Cost-Sharing and Out-of-Pocket Cost for Women Who Received MRI for Breast Cancer Screening

Beyond the PSA: The hidden costs of screening in prostate cancer

The diagnostic workup following a positive prostate‐specific antigen test may lead to significant out‐of‐pocket costs for patients. Providers should incorporate costs into shared decision‐making with patients; in parallel, policymakers and payers must identify solutions to mitigate financial burdens that risk widening existing disparities in prostate cancer care.

Out-of-pocket costs for diagnostic testing following abnormal prostate cancer screening among privately insured men

OBJECTIVE

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy among men and following a positive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening test, patients may undergo more expensive diagnostic testing. However, testing-related out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs), which may preclude patients from completing the screening process, have not been previously quantified. OOPCs for follow-up diagnostic testing (i.e., prostate biopsy and/or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) in patients with private insurance undergoing prostate cancer screening were estimated.

METHODS

Men ages 55 to 69 years old who underwent PSA-based prostate cancer screening from 2010 to 2020 from the IBM Marketscan database were identified. The number of patients undergoing follow-up diagnostic testing within 12 months of screening was tabulated, dividing patients into three groups: (1) biopsy only, (2) MRI only, and (3) MRI + biopsy. Over the study period, patients with nonzero cost-sharing and calculated inflation-adjusted OOPCs, adding copayment, coinsurance, and deductible payments, for each group were identified.

RESULTS

Among screened patients (n = 3,075,841) from 2010 through 2020, 91,850 had a second PSA test and an elevated PSA level, of which 40,329 (43.9%) underwent subsequent diagnostic testing. More than 75% of these patients experienced cost-sharing, and median OOPCs rose substantially over the study period for patients undergoing biopsy only ($79 to $214), MRI only ($81 to $490), and MRI and biopsy ($353 to $620).

CONCLUSIONS

OOPCs from diagnostic testing after prostate cancer screening are common and rising. This work aligns with the recent position statement from the American Cancer Society, that payers should eliminate cost-sharing, which may undermine the screening process, for diagnostic testing following cancer screening.

Predictors of stool deoxyribonucleic acid test use in the United States: Implications for outreach to under-resourced populations

OBJECTIVE

Although colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) is a public health priority, uptake is suboptimal in under-resourced groups. Noninvasive modalities, including stool deoxyribonucleic acid (sDNA) testing, may mitigate economic, geographic, cultural, or impairment-related barriers to CRCS. We assessed use of sDNA testing and other CRCS modalities in U.S. residents, comparing subgroups defined by several social determinants of health (SDOH).

METHODS

A nationally representative sample of community-dwelling respondents aged 50-75 years self-reported use of CRCS modalities in the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey. Statistical analyses assessed up-to-date screening status and choice of modality in the recommended screening interval.

RESULTS

Of 179,833 sampled respondents, 60.8% reported colonoscopy, 5.7% sDNA testing, 5.5% another modality. The rate of up-to-date screening was 72.0% overall and negatively associated with Hispanic ethnicity (63.6%), lower educational and annual income levels (e.g.,

CONCLUSIONS

Under-resourced persons were more likely than better-resourced persons to access sDNA testing, possibly offsetting screening barriers in some groups. Findings suggest opportunities to increase CRCS with heightened communication about sDNA testing to those who may experience difficulty accessing other modalities.

Collapse

Key Words

• Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
• Cancer screening
• Colonoscopy
• Colorectal cancer
• Colorectal cancer screening
• Health disparities
• Social determinants of health
• Stool deoxyribonucleic acid

Collapse

MESH Headings

• Humans
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Female
• Aged
• United States
• Feces/chemistry
• Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis
• Early Detection of Cancer/statistics & numerical data
• Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
• DNA/analysis
• Colonoscopy/statistics & numerical data
• Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data
• Social Determinants of Health

Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Kathleen A Fairman Midwestern University College of Pharmacy, Glendale Campus, 19555 North 59(th) Avenue, Glendale, AZ 85308, United States of America.
Sarah T Lira Veterinary Pharmacy Resident, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, At the time the research was conducted, Dr. Lira was a PharmD student at the Midwestern University College of Pharmacy, Glendale Campus., 1008 West Hazelwood Drive, Urbana, IL 61802, United States of America.

Collapse

Patterns and Predictors of Referral for Screening Breast MRI: A Mixed-Methods Study

Introduction: Women with ≥20% lifetime breast cancer risk can receive supplemental breast cancer screening with MRI. We examined factors associated with recommendation for screening breast MRI among primary care providers (PCPs), gynecologists (GYNs), and radiologists. Methods: We conducted a sequential mixed-methods study. Quantitative: Participants (N = 72) reported recommendations for mammogram and breast MRI via clinical vignettes describing hypothetical patients with moderate, high, and very high breast cancer risk. Logistic regressions assessed the relationships of clinician-level factors (gender, specialty, years practicing) and practice-level factors (practice type, imaging facilities available) with screening recommendations. Qualitative: We interviewed a subset of survey participants (n = 17, 17/72 = 24%) regarding their decision-making about breast cancer screening recommendations. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with directed content analysis. Results: Compared with PCPs, GYNs and radiologists were significantly more likely to recommend breast MRI for high-risk (ORs = 4.09 and 4.09, respectively) and very-high-risk patients (ORs = 8.56 and 18.33, respectively). Qualitative analysis identified two key phases along the clinical pathway for high-risk women. Phase 1 was "identifying high-risk women," which included three subthemes (systems for risk assessment, barriers to risk assessment, scope of practice issues). Phase 2 was "referral for screening," which included three subthemes (conflicting guidelines, scope of practice issues, legal implications). Frequency of themes differed between specialties, potentially explaining findings from the quantitative phase. Conclusions: There are significant differences between specialties in supplemental breast cancer screening recommendations. Multilevel interventions are needed to support identification and management of women with high breast cancer risk, particularly for PCPs.

Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts

BACKGROUND

Increased breast density augments breast cancer risk and reduces mammography sensitivity. Supplemental breast MRI screening can significantly increase cancer detection among women with dense breasts. However, few women undergo this exam, and screening is consistently lower among racially minoritized populations. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") can promote evidence-based practices by improving clinician decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Nudges directed toward clinicians and patients may facilitate the implementation of supplemental breast MRI.

METHODS

Approximately 1600 patients identified as having extremely dense breasts after non-actionable mammograms, along with about 1100 clinicians involved with their care at 32 primary care or OB/GYN clinics across a racially diverse academically based health system, will be enrolled. A 2 × 2 randomized pragmatic trial will test nudges to patients, clinicians, both, or neither to promote supplemental breast MRI screening. Before implementation, rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences and behavioral economics and health equity frameworks guided nudge design. Clinicians will be clustered into clinic groups based on existing administrative departments and care patterns, and these clinic groups will be randomized to have the nudge activated at different times per a stepped wedge design. Clinicians will receive nudges integrated into the routine mammographic report or sent through electronic health record (EHR) in-basket messaging once their clinic group (i.e., wedge) is randomized to receive the intervention. Independently, patients will be randomized to receive text message nudges or not. The primary outcome will be defined as ordering or scheduling supplemental breast MRI. Secondary outcomes include MRI completion, cancer detection rates, and false-positive rates. Patient sociodemographic information and clinic-level variables will be examined as moderators of nudge effectiveness. Qualitative interviews conducted at the trial's conclusion will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation.

DISCUSSION

This study will add to the growing literature on the effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies to promote evidence-based interventions. The design will facilitate testing the relative effects of nudges to patients and clinicians and the effects of moderators of nudge effectiveness, including key indicators of health disparities. The results may inform the introduction of low-cost, scalable implementation strategies to promote early breast cancer detection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05787249. Registered on March 28, 2023.

Self-reported barriers to screening breast MRI among women at high risk for breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Annual screening breast MRI is recommended for women at high (≥ 20% lifetime) breast cancer risk, but is underutilized. Guided by the Health Services Utilization Model (HSUM), we assessed factors associated with screening breast MRI among high-risk women.

METHODS

From August 2020-January 2021, we recruited an online convenience sample of high-risk women ages 25-85 (N = 232). High-risk was defined as: pathogenic genetic mutation in self or first-degree relative; history of lobular carcinoma in situ; history of thoracic radiation; or estimated lifetime risk ≥ 20%. Participants self-reported predisposing factors (breast cancer knowledge, health locus of control), enabling factors (health insurance type, social support), need factors (perceived risk, screening-supportive social norms, provider recommendation), and prior receipt of screening breast MRI. Multivariable logistic regression analysis with backward selection identified HSUM factors associated with receipt of screening breast MRI.

RESULTS

About half (51%) of participants had received a provider recommendation for screening breast MRI; only 32% had ever received a breast MRI. Breast cancer knowledge (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.04-1.27) and screening-supportive social norms (OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.64-2.97) were positively related to breast MRI receipt. No other HSUM variables were associated with breast MRI receipt (all p's > 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

High-risk women reported low uptake of screening breast MRI, indicating a gap in guideline-concordant care. Breast cancer knowledge and screening-supportive social norms are two key areas to target in future interventions. Data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic and generalizability of results is unclear. Future studies with larger, more heterogeneous samples are needed to replicate these findings.

Longitudinal adherence to breast cancer surveillance following cancer genetic testing in an integrated health care system

PURPOSE

Screening with mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important risk management strategy for individuals with inherited pathogenic variants (PVs) in genes associated with increased breast cancer risk. We describe longitudinal screening adherence in individuals who underwent cancer genetic testing as part of usual care in a vertically integrated health system.

METHODS

We determined the proportion time covered (PTC) by annual mammography and breast MRI for individuals with PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, and ATM. We determined time covered by biennial mammography beginning at age 50 years for individuals who received negative results, uncertain results, or with PVs in genes without specific breast cancer screening recommendations.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty individuals had PVs in TP53, BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, NF1, CHEK2, or ATM. Among these individuals, average PTC was 48% (range 0-99%) for annual screening mammography and 34% (range 0-100%) for annual breast MRI. Average PTC was highest for individuals with PVs in CHEK2 (N = 14) and lowest for individuals with PVs in TP53 (N = 3). Average PTC for biennial mammography (N = 1,027) was 49% (0-100%).

CONCLUSION

Longitudinal screening adherence in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes, as measured by the proportion of time covered, is low; adherence to annual breast MRI falls below that of annual mammography. Additional research should examine screening behavior in individuals with PVs in breast cancer associated genes with a goal of developing interventions to improve adherence to recommended risk management.

Predictors of nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines in a United States urban comprehensive cancer center

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify predictors of nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines in an urban screening clinic among high- and average-risk women in the United States.

METHODS

We reviewed records of 6090 women who received ≥2 screening mammograms over 2 years at the Karmanos Cancer Institute to examine how breast cancer risk and breast density were associated with guideline-concordant screening. Incongruent screening was defined as receiving supplemental imaging between screening mammograms for average-risk women, and as not receiving recommended supplemental imaging for high-risk women. We used t-tests and chi-square tests to examine bivariate associations with guideline-congruent screening, and probit regression to regress guideline-congruence unto breast cancer risk, breast density, and their interaction, controlling for age and race.

RESULTS

Incongruent screening was more likely among high- versus average-risk women (97.7% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.01). Among average-risk women, incongruent screening was more likely among those with dense versus nondense breasts (2.0% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.01). Among high-risk women, incongruent screening was more likely among those with nondense versus dense breasts (99.5% vs. 95.2%, p < 0.01). The significant main effects of density and high-risk on increased incongruent screening were qualified by a density by high-risk interaction, showing a weaker association between risk and incongruent screening among women with dense breasts (simple slope = 3.71, p < 0.01) versus nondense breasts (simple slope = 5.79, p < 0.01). Age and race were not associated with incongruent screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of adherence to evidence-based screening guidelines has led to underutilization of supplementary imaging for high-risk women and potential overutilization for women with dense breasts without other risk factors.

Head-to-head comparison of perfluorobutane contrast-enhanced US and multiparametric MRI for breast cancer: a prospective, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) has high sensitivity for diagnosing breast cancers but cannot always be used as a routine diagnostic tool. The present study aimed to evaluate whether the diagnostic performance of perfluorobutane (PFB) contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is similar to that of MP-MRI in breast cancer and whether combining the two methods would enhance diagnostic efficiency.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a head-to-head, prospective, multicenter study. Patients with breast lesions diagnosed by US as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories 3, 4, and 5 underwent both PFB-CEUS and MP-MRI scans. On-site operators and three reviewers categorized the BI-RADS of all lesions on two images. Logistic-bootstrap 1000-sample analysis and cross-validation were used to construct PFB-CEUS, MP-MRI, and hybrid (PFB-CEUS + MP-MRI) models to distinguish breast lesions.

RESULTS

In total, 179 women with 186 breast lesions were evaluated from 17 centers in China. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the PFB-CEUS model to diagnose breast cancer (0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74, 0.97) was similar to that of the MP-MRI model (0.89; 95% CI 0.73, 0.97) (P = 0.85). The AUC of the hybrid model (0.92, 95% CI 0.77, 0.98) did not show a statistical advantage over the PFB-CEUS and MP-MRI models (P = 0.29 and 0.40, respectively). However, 90.3% false-positive and 66.7% false-negative results of PFB-CEUS radiologists and 90.5% false-positive and 42.8% false-negative results of MP-MRI radiologists could be corrected by the hybrid model. Three dynamic nomograms of PFB-CEUS, MP-MRI and hybrid models to diagnose breast cancer are freely available online.

CONCLUSIONS

PFB-CEUS can be used in the differential diagnosis of breast cancer with comparable performance to MP-MRI and with less time consumption. Using PFB-CEUS and MP-MRI as joint diagnostics could further strengthen the diagnostic ability. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04657328. Registered 26 September 2020. IRB number 2020-300 was approved in Chinese PLA General Hospital. Every patient signed a written informed consent form in each center.

Disparities in the use of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging persist in Louisiana after the Affordable Care Act: A question of access, policy, institutional support, or something else?

BACKGROUND

Louisiana continues to have one of the highest breast cancer mortality rates in the nation, and Black women are disproportionally affected. Louisiana has made advances in improving access to breast cancer screening through the expansion of Medicaid. There remains, however, broad underuse of advanced imaging technology such as screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), particularly for Black women.

METHODS

Breast MRI has been proven to be very sensitive for the early detection of breast cancer in women at high risk. MRI is more sensitive than mammography for aggressive, invasive breast cancer types, which disproportionally affect Black women. Here the authors identify potential barriers to breast MRI screening in Black women, propose strategies to address disparities in access, and advocate for specific recommendations for change.

RESULTS

Cost was identified as one of the greatest barriers to screening breast MRI. The authors propose implementation of cost-saving, abbreviated protocols to address cost along with lobbying for further expansion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to include coverage for screening breast MRI. In addition, addressing gaps in communication and knowledge and facilitating providers' ability to readily identify women who might benefit from MRI could be particularly impactful for high-risk Black women in Louisiana communities.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the adoption of the ACA in Louisiana, Black women have continued to have disproportionally high breast cancer mortality rates. This persistent disparity provides evidence that additional change is needed. This change should include exploring innovative ways to make advanced imaging technology such as breast MRI more accessible and expanding research to specifically address community and culturally specific barriers.

Financial Toxicity in the Post-Health Reform Era

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted in March 2010, was comprehensive health care reform legislation aimed to improve health care access and quality of care and curb health care-related costs. This review focuses on key provisions of the ACA and their impact on financial toxicity. We will focus our review on cancer care, because this is the most commonly studied disease process in respect to financial toxicity. Patients with cancer face rising expenditures and financial burden, which in turn impact quality of life, compliance to treatment, and survival outcomes. Health insurance expansion include dependent-coverage expansion, Medicaid expansion, and establishment of the Marketplace. Coverage reform focused on reducing financial barriers by limiting cost sharing. Payment reforms included new innovative payment and delivery systems to focus on improving outcomes and reducing costs. Challenges remain as efforts to reduce costs have led to the expansion of insurance plans, such as high-deductible health plans, that may ultimately worsen financial toxicity in cancer and high out-of-pocket costs for further diagnostic testing and procedures. Further research is necessary to evaluate the long-term impacts of the ACA provisions-and threats to the ACA-on outcomes and the costs accrued by patients.

Screening MRI Does Not Increase Cancer Detection or Result in an Earlier Stage at Diagnosis for Patients with High-Risk Breast Lesions: A Propensity Score Analysis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend consideration of screening MRI for patients with high-risk breast lesions (HRLs), acknowledging limited data for this moderate-risk population.

METHODS

This study identified patients with atypical ductal/lobular hyperplasia (ADH/ALH), lobular carcinoma in situ, (LCIS) or both evaluated at our high-risk clinic. Patients were categorized as having received screening mammography (MMG) alone vs. MMG and breast MRI (MMG+MRI). Inverse probability weighting based on propensity scores (PS) representing likelihood of MRI use was applied to Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses to determine cancer detection and biopsy rates by screening group.

RESULTS

Among 908 eligible patients, 699 (77%) patients with available follow-up data were analyzed (542 with ADH/ALH and 157 with LCIS). Of the 699 patients, 540 (77%) received MMG alone, and 159 (23%) received MMG + MRI. The median follow-up period was 25 months, during which a median of two MRIs were performed. After PS-weighting, the characteristics of each screening group were well-balanced with respect to age, race, body mass index (BMI), menopausal status, breast density, family history, HRL type, and chemoprevention use. The 4 year breast cancer detection rate was 3.6% with both MMG alone and MMG+MRI (p = 0.89). The breast biopsy rates were significantly higher with MMG+MRI (30.5% vs12.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.67; p < 0.001). All breast cancers were clinically node-negative and pathologic stage 0 or 1. Among five cancers in the MMG+MRI group, two were MRI-detected, two were MMG-detected, and one was detected on clinical exam.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening MRI did not improve cancer detection, and cancer characteristics were favorable whether screened with MMG alone or MMG + MRI. These findings question the benefit of MRI for patients with HRL, although longer-term follow-up study is needed.

Health Economics Research in Cancer Screening: Research Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions

Cancer screening has long been considered a worthy public health investment. Health economics offers the theoretical foundation and research methodology to understand the demand- and supply-side factors associated with screening and evaluate screening-related policies and interventions. This article provides an overview of health economic theories and methods related to cancer screening and discusses opportunities for future research. We review 2 academic disciplines most relevant to health economics research in cancer screening: applied microeconomics and decision science. We consider 3 emerging topics: cancer screening policies in national as well as local contexts, "choosing wisely" screening practices, and targeted screening efforts for vulnerable subpopulations. We also discuss the strengths and weaknesses of available data sources and opportunities for methodological research and training. Recommendations to strengthen research infrastructure include developing novel data linkage strategies, increasing access to electronic health records, establishing curriculum and training programs, promoting multidisciplinary collaborations, and enhancing research funding opportunities.

Downstream Mammary and Extramammary Cascade Services and Spending Following Screening Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Mammography Among Commercially Insured Women

Importance

Increasing use of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including among women at low or average risk of breast cancer, raises concerns about resulting mammary and extramammary cascades (downstream services and new diagnoses) of uncertain value.

Objective

To estimate rates of cascade events (ie, laboratory tests, imaging tests, procedures, visits, hospitalizations, and new diagnoses) and associated spending following screening breast MRI vs mammography among commercially insured US women.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used 2016 to 2018 data from the MarketScan research database (IBM Corporation), which includes claims and administrative data from large US employers and commercial payers. Participants included commercially insured women aged 40 to 64 years without prior breast cancer who received an index bilateral screening breast MRI or mammogram between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2018. We used propensity scores based on sociodemographic, clinical, and utilization variables to match MRI recipients to mammogram recipients in each month of index service use. Data were analyzed from October 8, 2020, to October 28, 2021.

Exposures

Breast MRI vs mammography.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Mammary and extramammary cascade event rates and associated total and patient out-of-pocket spending in the 6 months following the index test.

Results

In this study, 9208 women receiving breast MRI were matched with 9208 women receiving mammography (mean [SD] age, 51.4 [6.7] years). Compared with mammogram recipients, breast MRI recipients had 39.0 additional mammary cascade events per 100 women (95% CI, 33.7-44.2), including 5.0 additional imaging tests (95% CI, 3.8-6.2), 17.3 additional procedures (95% CI, 15.5-19.0), 13.0 additional visits (95% CI, 9.4-17.2), 0.34 additional hospitalizations (95% CI, 0.18-0.50), and 3.0 additional new diagnoses (95% CI, 2.5-3.6). For extramammary cascades, breast MRI recipients had 19.6 additional events per 100 women (95% CI, 8.6-30.7) including 15.8 additional visits (95% CI, 10.2-21.4) and no statistically significant differences in other events. Breast MRI recipients had higher total spending for mammary events ($564 more per woman; 95% CI, $532-$596), extramammary events ($42 more per woman; 95% CI, $16-$69), and overall ($1404 more per woman; 95% CI, $1172-$1636). They also had higher overall out-of-pocket spending ($31 more per woman; 95% CI, $6-$55).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of commercially insured women, breast MRI was associated with more mammary and extramammary cascade events and spending relative to mammography. These findings can inform cost-benefit assessments and coverage policies to ensure breast MRI is reserved for patients for whom benefits outweigh harms.

Effect of Out-of-Pocket Costs on Subsequent Mammography Screening

OBJECTIVE

Although the Affordable Care Act eliminated cost sharing for screening mammography, a concern is that grandfathered plans, diagnostic mammograms, and follow-up testing may still lead to out-of-pocket (OOP) spending. Our study examines how OOP spending among women at their baseline screening mammogram may impact the decision to receive subsequent screening.

METHODS

The study included commercially insured women aged 40 to 41 years with a screening mammogram between 2011 and 2014. We estimated multivariate linear probability models of the effect of OOP spending at the baseline mammogram on subsequent screening 12 to 36 months later.

RESULTS

Having any OOP payments for the baseline screening mammogram significantly reduced the probability of screening in the subsequent 12 to 24 months by 3.0 percentage points (pp) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-4.8 pp decrease). For every $100 increase in the OOP expenses for the baseline mammogram, the likelihood of subsequent screening within 12 to 24 months decreased by 1.9 pp (95% CI: 0.8-3.1 pp decrease). Similarly, any OOP spending for follow-up tests resulting from the baseline screening led to a 2.7 pp lower probability of screening 12 to 24 months later (95% CI: 0.9-4.1 pp decrease). Higher OOP expenses were associated with significantly lower screening 24 to 36 months later (coefficient = -0.014, 95% CI: -0.025 to -0.003).

DISCUSSION

Although cost sharing has been eliminated for screening mammograms, OOP costs may still arise, particularly for diagnostic and follow-up testing services, both of which may reduce rates of subsequent screening. For preventive services, reducing or eliminating cost sharing through policy and legislation may be important to ensuring continued adherence to screening guidelines.