage, race/ethnicity, and age can guide public health planning related to screening, treatment, and survivor care. Future research into differences by stage, race/ethnicity, and age could inform interventions aimed at improving disparities in outcomes.

Screening for Lung Cancer - 10 States, 2017.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States; 148,869 lung cancer-associated deaths occurred in 2016 (1). Mortality might be reduced by identifying lung cancer at an early stage when treatment can be more effective (2). In 2013, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (CT) for adults aged 55-80 years who have a 30 pack-year* smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years (2).† This was a Grade B recommendation, which required health insurance plans to cover lung cancer screening as a preventive service.§ To assess the prevalence of lung cancer screening by state, CDC used Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data¶ collected in 2017 by 10 states.** Overall, 12.7% adults aged 55-80 years met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. Among those meeting USPSTF criteria, 12.5% reported they had received a CT scan to check for lung cancer in the last 12 months. Efforts to educate health care providers and provide decision support tools might increase recommended lung cancer screening.

Screening for Lung Cancer: 10 States, 2017

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States; 148,869 lung cancer-associated deaths occurred in 2016 (1). Mortality might be reduced by identifying lung cancer at an early stage when treatment can be more effective (2). In 2013, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose computed tomography (CT) for adults aged 55­80 years who have a 30 pack-year* smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years (2).† This was a Grade B recommendation, which required health insurance plans to cover lung cancer screening as a preventive service.§ To assess the prevalence of lung cancer screening by state, CDC used Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data¶ collected in 2017 by 10 states.** Overall, 12.7% adults aged 55­80 years met the USPSTF criteria for lung cancer screening. Among those meeting USPSTF criteria, 12.5% reported they had received a CT scan to check for lung cancer in the last 12 months. Efforts to educate health care providers and provide decision suppor

Utilization and Cost of Mammography Screening Among Commercially Insured Women 50 to 64 Years of Age in the United States, 2012-2016.

Background: In recent years, most insurance plans eliminated cost-sharing for breast cancer screening and recommended screening intervals changed, and newer modalities-digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis-became more widely available. The objectives of this study are to examine how these changes affected utilization, frequency, and costs of breast cancer screening among commercially insured women, and to understand factors associated with utilization and frequency of screening. Materials and Methods: This study used commercial insurance claims data for women 50 to 64 years of age, continuously enrolled in commercial insurance plans during 2012-2016. Results: Of the 685,737 eligible women, 20% were not screened, 40% received annual screening, 24% received biennial screening, and 16% were screened less frequently than recommended during the time period examined. Sociodemographic factors such as age <60 years, rurality, and fee-for-service insurance were associated with low screening utilization. Patients who received annual screening incurred ∼1.78 times higher costs compared to those who received biennial screening during the study period. Digital mammography was the most costly and commonly used modality along with computer-aided detection. Conclusions: Evidence-based interventions to promote screening among women who are screened less frequently are needed along with interventions to move toward biennial screening rather than annual screening. Increasing provider awareness regarding breast cancer screening rates and frequency among various sociodemographic groups is essential to guide provider recommendations and shared decision making. The results of this study can guide targeted public health interventions to reduce barriers to screening, and can also serve as inputs for economic analyses of screening interventions and programs.

Smoking cessation behaviors among older U.S. adults.

Smoking cessation is a critical component of cancer prevention among older adults (age ≥ 65 years). Understanding smoking cessation behaviors among older adults can inform clinical and community efforts to increase successful cessation. We provide current, national prevalence estimates for smoking cessation behaviors among older adults, including interest in quitting, quitting attempts, quitting successes, receiving advice to quit from a healthcare provider, and use of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments. The 2015 National Health Interview Survey and Cancer Control Supplement were used to estimate cigarette smoking status and cessation behaviors among older US adults across selected socio-demographic and health characteristics. We found that four in five older adults who had ever smoked cigarettes had quit and more than half who currently smoked were interested in quitting but fewer than half made a past-year quit attempt. Two-thirds of older adults said that a healthcare provider advised them to quit smoking, but just over one-third who tried to quit used evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments and only one in 20 successfully quit in the past year. Prevalence estimates for smoking cessation behaviors were similar across most characteristics. Our study demonstrates that few older adults, across most levels of characteristics examined, successfully quit smoking, underscoring the importance of assisting smoking cessation efforts. Healthcare providers can help older adults quit smoking by offering or referring evidence-based cessation treatments. States and communities can implement population-based interventions including tobacco price increases, comprehensive smoke-free policies, high-impact tobacco education media campaigns, and barrier-free access to evidence-based tobacco cessation counseling and medications.