Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Special Collections
    • Abstracts In Press
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Special Collections
    • Abstracts In Press
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Article CommentaryCommentary

Kennedy v Braidwood Ruling Affects Women and Cervical Cancer Screening

Alisa P. Young, Marie Claire O'Dwyer, Roger Smith, Natalie Saunders, Elizabeth Campbell, A. Mark Fendrick and Diane M. Harper
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine November 2025, 38 (6) 1113-1116; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2025.250179R2
Alisa P. Young
From the University of Michigan, Department of Family Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (APY, MCO, DMH); University of Michigan, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ann Arbor, MI (RS, NS, EC, DMH); and University of Michigan, Department of Internal Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (AMF).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marie Claire O'Dwyer
From the University of Michigan, Department of Family Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (APY, MCO, DMH); University of Michigan, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ann Arbor, MI (RS, NS, EC, DMH); and University of Michigan, Department of Internal Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (AMF).
MB, Bch, BAO, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Roger Smith
From the University of Michigan, Department of Family Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (APY, MCO, DMH); University of Michigan, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ann Arbor, MI (RS, NS, EC, DMH); and University of Michigan, Department of Internal Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (AMF).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Natalie Saunders
From the University of Michigan, Department of Family Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (APY, MCO, DMH); University of Michigan, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ann Arbor, MI (RS, NS, EC, DMH); and University of Michigan, Department of Internal Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (AMF).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elizabeth Campbell
From the University of Michigan, Department of Family Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (APY, MCO, DMH); University of Michigan, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ann Arbor, MI (RS, NS, EC, DMH); and University of Michigan, Department of Internal Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (AMF).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Mark Fendrick
From the University of Michigan, Department of Family Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (APY, MCO, DMH); University of Michigan, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ann Arbor, MI (RS, NS, EC, DMH); and University of Michigan, Department of Internal Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (AMF).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Diane M. Harper
From the University of Michigan, Department of Family Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (APY, MCO, DMH); University of Michigan, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ann Arbor, MI (RS, NS, EC, DMH); and University of Michigan, Department of Internal Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI (AMF).
MD, MPH, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

References

  1. 1.↵
    Women's Preventive Services Guidelines. HRSA. Affordable Care Act expands prevention coverage for women' health and well -being. January 2025. Available at: https://www.hrsa.gov/womens-guidelines#:∼:text=Preventive%20services%20that%20have%20strong,HRSA%2C%20incorporated%20in%20the%20Guidelines.
  2. 2.↵
    Cervical cancer Incidence. Epic Research. April 2025. Available at: https://www.epicresearch.org/data-tracker/cancer-rates/cervical.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Li Z,
    2. Liu P,
    3. Yin A,
    4. et al
    . Global landscape of cervical cancer incidence and mortality in 2022 and predictions to 2030: the urgent need to address inequalities in cervical cancer. Int J Cancer 2025;157:288–97.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative. June 2025. Available at: https://www.who.int/initiatives/cervical-cancer-elimination-initiative.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Cole MB,
    2. Galarraga O,
    3. Wilson IB,
    4. Wright B,
    5. Trivedi AN
    . At federally funded health centers, Medicaid expansion was associated with improved quality of care. Health Aff 2017;36:40–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Goold SD,
    2. Tipirneni R,
    3. Chang T,
    4. et al
    . Primary care, health promotion, and disease prevention with Michigan Medicaid expansion. J Gen Intern Med 2020;35:800–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.
    1. Hendryx M,
    2. Luo J
    . Increased cancer screening for low-income adults under the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion. Med Care 2018;56:944–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.
    1. Huguet N,
    2. Angier H,
    3. Rdesinski R,
    4. et al
    . Cervical and colorectal cancer screening prevalence before and after Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion. Prev Med 2019;124:91–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.
    1. Lyu W,
    2. Wehby GL
    . The impacts of the ACA Medicaid expansions on cancer screening use by primary care provider supply. Med Care 2019;57:202–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.
    1. Okoro CA,
    2. Zhao G,
    3. Fox JB,
    4. Eke PI,
    5. Greenlund KJ,
    6. Town M
    . Surveillance for health care access and health services use, adults aged 18-64 years - Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2014. MMWR Surveill Summ 2017;66:1–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Simon K,
    2. Soni A,
    3. Cawley J
    . The impact of health insurance on preventive care and health behaviors: evidence from the first two years of the ACA Medicaid expansions. J Policy Anal Manage 2017;36:390–417.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    NORC. Only 14% of cancers are detected through a preventive screening test. 01C2. Available at: https://www.norc.org/content/dam/norc-org/pdfs/State-Specific%20PCDSs%20chart%201213.pdf.
  13. 13.↵
    1. Suk R,
    2. Hong Y,
    3. Rajan SS,
    4. Xie Z,
    5. Zhu Y,
    6. Spencer JC
    . Assessment of US Preventive Services Task Force Guideline–concordant cervical cancer screening rates and reasons for underscreening by age, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, rurality, and insurance, 2005 to 2019. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5:e2143582.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Easterling T,
    2. Gortman P,
    3. Mercado N,
    4. et al
    . 2024. Avalere Health. https: Available at: http://advisory.avalerehealth.com/insights/cervical-cancer-screening-rates-differ-across-demographics#:∼:text=The%20analysis%20showed%20that%20about,31%20and%2065%20(30%25).
  15. 15.↵
    1. Kolinski B
    . Cervical Cancer: Early Detection is Key. 2025. Available at: https://www.ncqa.org/blog/cervical-cancer-early-detection-is-key/#:∼:text=In%202023%20the%20cervical%20cancer,more%20screening%20education%20and%20support.
  16. 16.↵
    State of Health Care Quality Report on HEIDS and CAHPS measures over time. Measures reported using electronic clinical data systems. Cervical Cancer Screening -E. Historical Results. Available at: https://www.ncqa.org/report-cards/health-plans/state-of-health-care-quality-report/cervical-cancer-screening-ccs-e/.
  17. 17.↵
    1. Asare M,
    2. Owusu-Sekyere E,
    3. Elizondo A,
    4. Benavidez GA
    . Exploring cervical cancer screening uptake among women in the United States: impact of social determinants of health and psychosocial determinants. Behav Sci (Basel) 2024;14:811.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Jacobs EA,
    2. Karavolos K,
    3. Rathouz PJ,
    4. Ferris TG,
    5. Powell LH
    . Limited English proficiency and breast and cervical cancer screening in a multiethnic population. Am J Public Health 2005;95:1410–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. Steffen MR,
    2. Jiang H,
    3. Beninato T,
    4. et al
    . Subspecialty faculty in obstetrics and gynecology: distribution, demographics, and implications for training and clinical practice. Cureus 2023;15:e48736.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Soltani LF,
    2. Addis I,
    3. Lin P,
    4. et al
    . Characterizing cervical cancer screening in the US: preparing for the era of self-collection JABFM in press.
  21. 21.↵
    1. Tsai RJ,
    2. Luckhaupt SE,
    3. Sweeney MH,
    4. Calvert GM
    . Shift work and cancer screening: do females who work alternative shifts undergo recommended cancer screening? Am J Ind Med 2014;57:265–75.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Meister K
    . Confusion about insurance coverage for cervical cancer screenings contributes to missed screening. Prevent Cancer. 2024. Available at: https://preventcancer.org/news/confusion-about-insurance-coverage-for-cervical-cancer-screenings-contributes-to-missed-screening/.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Boitano TKL,
    2. Ketch P,
    3. Maier JG,
    4. et al
    . Increased disparities associated with black women and abnormal cervical cancer screening follow-up. Gynecol Oncol Rep 2022;42:101041.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Kuroki LM,
    2. Massad LS,
    3. Woolfolk C,
    4. Thompson T,
    5. McQueen A,
    6. Kreuter MW
    . Cervical cancer risk and screening among women seeking assistance with basic needs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021;224:368.e1–368.e8.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    USPSTF Cervical Cancer. Draft Guidelines. 2024; Available at: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/draft-recommendation/cervical-cancer-screening-adults-adolescents#:∼:text=Recommendation%20Summary&text=The%20USPSTF%20recommends%20screening%20for,ages%2030%20to%2065%20years.
  26. 26.↵
    1. Burger EA,
    2. Smith MA,
    3. Killen J,
    4. et al
    . Projected time to elimination of cervical cancer in the USA: a comparative modelling study. Lancet Public Health 2020;5:e213–e222.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Fendrick AM,
    2. Dalton VK,
    3. Tilea A,
    4. Malone AM,
    5. Moniz MH
    . Out-of-pocket costs for colposcopy among commercially insured women from 2006 to 2019. Obstet Gynecol 2022;139:113–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Perkins RB,
    2. Adcock R,
    3. Benard V
    , New Mexico HPV Pap Registry (NMHPVPR) Steering Committeeet al. Clinical follow-up practices after cervical cancer screening by co-testing: a population-based study of adherence to US guideline recommendations. Prev Med 2021;153:106770.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 38 (6)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 38, Issue 6
November-December 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Kennedy v Braidwood Ruling Affects Women and Cervical Cancer Screening
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Kennedy v Braidwood Ruling Affects Women and Cervical Cancer Screening
Alisa P. Young, Marie Claire O'Dwyer, Roger Smith, Natalie Saunders, Elizabeth Campbell, A. Mark Fendrick, Diane M. Harper
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2025, 38 (6) 1113-1116; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2025.250179R2

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Kennedy v Braidwood Ruling Affects Women and Cervical Cancer Screening
Alisa P. Young, Marie Claire O'Dwyer, Roger Smith, Natalie Saunders, Elizabeth Campbell, A. Mark Fendrick, Diane M. Harper
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2025, 38 (6) 1113-1116; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2025.250179R2
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • The Need for No-Cost Sharing for Cervical Cancer Screening Is High, but Not Enough
    • Cost Is One of the Many Reasons for Not Getting Screened
    • Guideline Changes in Screening Techniques and Tests Remain Covered by the ACA
    • Under 34% of Those with an Abnormal Screen Get a Follow-Up Colposcopy
    • Future Opportunity Is Now
    • Notes
    • References
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Point-of-Care Ultrasound, Prevention and Screening, Family Medicine Workforce, Navigating Systems, and Improving Patient Care
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Medical Aid in Dying State Laws: A Thirty Year Evolution
  • Reimbursement and Policy Considerations of Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) in Rural Family Medicine
  • The Differing Career Choice Paths of MD and DO Family Medicine Residents: A Call to Action
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Affordable Care Act
  • Cancer Screening
  • Cervical Cancer
  • Colposcopy
  • United States Supreme Court

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2026 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire