Background: In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer. Studies have found that insured patients with prostate cancer have better outcomes than uninsured patients. We examined the recommendation’s effects on survival disparities based on insurance status as well as socioeconomic quintile, marital status, and housing (urban/rural). Methods: Using the SEER18 database, we examined prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) based on diagnostic time period and one of four factors: insurance status, socioeconomic quintile, marital status, and housing (urban/rural). The SEER-designated socioeconomic quintile was based on variables including median household income and education index. Patients were designated as belonging to the pre-USPSTF era if diagnosed in 2010-2012 or post-USPSTF era if diagnosed in 2014-2016. Disparities were measured with the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: We identified 282,994 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer. During the pre-USPSTF era, uninsured patients experienced worse PCSS compared to insured patients (adjusted HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06-1.58, p = 0.01). This survival disparity narrowed during the post-USPSTF era as a result of decreased PCSS among insured patients combined with unchanged PCSS among uninsured patients. Moreover, the survival disparity was no longer observed during the post-USPSTF era (aHR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61-1.38, p = 0.67). The survival disparity based on socioeconomic quintile also narrowed but remained significant. In contrast, the survival disparity based on marital status widened, while housing status was not associated with survival disparities in either era. Conclusions: From the pre- to the post-USPSTF era, insured patients with prostate cancer observed a significant decrease in survival that made their survival outcomes similar to that of uninsured patients. Although the underlying reasons are not clear, the USPSTF’s 2012 PSA screening recommendation may have hindered insured patients from being regularly screened for prostate cancer and selectively led to worse outcomes for insured patients without improving the survival of uninsured patients.