This is the type of cost cutting measures and one size thinking that scares me about single payer and one-size fits all health care reform...
http://news.yahoo.com/...
So my 44 year old wife that was diagnosed with stage 2 breast cancer is just not worth the cost of annual mamogram screenings and you know the next place this would go would be into the federal guidelines for coverage of mamograms.
We certaintly need to be focused on value and outcomes, but to stop mamograms for women from ages 40 - 50 is not something that should be mandated or a standard to be followed...just because your life is not significant enough...
This is where the doctors in the field should make the decisions and not a federal beaurocrat or an insurance company beaurocrat.
Personally, I am very disappointed about the almost certain death sentence that this change in policy from this governmental panel that would have imposed on my wife and created a single parent family for my 2 young children...all for counting dollars and cents...I mean really, how much does a mamogram really cost compared to the pain of losing a 44 year old mother of 2 and a wife of 16 years to a devoted husband.
Of course they cite the number of false positives that result in additional tests...well to me that is a sign for a better mamogram test not ending the test for certain women.
Further they suggest that self-exams are not useful at all, to me that is crazy since one of the reasons, my wife went in for a 2nd mamogram within a year is a self-exam of her breasts...
I am not normally a conspiracy theorists, but in this case I have to ask, is the ACS shilling to find a way to cut down the costs of HCR on the back of women?
Here is the quote that I question:
But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival.
This is literally, saving pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters at the expense of women aged 40 - 50 years old in their prime of their lives, many of them mothers with school aged children.
And then they go on to say:
The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s,"
While I might agree that the benefits are less but it is disingeneous to say that the harms are greater...what harms...you mean your breasts are tender for a few days and maybe you get a scare or two from a false positive? Or is the harm that we are spending money saving lives not worth saving.
When we were at Memorial Sloan Kettering for the double mastectomy, there were women in there for the same procedure from their 20's to their 60's and everywhere inbetween. I was surprised how many young women were there compared to older women.
Thankfully, the American Cancer Society (and I do not think they own stock in any mamogram clinics) disagrees with this conclusion...
The new advice was sharply challenged by the cancer society.
"This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over," the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.
The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote.
That stance "is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them," he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.
It is a disgusting conclusion that will lead to more fodder by HCR opponents that HCR is nothing more than government control of what medical procedures are necessary and who's life is worth saving...
Mammograms can find cancer early, and two-thirds of women over 40 report having had the test in the previous two years. But how much they cut the risk of dying of the disease, and at what cost in terms of unneeded biopsies, expense and worry, have been debated.
In most women, tumors are slow-growing, and that likelihood increases with age. So there is little risk by extending the time between mammograms, some researchers say. Even for the minority of women with aggressive, fast-growing tumors, annual screening will make little difference in survival odds.
How did they come to this conclusion with the data on fast growing tumors, I have no clue, those are the most dangerous kind that early screening will save lives with...and saved my wife's life...
It is simplistic analysis like this that is extremely dangerous...it is not just about death, but the extensiveness of the treatment. If a tumor is discovered in stage 1 it costs 1/10th to treat than it does in stage 2 - 3 after it has gotten into the lymph nodes...so at best this is being penny wise and dollar foolish as we let the tumors get bigger and spread as they get harder and more expensive to treat. So sure, maybe the death rate will be acceptable, but meanwhile you just let an extra 50,000 women undergo expensive chemotherapy and radiation instead of a simple lumpectomy as well as some unavoidable premature deaths...
Several medical groups say they are sticking to their guidelines that call for routine screening starting at 40.
"Screening isn't perfect. But it's the best thing we have. And it works...she suggested that cutting health care costs may have played a role in the decision...The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has qualms...said there is still significant benefit to women in their 40s, adding: "We think that women deserve that benefit."
Yea I am sure cost had nothing to do with the study at all (said dripping with sarcasm)...but I agree with ACOG that women deserve the benefit of the doubt...if they do not want to do a mamogram, fine with me, but don't tell my wife it is a waste of time, her husband and children would strongly disagree...