4.3 Article

The eligibility and reach of the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program after implementation of the affordable care act

期刊

CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 473-489

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-020-01286-0

关键词

Breast neoplasms; Early detection of cancer; Mammography; Papanicolaou test; Medically uninsured; National breast and cervical cancer early detection program

资金

  1. Intramural CDC HHS [CC999999] Funding Source: Medline
  2. CDC HHS [IPA 16IPA1604432] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction The uninsured rate declined following passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. It is unclear how this decrease affected the size of the population eligible for existing safety net programs. We evaluated trends in the number of women eligible for breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services under the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and the reach of the program. Methods Using the Census Bureau's Small Area Health Insurance Estimates data, we calculated the number of women who met the NBCCEDP eligibility criteria based on age, income, and insurance status. We used these data in conjunction with program to estimate the proportion of eligible women served by the NBCCEDP. Results The number of women eligible for breast cancer screening and diagnostic services under the program declined from 5.4 (90% CI 5.2-5.6) to 2.8 (90% CI 2.6-3.0) million from 2011 to 2017. The number of women eligible for cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services declined from 10.3 (90% CI 10.0-10.6) to 5.3 (90% CI 5.1-5.6) million. The share of eligible women served by the program was 15.0% (90% CI 14.8-15.1%) for breast services in 2016-2017 and 6.8% (90% CI 6.7-6.8%) for cervical services in 2015-2017. Conclusion Insurance coverage expansions may have contributed to a decrease in the number of program-eligible women. There are many more women eligible for the program than are served.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据