4.4 Article

Use of cervical cancer screening among insured women: the extent of missed opportunities

Journal

HEALTH POLICY
Volume 73, Issue 2, Pages 194-201

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2004.11.012

Keywords

Papanicolaou smear test; insured women; missed opportunities for cervical cancer screening

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of the study is to identify opportunities to improve cervical cancer screening among privately insured women. From MedStat's Marketscan database, we identified 735,181 women aged 21-64 years who remained in the same insurance plan during the entire period of 2000-2002. We obtained the percentages of women who had a Papanicolaou (Pap)-test reimbursement claim and any health-related claim during the 3-year period. For women without a Pap-test claim, we obtained information about the frequency of insurance claims, type of health-care provider, and type of insurance plan in which the women were enrolled. The multivariate logistic regression model was used to identify factors independently associated with not having a Pap test. Of the total sample, in the 3-year period, 96% had at least one health insurance reimbursement claim and 69% had at least one claim for a Pap test. Approximately, 87% of the women who had no Pap-test claim had a health claim; 44% of such claims were from primary care providers. In the multiple logistic regression model, factors that were independently associated with having no Pap test were old age, being dependents of employees, and enrollment in comprehensive insurance plans. Efforts to increase the use of cervical cancer screening service should consider additional risk factors besides lack of insurance coverage. Concerted efforts by insurance and health-care providers are needed to improve adherence to the recommended cervical cancer screening guidelines, both by consumers and service providers. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available