Bill Overview
Title: SCREENS for Cancer Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2027 and makes changes to the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. This program provides funding to states for breast and cervical cancer screening, diagnostic, and treatment services for individuals who have low incomes, are uninsured, or otherwise lack access to such services.
Sponsors: Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals with low income or uninsured needing breast and cervical cancer screenings
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The bill targets individuals who need early detection for breast and cervical cancer.
- Current global data indicates that breast cancer impact is significant worldwide with nearly 2.3 million new cases in 2020.
- An estimated 604,000 women died from cervical cancer worldwide in 2020.
- Populations at higher risk are those with low income, uninsured, or lack access to cancer screening facilities globally.
- Cancers remain a leading cause of death worldwide, thus prevention and early detection programs can significantly impact global health.
Reasoning
- The policy targets a specific demographic: individuals with low incomes, are uninsured, or lack access to cancer screening services.
- Despite the significant budget, the policy has scope limitations to provide services mainly focused on early detection for breast and cervical cancer.
- We'll include interviews with both individuals in the target population as well as those who might not be directly impacted.
- The Cantril Wellbeing Scale will give us an insight into the subjective wellbeing changes due to the policy implementation over 20 years.
Simulated Interviews
part-time cashier (rural Alabama)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about my health, but I can't afford the screenings.
- If this program helps, it would ease a lot of my stress knowing I can get checked.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
receptionist (urban New York)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I try to perform self-exams, but I wish I could afford professional screening.
- Losing my spouse made me more cautious about my own health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
nurse (suburban Ohio)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the importance of early screenings, having gone through cancer treatment myself.
- I feel secure with my current health insurance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
student (rural New Mexico)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don’t think about screenings often, but knowing they could be covered is reassuring.
- Health is my responsibility, but access is so limited out here.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
retired (urban Chicago)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I already participate in screenings through Medicare, so this policy isn't directly for me.
- I believe any additional access to screenings is beneficial for others in need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
waitress (Mississippi)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Living without insurance feels like a risk, but my income barely covers basics.
- A program like this offering free screenings would be a relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
graduate student (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a student, healthcare costs are a huge concern for me.
- This policy might help many in my situation or who fear costs of screening.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
artist (California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I get my screenings through my current insurance, but costs are getting high.
- Universal access like this program allows people more options.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
retired (Florida)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Early detection saved many lives I know; this policy could do the same.
- Screenings via my doctor have always been accessible for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
teacher (Washington)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an educator, I think community health initiatives are important.
- Personally, I feel secure, but I support broader access for screenings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)
Year 2: $410000000 (Low: $360000000, High: $460000000)
Year 3: $420000000 (Low: $370000000, High: $470000000)
Year 5: $440000000 (Low: $390000000, High: $490000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The program requires effective administration and monitoring to target and serve the intended population efficiently.
- Coordination with state and local health services is critical for comprehensive coverage and outreach.
- Balancing the costs of the program with its potential long-term savings and public health benefits is crucial.