Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-9
Enhancing Breast Cancer Screening: A Use Case for Using Demographic and State All-Payer Claims Database in Rural Northwestern Washington State Counties
This study examined disparities in mammography screening rates among women in rural northwest Washington, based on data from the Washington State All-Payer Claims Database (WA-APCD).
Materials and Methods:
A retrospective quantitative analysis was conducted using deidentified WA-APCD claims data (years: 2020–2022). Screening mammograms were identified using current procedural terminology (CPT) codes 77067 and 77063. Proportion Z tests and pairwise comparisons assessed screening rate disparities, across the 983 zip code region and benchmarks at county, state, and national levels.
Results:
Mammography screening rates in rural counties within the 983 zip codes were significantly lower than benchmarks. In 2020, screening rates for women aged 18–64 years were 24.2%, compared with county, state, and national averages of 32, 34, and 37%, respectively (P < .05). By 2022, rates improved to 35.7%, though disparities persisted, particularly among women aged 65 and older.
Conclusion:
Significant screening disparities persist in rural Washington, particularly among older women. The WA-APCD data provide critical insights to support targeted interventions improving preventive care access in underserved populations.
KurzDBefortCA: Travel burden in a rural primary care behavioral weight loss randomized trial: Impact on visit attendance and weight loss. J Rural Health. 2022;38:980–985. doi:10.1111/jrh.12652.
2.
ZahndWEAskelsonNVanderpoolRC, et al: Challenges of using nationally representative, population-based surveys to assess rural cancer disparities. Prev Med. 2019;129S:105812.
MonticcioloDLNewellMSMoyLLeeCSDestounisSV: Breast cancer screening for women at higher-than-average risk: updated recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol. 2023;20(9):902–914. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2023.04.002.
5.
BennettKJProbstJCPumkamC: Obesity among working-age adults: the role of county-level persistent poverty in rural disparities. Health Place. 2018;49:62–69. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.11.008.
6.
OeffingerKCFonthamETEtzioniR, et al: Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314:1599–1614. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12783.
7.
AndraskaEAAlabiODorseyC, et al: Health care disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Semin Vasc Surg. 2021;34(3):82–88. doi:10.1053/j.semvascsurg.2021.08.002.
8.
Washington State Health Care Authority: WA-APCD release upon request data product data use agreement. Washington All-Payer Claims Database. Published 2024. https://www.wahealthcarecompare.com/past-requests
9.
County Health Rankings & Roadmaps: Mammography screening in Clallam, Washington. The University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Published 2024. Accessed October 2024. https://www.countyhealthrankings.org.
10.
U.S. Census Bureau: Washington State 983 3-Digit Zip Code Map. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce; 2024.
11.
DonabedianA: Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Q. 2005;83(4):691–729.
12.
DonabedianA: Models for organizing the delivery of personal health care services and criteria for evaluating them. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1972;50(4, pt 2):103–154.
DonabedianA: An Introduction to Quality Assurance in Health Care. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2003.
15.
JonkYCBurgessAWilliamsonME, et al: Telehealth use in a rural state: a mixed-methods study using Maine’s all-payer claims database. J Rural Health. 2021;37(4):769–779. doi:10.1111/jrh.12527.
16.
VyasAKamatSOhJ: Rhode Island (RI) women’s breast cancer mammography use prior to and after cancer diagnosis: linkage of RI cancer registry data with RI all-payer claims database. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2024;30(2):E65–E73. doi:10.1097/PHH.0000000000001862.
17.
McAveyK: Realizing the Promise of All-Payer Claims Databases: A Federal and State Action Plan. Los Angeles, CA: Manatt Health. 2022.
18.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation: State All-Payer Claims Databases: Identifying Challenges and Opportunities for Conducting Patient-Centered Outcomes Research and Multi-State Studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; 2023.
19.
U.S. Census Bureau: Age and Sex: 2020 ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables (Table ID: ACSST5Y2020.S0101). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce; 2020.
20.
U.S. Census Bureau: Age and Sex: 2021 ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables (Table ID: ACSST5Y2021.S0101). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce;2021.
21.
U.S. Census Bureau: Age and Sex: 2022 ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables (Table ID: ACSST5Y2022.S0101). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce; 2022.
AltmanDGBlandJM: Improving doctors’ understanding of statistics. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 1991;154(2):223–267. doi:10.2307/2983040.
24.
R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023. https://www.r-project.org/
25.
DanekRBlackburnJGreeneMMazurenkoOMenachemiN: Measuring rurality in health services research: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1340. doi:10.1186/s12913-022-08374-y.
StahreMBoltonDMcDermotDYenW: Hospital Care Utilization, Washington 2010-22. Washington: Office of Financial Management, Health Care Research Center, Forecasting and Research Division; 2023.
28.
CollinsSR: State Scorecard on Women’s Health and Reproductive Care. New York, NY: Commonwealth Fund; 2024. doi:10.26099/6gr0-t974.
