RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Examination of current clinical guidelines of HMOs regarding management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities
Phase I. Final report
Pucci, L., & Bernard, S. (2005). Examination of current clinical guidelines of HMOs regarding management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities: Phase I. Final report. RTI International.
Since the early 1990s, there has been a proliferation of practice guidelines and recommendations among Federal agencies and professional health organizations with respect to cervical cancer screening. However, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) remains concerned about variations in the management of women with abnormal Pap tests by geographic location and provider type. This study explores whether or not there is concordance between (1) recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), and American Cancer Society (ACS) for cervical cancer screening and follow-up and (2) the policies of health management organizations (HMOs), hereafter referred to as managed care organizations (MCOs). Because of the exploratory nature of the study, we selected 9 MCOs from the original 29 we had identified. We selected three each of large (5 million or more members), medium-sized (1 to 4 million members), and small (less than 1 million members) organizations, which also represented various types of coverage and geographic locations. Three MCOs actively participated in the study through interviews, email correspondence, and sharing of guidelines and materials. We reviewed and summarized cervical cancer screening guidelines and recommendations from Federal agencies and professional health organizations, and selected tracer features to compare with the MCO policies. When we compared MCO policies with USPSTF, ACOG, and ACS recommendations, we noted a concerted effort on the part of the MCOs to keep abreast of clinical practice norms and to disseminate current information regarding cervical cancer screening to providers and members/patients. Because our sample consists of only three MCOs, albeit large national organizations, the information we gathered cannot in any way be generalized to all MCOs. Our study sheds light on three MCOs’ awareness of USPSTF, ACOG and ACS recommendations and how they have developed and communicated policies for screening of cervical cancer to their physicians.