Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Early or mid-career physicians have few opportunities to participate in career development programs in health policy and advocacy with experiential and mentored training that can be incorporated into their busy lives. AIM/OBJECTIVE:The Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) created the Leadership in Health Policy (LEAHP) program, a year-long career development program, to prepare participants with a sufficient depth of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behaviors to continue to build mastery and effectiveness as leaders, advocates, and educators in health policy. We sought to evaluate the program's impact on participants' self-efficacy in the core skills targeted in the curriculum. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Fifty-five junior faculty and trainees across three scholar cohorts from 2017 to 2021. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/METHODS:Activities included workshops and exercises at an annual meeting, one-on-one mentorship, monthly webinars and journal clubs, interaction with policy makers, and completion of capstone projects. PROGRAM EVALUATION/RESULTS:Self-administered, electronic surveys conducted before and following the year-long program showed a significant improvement in mean self-efficacy scores for the total score and for each of the six domains in general knowledge, teaching, research, and advocacy in health policy. Compared to the baseline scores, after the program the total mean score increased from 3.1 to 4.1, an increase of 1.1 points on a 5-point Likert scale (95% CI: 0.9-1.3; Cohen's D: 1.7), with 61.4% of respondents increasing their mean score by at least 1 point. Responses to open-ended questions indicated that the program met scholars' stated needs to improve their knowledge base in health policy and advocacy skills. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The LEAHP program provides an opportunity for mentored, experiential training in health policy and advocacy, can build the knowledge and amplify the scale of physicians engaged in health policy, and help move physicians from individual patient advocacy in the clinic to that of populations.

BACKGROUND:Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may have a higher cancer detection rate and lower recall compared with 2-dimensional (2 D) mammography for breast cancer screening. The goal of this study was to evaluate screening outcomes with DBT in a real-world cohort and to characterize the population health impact of DBT as it is widely adopted. METHODS:This observational study evaluated breast cancer screening outcomes among women screened with 2 D mammography vs DBT. We used deidentified administrative data from a large private health insurer and included women aged 40-64 years screened between January 2015 and December 2017. Outcomes included recall, biopsy, and incident cancers detected. We used 2 complementary techniques: a patient-level analysis using multivariable logistic regression and an area-level analysis evaluating the relationship between population-level adoption of DBT use and outcomes. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS:Our sample included 7 602 869 mammograms in 4 580 698 women, 27.5% of whom received DBT. DBT was associated with modestly lower recall compared with 2 D mammography (113.6 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% confidence interval [CI] = 113.0 to 114.2 vs 115.4, 99% CI = 115.0 to 115.8, P < .001), although younger women aged 40-44 years had a larger reduction in recall (153 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 151 to 155 vs 164 recalls per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 163 to 166, P < .001). DBT was associated with higher biopsy rates than 2 D mammography (19.6 biopsies per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 19.3 to 19.8 vs 15.2, 99% CI = 15.1 to 15.4, P < .001) and a higher cancer detection rate (4.9 incident cancers per 1000 screens, 99% CI = 4.7 to 5.0 vs 3.8, 99% CI = 3.7 to 3.9, P < .001). Point estimates from the area-level analysis generally supported these findings. CONCLUSIONS:In a large population of privately insured women, DBT was associated with a slightly lower recall rate than 2 D mammography and a higher cancer detection rate. Whether this increased cancer detection improves clinical outcomes remains unknown.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:Ten years after the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, patients continue to report insurance-related barriers to specialty mental health care. Objectives/UNASSIGNED:To assess privately insured patients' perceptions of the adequacy of their health plan's provider network (provider network includes physicians, clinicians, other health care professionals, and their institutions that constitute the network), whether practitioners frequently leave plans, and whether practitioner plan participation affected patients' plan choice. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:A nationally representative, population-based internet survey study of English-speaking US adults participating in KnowledgePanel, an online research panel, was conducted from August to September 2018. Data analysis was performed from November 12, 2020, to May 12, 2021. From a sample of 29 854 panelists aged 18 to 64 years, 19 602 initiated the screener (completion rate of 66%), and 728 met study criteria: adults with private insurance receiving both specialty mental health and medical care in the past year. Exposure/UNASSIGNED:Health plan's provider network. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Self-report of plan inadequacy, whether a practitioner left the plan and the participant's responses (stopped treatment, switched practitioner, or continued treatment), and whether participation of a specific practitioner was considered when a health plan was chosen. Experiences with both mental health and medical provider networks were assessed. Analyses were weighted to match the sample to the US population. Weights provided by KnowledgePanel were also adjusted for panel recruitment, attrition, oversampling, and survey nonresponse. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of a total of 728 study participants, 204 (39%) were aged 18 to 34 years, 504 (61%) were women, 82 (17%) were Hispanic, and 551 (66%) were non-Hispanic White individuals. Serious psychological distress was reported by 262 participants (36%), and 214 participants (29%) also received mental health treatment from a primary care practitioner. Participants rated their mental health provider network as inadequate more frequently than their medical provider network (163 [21%] vs 70 [10%]; odds ratio [OR], 2.69; 95% CI, 1.64-4.40; P < .001). However, among the 193 participants also receiving mental health treatment from a primary care practitioner, there was no significant difference in the ratings of mental health and medical provider networks (44 [14%] vs 18 [9%]; OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.65-3.67; P = .32). Sixty participants (8%) reported that a mental health practitioner had left their plan's insurance network in the past 3 years. Of the 523 participants with a choice of plan, 98 (20%) considered whether a specific mental health practitioner was in network before choosing a plan. Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:This study's findings suggest that more participants perceived their mental health networks to be inadequate compared with their medical networks. Increasing the availability of mental health treatment in primary care practices may aid plans in constructing adequate mental health provider networks and improve patient access to mental health care.

BACKGROUND:Breast cancer screening for women aged 40-49 years is prevalent and costly, with costs varying substantially across US regions. Newer approaches to mammography may improve cancer detection but also increase screening costs. We assessed factors associated with regional variation in screening costs. METHODS:We used Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, a large US commercial claims database accessed through secure portal, to assess regional variation in screening utilization and costs. We included screening mammography±digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), screening ultrasound, diagnostic mammography±DBT, diagnostic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy, and evaluated their utilization and costs. We assessed regional variation in annual per-screened-beneficiary costs and examined potential savings from reducing regional variation. RESULTS:Of the 2,257,393 privately insured women, 41.2% received screening mammography in 2017 (range: 26.6%-54.2% across regions). Wide regional variation was found in the DBT proportion (0.7%-91.1%) and mean costs of DBT ($299; range: $113-714) and 2-dimensional (D) mammograms ($213; range: $107-471). In one-fourth of the regions, the mean DBT cost was lower than the mean 2D mammography cost in the full sample. Regional variation in the per-screened-beneficiary cost (mean: $353; range: $151-751) was mainly attributable to variation in the cost of DBT (accounting for 23.4% of regional variation) and 2D mammography (23.0%). Reducing regional variation by decreasing the highest values to the national mean was projected to save $79-335 million annually. CONCLUSIONS:The mean mammogram cost for privately insured women ages 40-49 varies 7-fold across regions, driving substantial variation in breast cancer screening costs. Reducing this regional variation would substantially decrease the screening costs.

BACKGROUND:Given the growth in dense breast notification (DBN) legislation in the United States, we examined the association between different types of DBN laws and supplemental screening behaviors among women. METHODS:We surveyed in March-April 2018 a nationally representative sample of women aged 40-59 years who received a routine screening mammogram in the past 18 months. Survey items included the following topics regarding supplemental screening: discussing risks or benefits with a provider, knowledge about the risk of false positives, and utilization. We grouped women by state DBN into non-DBN, generic DBN (mentions breast density but not supplemental screening), DBN that mentions supplemental screening (DBN-SS), and DBN with mandated insurance coverage for supplemental screening (DBN-coverage), and estimated adjusted predicted probabilities for supplemental screening behaviors. RESULTS:Of 1641 women surveyed, 21.3% resided in non-DBN, 41.2% in generic DBN, 25.8% in DBN-SS, and 12.5% in DBN-coverage states. Overall, 23.0% of respondents had discussed supplemental screening with a provider, 11.3% of whom discussed the risks, and 49.5% discussed the benefits. In adjusted analysis, women living in DBN-coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening (27.5%) than women in non-DBN states (13.6%); pairwise contrast 13.8% (95% CI, 2.1% to 25.6%; P = .01). They were also more likely to have received supplemental screening for increased breast density (19.3%) compared to women living in non-DBN (9.9%); contrast 9.4% (95% CI, 1.6% to 17.3%; P = .01), Generic DBN (7.3%); difference 12.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 19.4%; P =< .001), and DBN-SS (8.8%); contrast 10.5% (95% CI, 2.6% to 18.5%; P < .01) states. CONCLUSIONS:Women in DBN-coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening with their providers, and to undergo supplemental screening, compared to women in states with other types of DBN laws, or without DBN laws.

BACKGROUND:To date, 38 states have enacted dense breast notification (DBN) laws mandating that mammogram reports include language informing women of risks related to dense breast tissue. OBJECTIVE:Nationally representative survey to assess the association between residing in a state with a DBN law and women's awareness and knowledge about breast density, and breast cancer anxiety. DESIGN/METHODS:Internet survey conducted in 2018 with participants in KnowledgePanel®, an online research panel. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:English-speaking US women ages 40-59 years without a personal history of breast cancer who had received at least one screening mammogram (N = 1928; survey completion rate 68.2%). MAIN MEASURES/METHODS:(1) Reported history of increased breast density, (2) knowledge of the increased risk of breast cancer with dense breasts, (3) knowledge of the masking effect of dense breasts on mammography, and (4) breast cancer anxiety. KEY RESULTS/RESULTS:Women residing in DBN states were more likely to report increased breast density (43.6%) compared with women residing in non-DBN states (32.7%, p < 0.01, adjusted odds ratio, 1.70, 95% CI,1.34-2.17). Interaction effect between DBN states and education status showed that the impact of DBN on women's reporting of dense breasts was significant for women with greater than high school education, but not among women with a high school education or less (p value = 0.01 for interaction). Only 23.0% of women overall knew that increased breast density was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer, and 68.0% of women understood that dense breasts decreased the sensitivity of mammography. There were no significant differences between women in DBN states and non-DBN states for these outcomes, or for breast cancer-related anxiety. CONCLUSIONS:State DBN laws were not associated with increased understanding of the clinical implications of breast density. DBN laws were associated with a higher likelihood of women reporting increased breast density, though not among women with lower education.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have estimated that breast cancer screening costs more than 7 billion dollars annually in the US. However, in recent years, screening technology has changed considerably with the introduction of digital breast tomosynthesis (