Literature DB >> 24195774

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and cancer screening among female Medicare beneficiaries.

Ramzi G Salloum1, Racquel E Kohler, Gail A Jensen, Stacey L Sheridan, William R Carpenter, Andrea K Biddle.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medicare covers several cancer screening tests not currently recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force). In September 2002, the Task Force relaxed the upper age limit of 70 years for breast cancer screening recommendations, and in March 2003 an upper age limit of 65 years was introduced for cervical cancer screening recommendations. We assessed whether mammogram and Pap test utilization among women with Medicare coverage is influenced by changes in the Task Force's recommendations for screening.
METHODS: We identified female Medicare beneficiaries aged 66-80 years and used bivariate probit regression to examine the receipt of breast (mammogram) and cervical (Pap test) cancer screening reflecting changes in the Task Force recommendations. We analyzed 9,760 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey responses from 2001 to 2007.
RESULTS: More than two-thirds reported receiving a mammogram and more than one-third a Pap test in the previous 2 years. Lack of recommendation was given as a reason for not getting screened among the majority (51% for mammogram and 75% for Pap). After controlling for beneficiary-level socioeconomic characteristics and access to care factors, we did not observe a significant change in breast and cervical cancer screening patterns following the changes in Task Force recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there is evidence that many Medicare beneficiaries adhere to screening guidelines, some women may be receiving non-recommended screening services covered by Medicare.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24195774      PMCID: PMC3952589          DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2013.4421

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  35 in total

1.  Screening for cervical cancer: recommendations and rationale.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Nurs       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 2.220

2.  Data sources for measuring colorectal endoscopy use among Medicare enrollees.

Authors:  Anna P Schenck; Carrie N Klabunde; Joan L Warren; Sharon Peacock; William W Davis; Sarah T Hawley; Michael Pignone; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 3.  Reported drop in mammography : is this cause for concern?

Authors:  Nancy Breen; Kathleen A Cronin; Helen I Meissner; Stephen H Taplin; Florence K Tangka; Jasmin A Tiro; Timothy S McNeel
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-06-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Cervical cancer screening rates in the United States and the potential impact of implementation of screening guidelines.

Authors:  Diane Solomon; Nancy Breen; Timothy McNeel
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 5.  Prioritizing clinical preventive services: a review and framework with implications for community preventive services.

Authors:  Michael V Maciosek; Ashley B Coffield; Nichol M Edwards; Thomas J Flottemesch; Leif I Solberg
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 21.981

6.  Breast and cervical cancer screening: clinicians' views on health plan guidelines and implementation efforts.

Authors:  Jane G Zapka; Elaine Puleo; Stephen Taplin; Leif I Solberg; Judy Mouchawar; Carol Somkin; Ann M Geiger; Marianne Ulcickas Yood
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2005

7.  Racial and ethnic trends of colorectal cancer screening among Medicare enrollees.

Authors:  Chyke A Doubeni; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Carrie N Klabunde; Angela C Young; Terry S Field; Robert H Fletcher
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 5.043

8.  Delivery of cancer screening: how important is the preventive health examination?

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Yong Cai; Noel S Weiss; Joann G Elmore; Roy E Pardee; Robert J Reid; Laura-Mae Baldwin
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2007-03-26

9.  Moving beyond the typologies of managed care: the example of health plan predictors of screening mammography.

Authors:  Sherilyn Tye; Kathryn A Phillips; Su-Ying Liang; Jennifer S Haas
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  Cancer screening in the older patient.

Authors:  Ross H Albert; Mathew M Clark
Journal:  Am Fam Physician       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 3.292

View more
  4 in total

1.  Capsule Commentary on Haas et al., Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines.

Authors:  Ramzi G Salloum
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Mammography Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries After Elimination of Cost Sharing.

Authors:  Susan A Sabatino; Trevor D Thompson; Gery P Guy; Janet S de Moor; Florence K Tangka
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Characteristics Associated with Low-Value Cancer Screening Among Office-Based Physician Visits by Older Adults in the USA.

Authors:  Mary A Gerend; Russell Bradbury; Jeffrey S Harman; George Rust
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 6.473

4.  Screening Mammography Use Among Older Women Before and After the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations.

Authors:  Chiang-Hua Chang; Julie P W Bynum; Tracy Onega; Carrie H Colla; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 2.681

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.