Impact of the Mammography Quality Standards Act on access in Minnesota

Jane E. Korn, Amy Casey-Paal, De Ann Lazovich, Judith Ball, Jonathan S. Slater

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives. The Minnesota Department of Health surveyed registered mammography facilities to assess their accreditation status prior to full implementation of the Federal Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA), which mandated accreditation of all mammography facilities by October 1994: to strategize on the steps that might be taken to avoid closure of facilities; and to evaluate the ultimate impact of the law on the availability of mammography in Minnesota. Methods. Mammography facilities registered with the Radiation Control Section of the state health department were surveyed five months prior to and four months after the October 1994 deadline. Data collected included accreditation status, plans for continuing service, number of mammograms performed, and areas in which technical assistance was needed. In October 1995, the number and distribution of facilities were determined from the Radiation Control Section registration database. Results. The pre- MQSA survey of 182 respondents found that 96% planned to continue mammography services but only 49% were accredited. The remaining 51% had applications in progress. In the post-MQSA survey, 70% of 182 facilities were found to be accredited, and 30% were operating under provisional certification. As of October 1995, although six facilities had closed, there was a net gain of four mammography facilities providing on-site service. Conclusions. Despite fears to the contrary, access to mammography in the state of Minnesota was not adversely affected by full implementation of the Mammography Quality Standards Act.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)142-145
Number of pages4
JournalPublic health reports
Volume112
Issue number2
StatePublished - Mar 1 1997

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Impact of the Mammography Quality Standards Act on access in Minnesota'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this