ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In 2018, The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) changed its recommendations for prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening from "non-recommended" to "shared decision-making among men aged 55-69". Thereafter, COVID-19 Pandemic disrupted cancer care with evidence suggesting overall reduced access to and utilization of health care services including preventive screening. We aim to examine the impacts of both events on PSA screening for men aged 55-69. METHOD(S): We analyzed 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019, and 2021 National Health Interview Survey data. Men >54 who reported PSA testing within 12 months preceding survey were considered to have undergone screening. Adjusted difference in differences (DID) analyses were performed to compare changes in screening in men aged 55-69 with reference to men >70 between 2015 and 2019 (pre- and post- 2018 USPSTF recommendation) and between 2019 and 2021 (pre- and post-Pandemic). RESULT(S): A total of 24,308 men were included. PSA screening prevalence was 35.4% (95%CI: 33.7%, 37.1%), 32.1% (95%CI: 30.3%, 33.9%), 33.3% (95%CI: 31.6%, 34.9%), 37.2% (95%CI: 35.7%, 38.8%), and 34.9% (95%CI: 33.3%, 36.5%) respectively for included years. From 2015 to 2019, PSA screening increased 4.6% among men aged 55-69 (95%CI: 1.7, 7.5%) and increased 6.5% among men >70 (95% CI: 2.7, 10.4%). From 2019 to 2021, PSA screening decreased 3.1% among men aged 55-69 (95%CI: 0.58%, 5.8%);PSA screening also decreased 0.8% among older men but did not reach significance (95% CI: -2.6%, 4.2%). DID analysis did not show difference in changes between men aged 55-69 in reference to men >70 from both 2015 to 2019 (DID=-1.9%, 95%CI, -6.7%, 2.9%) and 2019 to 2021 (DID =-2.3%, 95%CI, -6.5%, 1.9%). CONCLUSION(S): We saw an increase in PSA screening after 2018 USPSTF recommendations among its target population e men aged 55-69 and also among older men >70. In contrast, the period from 2019 to 2021 saw a significant decrease in PSA screening in those aged 55-69. The lack of significant DID between groups as well as the downward trend of PSA screening in men >70 together suggest an overall trend of decrease in PSA screening post-Pandemic.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Low value health care is defined as care in which the potential to cause harm is greater than benefit. We hypothesize that rationing of health care services during the pandemic decreased the delivery of low value services. METHOD(S): Data was retrieved from the Mass General Brigham Research Patient Data Registry. High value care services were defined by U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, while low value care services were adapted for claims as described in the literature. Twenty-one services (4 high value and 17 low value) had adequate volume for analysis. Three month periods were considered, consisting of the pandemic period (Q4: 3/2/20 to 6/1/20) and control periods preceding the pandemic (Q1: 12/1/18 to 3/1/19;Q2: 3/2/19 to 6/1/19;and Q3: 12/1/19 to 3/1/20). Ratio measures of services per period were used to account for seasonality and differences in frequency.The 2019 high value (H) care ratio (Y0H = NHQ2/NHQ1) illustrates relative service counts during a typical year and the 2020 ratio (Y1H = NHQ4/NHQ3) represents the change due to the pandemic. Difference in ratios YH=Y1H-Y0H less than zero reflects a reduction in high value services during the pandemic. The same calculation was made for low value (L) procedures;YL=Y1LY0L. The difference between YL and YH is the difference in differences (DID) estimator and illustrates the differential decline in services. YH- YL greater than zero suggests that low value care declined to a greater degree than high value care. Subdivision DID in ratio analyses were performed for cancer and non-cancer care. RESULT(S): Included in this analysis were 3,271,957 patients. Mean age was 51.4 years, 59.1% of patients were female, and 71.7% were non-Hispanic. Of 21 identified services, 18 had a reduction in volume during the pandemic. The YL for PSA testing in men older than 75 was -0.81. The DID in ratios of all care was 0.08 (p<0.01), suggesting a modest decline in low-value care (Figure 1). The reduction was more pronounced for cancer care with a DID in ratios of 3.39 (p<0.01). CONCLUSION(S): We observed a reduction in both low and high value care with a greater reduction in low value services, especially for cancer care. Limitations include use of data from a single health system, limited number of services, and short time periods given the rapid onset of the pandemic.