Purpose:Medicaid expansion under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act occurred almost concurrently with 2012 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against prostate specific antigen screening. Here the relative influence on prostate specific antigen screening rates by 2 concurrent and opposing system-level policy initiatives is investigated: improved access to care and change in clinical practice guidelines.Materials and Methods:Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from years 2012 to 2018 were analyzed for trends in self-reported prostate specific antigen screening and insurance coverage. Subanalyses included state Medicaid expansion status and respondent federal poverty level. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate factors associated with prostate specific antigen screening.Results:From 2012 to 2018 prostate specific antigen screening predominantly declined with a notable exception of an increase of 7.3% for men at <138% federal poverty level between 2011 and 2013 in early expansion states. Initial increases did not continue, and screening trends mirrored those of nonexpansion states by 2018. Notably, 2014 planned expansions states did not follow this trend with minimal change between 2015 and 2017 compared to declines in early expansion states and nonexpansion states (-0.4% vs -6.7% and -8.6%, respectively).Conclusions:Medicaid expansion was associated with increased rates of insured men at <138% federal poverty level from 2012 to 2018 in early expansion states. In this group, initial increases in prostate specific antigen screening were not durable and followed the trend of reduced screening seen across the United States. In planned expansions states the global drop in prostate specific antigen screening from 2016 to 2018 was offset in men at <138% federal poverty level by expanding access to care. Nonexpansion states showed a steady decline in prostate specific antigen screening rates. This suggests that policy such as U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against screening competes with and often outmatches access to care.

Data for the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) related to intravenous contrast administration in the pediatric trauma population are limited. Obtaining a creatinine value before elective CT scans is a relatively accepted standard of care. We sought to determine whether there was any significant difference in the incidence of AKI between severely injured patients who received IV contrast and those who did not. We reviewed data from the trauma registry at our Level I pediatric trauma center. We limited the patients to severely injured pediatric traumas (<15 years old) directly transported from the scene of injury with a creatinine level measured on arrival. Two hundred and eleven patients were included in the study. AKI was defined by the criteria of the AKI Network. We then compared incidence of AKI in those who received a CT scan with IV contrast with those who did not receive IV contrast. The two groups were comparable in age, gender, Glasgow Coma Scale, Injury Severity Score, mean creatinine on arrival, and mean creatinine post–CT scan/arrival. There was no significant difference in AKI between the two. In a subgroup analysis of patients presenting in shock, there was no significant difference in AKI. Our study suggests that IV contrast is not associated with the development of AKI in severely injured pediatric trauma patients. Although obtaining a creatinine value before exposure is ideal, a CT scan with IV contrast in severely injured children should not be delayed to obtain a creatinine value.

No abstract