Literature DB >> 17489900

Laws requiring health plans to provide direct access to obstetricians and gynecologists, and use of cancer screening by women.

Laurence C Baker1, Jia Chan.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many states have passed legislation mandating that health plans provide direct access to obstetricians/gynecologists (hereinafter "ob/gyns") for women, limiting the ability of plans to require referrals or otherwise restrict access. One benefit of these laws may be improved preventive screening rates, but no literature has examined the relationship between ob/gyn direct access laws and use of breast cancer and cervical cancer screening. DATA AND METHODS: We use repeated cross-sections of privately insured women age 18-64 (Pap test) and 40-64 (mammography) from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for 1996-2000, linked to data on the presence of ob/gyn direct access laws by state. Outcome measures are receipt of mammography and receipt of a Pap test within the past 2 years. Regression analyses are used to assess the relationship between the presence of ob/gyn direct access laws and screening, adjusting for a range of individual characteristics, fixed state characteristics, and time trends.
RESULTS: We find no statistically significant relationships between the presence of an ob/gyn direct access law and receipt of either mammography or Pap test screening. We explore a range of alternate specifications and find none that yield clear evidence of a relationship.
CONCLUSIONS: Laws requiring direct access to ob/gyns are not associated with large or consistent measurable impacts on use of cancer screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17489900      PMCID: PMC1955247          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00646.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  18 in total

1.  Screening mammography rates by specialty of the usual care physician.

Authors:  K S Finison; C A Wellins; D E Wennberg; F L Lucas
Journal:  Eff Clin Pract       Date:  1999 May-Jun

2.  Reliability and validity of measures from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

Authors:  D E Nelson; D Holtzman; J Bolen; C A Stanwyck; K A Mack
Journal:  Soz Praventivmed       Date:  2001

3.  Validity of women's self-reports of cancer screening test utilization in a managed care population.

Authors:  Lee S Caplan; David V McQueen; Judith R Qualters; Marilyn Leff; Carol Garrett; Ned Calonge
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Managed care regulation: in the laboratory of the states.

Authors:  T E Miller
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-10-01       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  The expanding scope of state legislation.

Authors:  F J Hellinger
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-10-02       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Reproducibility of the women's module of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System questionnaire.

Authors:  A D Stein; R I Lederman; S Shea
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 3.797

7.  Understanding the managed care backlash.

Authors:  R J Blendon; M Brodie; J M Benson; D E Altman; L Levitt; T Hoff; L Hugick
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  1998 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.301

8.  The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System questionnaire: its reliability in a statewide sample.

Authors:  A D Stein; R I Lederman; S Shea
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 9.308

9.  Are two doctors better than one? Women's physician use and appropriate care.

Authors:  Jillian T Henderson; Carol S Weisman; Holly Grason
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2002 May-Jun

10.  Validity of cardiovascular disease risk factors assessed by telephone survey: the Behavioral Risk Factor Survey.

Authors:  S J Bowlin; B D Morrill; A N Nafziger; P L Jenkins; C Lewis; T A Pearson
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 6.437

View more
  7 in total

1.  A comparison of breast and cervical cancer legislation and screening in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

Authors:  Stephanie Miles-Richardson; Daniel Blumenthal; Ernest Alema-Mensah
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2012-05

2.  Effects of State Cervical Cancer Insurance Mandates on Pap Test Rates.

Authors:  Marianne P Bitler; Christopher S Carpenter
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Is direct access to obstetricians/gynecologists effective at improving maternal health behaviors?

Authors:  Christine Piette Durrance; Scott Hankins
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-03-30       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Health Insurance Mandates, Mammography, and Breast Cancer Diagnoses.

Authors:  Marianne P Bitler; Christopher S Carpenter
Journal:  Am Econ J Econ Policy       Date:  2016-08

5.  The role of family history of cancer on cervical cancer screening behavior in a population-based survey of women in the Southeastern United States.

Authors:  Jessica D Bellinger; Heather M Brandt; James W Hardin; Shalanda A Bynum; Patricia A Sharpe; Dawnyéa Jackson
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2013-05-27

6.  Variation in the initial assessment and investigation for ovarian cancer in symptomatic women: a systematic review of international guidelines.

Authors:  Garth Funston; Marije Van Melle; Marie-Louise Ladegaard Baun; Henry Jensen; Charles Helsper; Jon Emery; Emma J Crosbie; Matthew Thompson; Willie Hamilton; Fiona M Walter
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Government regulation of private health insurance.

Authors:  Nkengafac Villyen Motaze; Primus Che Chi; Pierre Ongolo-Zogo; Jean Serge Ndongo; Charles S Wiysonge
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-02-22
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.