Breast Density Notification Legislation Research Articles

Mammographic density in relationships with relevant contributing factors: a multicentric study from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Mammographic breast density (MBD), a well-established factor linked to breast cancer, is the focus of this preliminary report among women across multiple centers in Riyadh. The study aims to identify risk factors associated with high breast density. MBD was assessed at three hospitals in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, using the American College of Radiology (ACR) categories: A (almost entirely fatty), B (scattered areas of fibroglandular density), C (heterogeneously dense), and D (extremely dense). Breast density distributions were analyzed in relation to age, body mass index (BMI), family history, parity, and hormonal therapy usage. The study included 1,530 women, revealing an inverse association between dense breast proportion and age/BMI. Notably, 43.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 43.2% to 43.5%] of women aged 40-79 years exhibited heterogeneously or highly dense breasts, with this proportion inversely correlated with age and BMI. Healthcare providers should consider breast density for appropriate screening and, if necessary, recommend supplemental methods. Policymakers and healthcare providers, when discussing breast density notification legislation, should be mindful of its high prevalence, ensuring women notified have opportunities to evaluate breast cancer risk and pursue supplemental screening options if deemed appropriate.

Breast Density Legislation Impact on Breast Cancer Screening and Risk Assessment.

To evaluate breast density notification legislation (BDNL) on breast imaging practice patterns, risk assessment, and supplemental screening. A 20-question anonymous web-based survey was administered to practicing Society of Breast Imaging radiologists in the U.S. between February and April 2021 regarding breast cancer risk assessment, supplemental screening, and density measurements. Results were compared between facilities with and without BDNL using the two-sided Fisher's exact test. One hundred and ninety-seven radiologists from 41 U.S. states, with (187/197, 95%) or without (10/197, 5%) BDNL, responded. Fifty-seven percent (113/197) performed breast cancer risk assessment, and 93% (183/197) offered supplemental screening for women with dense breasts. Between facilities with or without BDNL, there was no significant difference in whether risk assessment was (P = 0.19) or was not performed (P = 0.20). There was no significant difference in supplemental screening types (P > 0.05) between BDNL and non-BDNL facilities. Thirty-five percent (69/197) of facilities offered no supplemental screening studies, and 25% (49/197) had no future plans to offer supplemental screening. A statistically significant greater proportion of non-BDNL facilities offered no supplemental screening (P < 0.03) and had no plans to offer supplemental screening compared to BDNL facilities (P < 0.02). Facilities in BDNL states often offer supplemental screening compared to facilities in non-BDNL states. Compared to BDNL facilities, a statistically significant proportion of non-BDNL facilities had no supplemental screening nor plans for implementation. Our data suggest that upcoming federal BDNL will impact how supplemental screening is addressed in currently non-BDNL states.

The impact of mandatory mammographic breast density notification on supplemental screening practice in the United States: a systematic review.

Dense breast tissue is an independent risk factor for breast cancer and lowers the sensitivity of screening mammography. Supplemental screening with ultrasound or MRI improves breast cancer detection rate but has potential harms. Breast density notification (BDN) legislation has been introduced in the United States (US) and its impact on supplemental screening practice is unclear. This study systematically reviewed current evidence to explore the impact of BDN on supplemental screening practice in the US. Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and the Cinhal Library databases were searched (2009-August 2020). Studies were assessed for eligibility, data were extracted and summarised, and study quality was evaluated. Evidence from the included studies (n = 14) predominantly showed that BDN legislation increased the overall utilisation of supplemental screening by 0.5-143%. This effect was amplified if the notification included a follow-up telephone call informing women about additional screening benefits, and if the state's law mandated insurance cover for supplemental screening. Likelihood of supplemental screening was also influenced by history of breast biopsy and family history of breast cancer, race, age, socioeconomic status, density category, and physician's specialty and region. Some studies reported increases in biopsy rate (up to 4%) and cancer detection rate (up to 11%) after implementation of BDN legislation. BDN leads to increased use of supplemental screening. This has implications for women and the health system. These findings can help inform current and future screening programs, where breast density notification is currently implemented or being considered.

Is Dense Breast Notification Legislation Working?

Is Dense Breast Notification Legislation Working?

Abstract PO-079: Mixed success and persistent disparities in outcomes related to breast density legislation: A national survey

Abstract Little is known about whether women residing in states with mandated dense breast notification (DBN) have improved awareness, knowledge, or discussion with their doctors, or whether there are disparities by sociodemographic characteristics. We conducted a cross-sectional, national telephone survey to assess the primary outcomes intended by DBN legislation: informing women about personal breast density, increasing awareness of its making effect and association with increased cancer risk, and prompting discussions with providers. Specific efforts were made to include women from all race/ethnic groups, education strata, and literacy levels. Women aged &amp;gt;40 reporting a mammogram in &amp;lt;2 years, with no prior breast cancer diagnosis and having heard of the term ‘breast density’ were eligible. We conducted chi-square analyses for each outcome, comparing each by state DBN legislation status, age, income, race/ethnicity, health literacy, and two clinical breast cancer risk factors (family history, prior breast biopsy). Paired comparisons within each sociodemographic factor were tested using Z-tests (α=0.05). Multivariable, binary logistic regressions predicted each outcome using all variables above entered simultaneously as predictors. Secondary analyses tested whether sociodemographic differences in outcomes were moderated by state DBN status via interaction terms. The sample included 2,306 women; 1,782 residing in DBN states and 524 in non-DBN states. Half of the participants were white (50.3%), 23.1% non-Hispanic black, 14% Hispanic, 8.2% Asian, and 4.4% ‘other’. Women in DBN states were 1.55 (95% CI = 1.20, 1.99) times more likely to have received personal breast density information compared to women in non-DBN states after controlling for sociodemographic and risk factors. Those with lower incomes, Asian women, and those with lower health literacy were less likely to report receiving personal breast density information. Overall, 39% had a discussion with their provider about breast density, with women in DBN states being 1.82 times more likely to have done so (95% CI= 1.40, 2.37). There were no differences between women in DBN vs. non-DBN states related to knowledge of masking bias (OR=.99, 0.71, 1.39) or understanding that breast density is a cancer risk factor (OR=0.93, 0.71, 1.22). Hispanic and lower income women had less knowledge about these topics. Interaction models failed to reveal moderating effects of state DBN status, indicating that DBN legislation does not appear to be mitigating or worsening the observed sociodemographic differences. Findings suggest that mandated DBNs have had partial success informing women about their breast density. However, we saw few indications that DBNs increased knowledge and observed less knowledge among women with low income, racial/ethnic minority status and lower literacy. This ‘one size fits all’ policy approach to relaying breast density information appears to be inadequate in reducing disparities in breast density awareness and knowledge. Citation Format: Nancy R. Kressin, Jolie Wormwood, Tracy A. Battaglia, Priscilla J. Slanetz, Christine M. Gunn. Mixed success and persistent disparities in outcomes related to breast density legislation: A national survey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-079.

Evaluating the Extended Parallel Process Model’s Danger Control Predictions in the Context of Dense Breast Notification Laws

ABSTRACT This study evaluates predictions central to the extended parallel process model (EPPM) in the context of dense breast notifications. Many EPPM propositions have gone untested and competing predictions to the model have been evaluated to an even lesser extent. Also left as an open question is exactly how perceived threat and efficacy constructs should be treated in health communication research. Using experimental data collected from women likely to receive dense breast notification letters (i.e., aged 40 to 50 years) in states with and without dense breast notification legislation, this study explicitly tests EPPM predictions regarding danger control responses. These data were largely unsupportive of the EPPM’s predictions and instead finds that negative affect is more of a direct predictor of intention than expected. These data also provide evidence supporting the separate treatment of the perceived severity, susceptibility, self-efficacy, and response efficacy variables, contrary to convention in EPPM research. Implications for breast density research and EPPM theorizing are discussed in light of these findings.

Understanding the response of mammography facilities to breast density notification.

State-specific breast density notification legislation requires that women undergoing mammography be informed about breast density, with variation among states. Because mammography facilities are among the main points of contact for women undergoing mammography, research is needed to understand how facilities communicate information on breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening to women. A cross-sectional, 50-item, mailed survey of 156 American College of Radiology-certified mammography facilities in North Carolina was conducted in 2017 via the Tailored Design Method. Breast density notification practices, supplemental screening services, and patient educational materials were compared by supplemental screening availability via t tests and chi-square tests. All responding facilities (n=94; 60.3% response rate) notified women of their breast density in the mammography results letter. Breast cancer risk assessments were performed by 36.2% of the facilities, with risk information communicated in the final radiology report for the referring provider to discuss with the woman (79.4%) or in the results letter (58.8%). Supplemental breast cancer screening was offered by 63.8% of the facilities, with use based on multiple factors, including recommendations from the referring physician (63.3%) or reading radiologist (63.3%), breast density (48.3%), other risk factors (48.3%), and patient request (40.0%). Although 75.0% of the facilities offered breast density educational materials, only 36.6% offered educational materials on supplemental screening. In a state with a breast density notification law, mammography facilities communicate breast density, cancer risk, and supplemental screening information to women through various approaches. When supplemental screening is offered, facilities use multiple decision-making criteria rather than breast density alone.

Diffusion-weighted MRI for Unenhanced Breast Cancer Screening.

Diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI is a rapid technique that measures the mobility of water molecules within tissue, reflecting the cellular microenvironment. At DW MRI, breast cancers typically exhibit reduced diffusivity and appear hyperintense to surrounding tissues. On the basis of this characteristic, DW MRI may offer an unenhanced method to detect breast cancer without the costs and safety concerns associated with dynamic contrast material-enhanced MRI, the current reference standard in the setting of high-risk screening. This application of DW MRI has not been widely explored but is particularly timely given the growing health concerns related to the long-term use of gadolinium-based contrast material. Moreover, increasing breast density notification legislation across the United States is raising awareness of the limitations of mammography in women with dense breasts, emphasizing the need for additional cost-effective supplemental screening examinations. Preliminary studies suggest unenhanced MRI with DW MRI may provide higher sensitivity than screening mammography for the detection of breast malignancies. Larger prospective multicenter trials are needed to validate single-center findings and assess the performance of DW MRI for generalized breast cancer screening. Standardization of DW MRI acquisition and interpretation is essential to ensure reliable sensitivity and specificity, and an optimal approach for screening using readily available techniques is proposed here.

Association of State Dense Breast Notification Laws With Supplemental Testing and Cancer Detection After Screening Mammography.

To evaluate the association of state dense breast notification (DBN) laws with use of supplemental tests and cancer diagnosis after screening mammography. We examined screening mammograms (n = 1 441 544) performed in 2014 and 2015 among privately insured women aged 40 to 59 years living in 9 US states that enacted DBN laws in 2014 to 2015 and 25 US states with no DBN law in effect. DBN status at screening mammography was categorized as no DBN, generic DBN, and DBN that mandates notification of possible benefits of supplemental screening (DBN+SS). We used logistic regression to examine the change in rate of supplemental ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, breast biopsy, and breast cancer detection. DBN+SS laws were associated with 10.5 more ultrasounds per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 3.0, 17.6 per 1000; P = .006) and 0.37 more breast cancers detected per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 0.05, 0.69 per 1000; P = .02) compared with no DBN law. No significant differences were found for generic DBN laws in either ultrasound or cancer detection. DBN legislation is associated with increased use of ultrasound and cancer detection after implementation only when notification of the possible benefits of supplemental screening is required.

Primary Care Provider Experience with Breast Density Legislation in Massachusetts.

Dense breasts on mammography independently increases breast cancer risk and decreases mammography sensitivity. Thirty-two states have adopted notification laws to raise awareness among women with dense breasts about supplemental screening. Little is known about these policies' impact on clinical practice among primary care providers (PCPs). This study explores PCP attitudes, knowledge, and the impact of the Massachusetts dense breast notification legislation on clinical practice after its enactment in 2015. An anonymous, online survey at two urban safety-net hospitals was administered in 2015-2016. Practicing MDs and nurse practitioners in primary care were invited to participate. All 145 PCPs in general internal medicine at the two sites were e-mailed a survey link and 80 (55%) were completed. While 64 of 80 PCPs surveyed (80%) had some familiarity with the legislation, none identified the 8 required components of notifications contained in the Massachusetts legislation. Forty-nine percent (39/80) did not feel prepared to respond to patient questions about dense breasts. Forty-one percent (33/80) correctly identified that no current guidelines recommend the use of supplemental screening tests solely based on breast density and 85% (68/80) indicated interest in further training. Female and less experienced providers were more likely to be in favor of the legislation (49% vs. 11% by gender; 76% <5 years vs. 9%> 20 years). Women practitioners (55%) who were more likely than men (17%, p = 0.01) to agree with the policy changed their discussions of mammography results with patients. PCPs feel underprepared to counsel women about breast density identified on mammography and its implications.

Breast Density Notification Legislation and Breast Cancer Stage at Diagnosis: Early Evidence from the SEER Registry.

Twenty-eight states have passed breast density notification laws, which require physicians to inform women of a finding of dense breasts on mammography. To evaluate changes in breast cancer stage at diagnosis after enactment of breast density notification legislation. Using a difference-in-differences analysis, we examined changes in stage at diagnosis among women with breast cancer in Connecticut, the first state to enact legislation, compared to changes among women in control states. We used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) registry, 2005-2013. Women ages 40-74 with breast cancer. Breast density notification legislation, enacted in Connecticut in October of 2009. Breast cancer stage at diagnosis. Our study included 466,930 women, 25,592 of whom lived in Connecticut. Legislation was associated with a 1.38-percentage-point (95 % CI 0.12 to 2.63) increase in the proportion of women in Connecticut versus control states who had localized invasive cancer at the time of diagnosis, and a 1.12-percentage-point (95 % CI -2.21 to -0.08) decline in the proportion of women with ductal carcinoma in situ at diagnosis. Breast density notification legislation was not associated with a change in the proportion of women in Connecticut versus control states with regional-stage (-0.09 percentage points, 95 % CI -1.01 to 1.02) or metastatic disease (-0.24, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.28). County-level analyses and analyses limited to women younger than 50 found no statistically significant associations. Single intervention state, limited follow-up, potential confounding from unobserved trends. Breast density notification legislation in Connecticut was associated with a small increase in the proportion of women diagnosed with localized invasive breast cancer in individual-level but not county-level analyses. Whether this finding reflects potentially beneficial early detection or potentially harmful overdiagnosis is not known. Legislation was not associated with changes in regional or metastatic disease.

Dense Breast Legislation in the United States: State of the States

Limitations of screening mammography in patients with dense breasts combined with the significant increased risk for breast cancer have made the issue of dense breasts a matter of great concern in recent years, leading to advocacy for policy change and legislation. Dense breast notification legislation requires direct patient notification of mammographic results indicating the presence of dense breast tissue. The aim of this study was to summarize the state of dense breast notification legislation across the country. The general intent of dense breast notification legislation is to increase awareness of dense breasts and encourage patients to discuss the clinical issues with their physicians. It was first enacted in Connecticut in 2009, and since then, 27 other states have passed, rejected, or considered dense breast notification legislation. At the federal level, a bill was introduced in October 2011, but it was not enacted. There are significant differences in the language of the laws from state to state that complicate implementation. Furthermore, legislated recommendations for possible additional testing are often unaccompanied by legal provisions for insurance coverage, which potentially results in unequal access.

The Effect of California's Breast Density Notification Legislation on Breast Cancer Screening.

Purpose: Half of US states mandate women be notified if they have dense breasts on their mammogram, yet guidelines and data on supplemental screening modalities are limited. Breast density (BD) refers to the extent that breast tissue appears radiographically dense on mammograms. High BD reduces the sensitivity of screening mammography and increases breast cancer risk. The aim of this study was to determine the potential impact of California’s 2013 BD notification legislation on breast cancer screening patterns. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of women aged 40 to 74 years who were members of a large Northern California integrated health plan (approximately 3.9 million members) in 2011-2015. We calculated pre- and post-legislation rates of screening mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We also examined whether women with dense breasts (defined as BI-RADS density c or d) had higher MRI rates than women with nondense breasts (defined as BI-RADS density a or b). Results: After adjustment for race/ethnicity, age, body mass index, medical facility, neighborhood median income, and cancer history, there was a relative 6.6% decrease (relative risk [RR] 0.934, confidence interval [CI] 0.92-0.95) in the rate of screening mammography, largely driven by a decrease among women <50 years. While infrequent, there was a relative 16% increase (RR 1.16, CI 1.07-1.25) in the rate of screening MRI, with the greatest increase among the youngest women. In the postlegislation period, women with extremely dense breasts (BI-RADS d) had 2.77 times (CI 1.93-3.95) the odds of a MRI within 9 months of a screening mammogram compared with women with nondense breasts (BI-RADS b). Conclusions: In this setting, MRI rates increased in the postlegislation period. In addition, women with higher BD were more likely to have supplementary MRI. The decrease in mammography rates seen primarily among younger women may have been due to changes in national screening guidelines.

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Mammographic Breast Density Notification Legislation

Background: Patient advocacy has fostered the implementation of mammographic breast density (MBD) notification legislation in many states. Little is known about the perspectives of women, primary care physicians (PCPs), and breast radiologists in response to this legislation. The objective of this research was to elicit qualitative information from these multiple stakeholders to understand varied perspectives on the subject of MBD notification and inform best practices around implementation. Methods: Content analysis of narrative data from focus groups with women (2 groups, total of 16 participants) and in-depth interviews with PCPs (n = 7) and breast radiologists (n = 7). Results: Three major themes emerged from the data: 1) knowledge and general attitudes about legislation, 2) concerns about consequences, and 3) actions patients and clinicians should consider based on MBD information. For each of these themes, the views of women, PCPs, and radiologists often demonstrated different perspectives. Conclusion: This work supports the need for clear and concise tools for patients and providers to understand MBD in the context of a woman’s overall breast cancer risk with guidance on next steps.

Impact of Breast Density Notification Legislation on Radiologists' Practices of Reporting Breast Density: A Multi-State Study.

Purpose To evaluate the impact of breast density notification legislation on breast density reporting by radiologists nationally. Materials and Methods The institutional review board exempted this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study from the requirement for informed consent. State-level data over a 5-year period on breast density categorization and breast cancer detection rate were collected from the National Mammography Database (NMD). Z tests were used to calculate differences in proportions. Results Facilities in 13 of 17 states that had breast density notification legislation as of 2014 submitted data to the NMD before and after law enactment. A total of 1 333 541 mammographic studies (hereafter called "mammograms") over a 30-month period, beginning 20 months before and continuing 10 months after law enactment, were included in the analysis. There was a small but statistically significant decrease in the percentage of mammograms reported as showing dense breast tissue (hereafter called "dense mammograms") in the month before law enactment compared with the month after (43.0% [22 338 of 52 000] vs 40.0% [18 604 of 46 464], P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of mammograms reported as dense in the month before law enactment compared with the 10th month after (43.0% [22 338 of 52 000] vs 42.8% [15 835 of 36 991], P = .65). There were no significant differences in the breast cancer detection rate between the month before and the month after law enactment (3.9 vs 3.8 cancers per 1000 mammograms, P = .79) or between the month before law enactment and the 10th month after (3.9 vs 4.2 cancers per 1000 mammograms, P = .55). In 21 analyzed states without breast density notification legislation, the percentage of mammograms reported as dense did not decrease below 42.8% (43 363 of 101 394) from 2010 to 2014, in contrast to 13 analyzed states with breast density notification legislation, which reached a nadir of 39.3% (20 965 of 53 360) (P < .001). Conclusion The percentage of mammograms reported as dense slightly decreased immediately after enactment of breast density notification legislation but then returned to prelegislation percentages within 10 months. (©) RSNA, 2016.

Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel.

Stemming from breast density notification legislation in Massachusetts effective 2015, we sought to develop a collaborative evidence-based approach to density notification that could be used by practitioners across the state. Our goal was to develop an evidence-based consensus management algorithm to help patients and health care providers follow best practices to implement a coordinated, evidence-based, cost-effective, sustainable practice and to standardize care in recommendations for supplemental screening. We formed the Massachusetts Breast Risk Education and Assessment Task Force (MA-BREAST) a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary panel of expert radiologists, surgeons, primary care physicians, and oncologists to develop a collaborative approach to density notification legislation. Using evidence-based data from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, the Cochrane review, National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, American Cancer Society recommendations, and American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria, the group collaboratively developed an evidence-based best-practices algorithm. The expert consensus algorithm uses breast density as one element in the risk stratification to determine the need for supplemental screening. Women with dense breasts and otherwise low risk (<15% lifetime risk), do not routinely require supplemental screening per the expert consensus. Women of high risk (>20% lifetime) should consider supplemental screening MRI in addition to routine mammography regardless of breast density. We report the development of the multi-disciplinary collaborative approach to density notification. We propose a risk stratification algorithm to assess personal level of risk to determine the need for supplemental screening for an individual woman.

The early effect of breast density legislation on mammogram reporting.

1052 Background: Federal legislation mandating mammographic breast density reporting to patients has been introduced to Congress. California enacted breast density notification legislation (SB1538)...

Breast density legislation: mandatory disclosure to patients, alternative screening, billing, reimbursement.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is describe the origins and provisions of breast density legislation and to evaluate these mandates with regard to the balance between the potential benefit of supplementary screening and the substantial risk of false-positive findings and the adjunctive tests they necessitate. CONCLUSION. Many states have passed breast density notification legislation, and federal legislation is pending. These mandates present a number of challenges for patients and physicians. There is no consensus regarding the need for supplementary testing solely because a woman has dense breasts. The failure of density legislation to require insurance coverage in many states further complicates implementation of the mandates.

Impact of the California Breast Density Law on Primary Care Physicians

PurposeTo investigate primary physician awareness of the California Breast Density Notification Law and its impact on primary care practice. MethodsAn online survey was distributed to 174 physicians within a single primary care network system 10 months after California’s breast density notification law took effect. The survey assessed physicians’ awareness of the law, perceived changes in patient levels of concern about breast density, and physician comfort levels in handling breast density management issues. ResultsThe survey was completed by 77 physicians (45%). Roughly half of those surveyed (49%) reported no knowledge of the breast density notification legislation. Only 32% of respondents noted an increase in patient levels of concern about breast density compared to prior years. The majority were only “somewhat comfortable” (55%) or “not comfortable” (12%) with breast density questions, and almost one-third (32%) had referred patients to a breast health clinic for these discussions. A total of 75% of those surveyed would be interested in more specific education on the subject. ConclusionsAwareness among primary care clinicians of the California Breast Density Notification Law is low, and many do not feel comfortable answering breast density-related patient questions. Breast imagers and institutions may need to devote additional time and resources to primary physician education in order for density notification laws to have significant impact on patient care.

Patient Awareness of Breast Density and Interest in Supplemental Screening Tests: Comparison of an Academic Facility and a County Hospital

PurposeThe aim of this study was to measure women’s knowledge of breast density and their attitudes toward supplemental screening tests in the setting of the California Breast Density Notification Law at an academic facility and a county hospital, serving women with higher and lower socioeconomic status, respectively. MethodsInstitutional review board exemptions were obtained. A survey was administered during screening mammography at two facilities, assessing women’s awareness of and interest in knowing their breast density and interest in and willingness to pay for supplemental whole breast ultrasound and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CEMG). The results were compared by using Fisher exact tests between groups. ResultsA total of 105 of 130 and 132 of 153 women responded to the survey at the academic and county facilities, respectively. Among respondents at the academic and county facilities, 23% and 5% were aware of their breast density, and 94% and 79% wanted to know their density. A majority were interested in supplemental ultrasonography and CEMG at both sites; however, fewer women had a willingness to pay for the supplemental tests at the county hospital compared with those at the academic facility (22% and 70%, respectively, for ultrasound, P < .0001; 20% and 65%, respectively, for CEMG, P < .0001). ConclusionsBoth groups of women were interested in knowing their breast density and in supplemental screening tests. However, women at the county hospital were less willing to incur out-of-pocket expenses, suggesting a potential for a disparity in health care access for women of lower socioeconomic status after the enactment of breast density notification legislation.