In Reversal, U.S. Urges Mammograms at 50, Not 40 (Here comes Obamacare)

New York Times ^ | 11/16/09 | by Gina Kolta

[earlJam]

11/16/09

Most women should start regular breast cancer screening at age 50, not 40, according to new guidelines released Monday by an influential group that provides guidance to doctors, insurance companies and policy makers.

The new recommendations reverse longstanding guidelines and are aimed at reducing harm from overtreatment, the group says. It also says women age 50 to 74 should have mammograms less frequently — every two years, rather than every year. And it said doctors should stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis.

The new report conflicts with advice from groups like the American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology. They are staying with their guidelines advising annual mammograms starting at age 40....

The cancer society, in a statement by Dr. Otis W. Brawley, its chief medical officer, agreed that mammography had risks as well as benefits but, he said, the society’s experts had looked at “virtually all” the task force and additional data and concluded that the benefits of annual mammograms starting at age 40 outweighed the risks.

Congress requires Medicare to pay for annual mammograms. Medicare can change its rules to pay for less frequent tests if federal officials direct it to...

Private insurers are required by law in every state except Utah to pay for mammograms for women in their 40s.

But the new guidelines are expected to alter the grading system for health plans, which are used as a marketing tool. Grades are issued by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a private nonprofit organization, and one measure is the percentage of patients getting mammograms every one to two years starting at age 40...

Researchers worry the new report will be interpreted as a political effort by the Obama administration to save money on health care costs.

[SueRae]

yeah right - tell that to three of my friends, all who discovered lumps in their thirties. Sadly, two of them lost their battle. The third one is doing okay...

[The4thHorseman]

“And it said doctors should stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis.

Huh?”

I can’t believe the article didn’t bother to explain this. My guess is that the self-exams can give women a false sense of security (”I didn’t feel anything, so why bother having them checked by a doctor”), when quite often women don’t really know what they’re doing when they do a self-exam. Might also be because it causes unnecessary worry (and unnecessary doctor’s visits), when a woman thinks she’s feels something but it’s nothing. Just a guess—but still lousy reporting to not explain (would have taken all of a sentence).

[Go Gordon]

And it said doctors should stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis. Huh?

Doctors should teach men to examine women's breast on a regular basis.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

Obama wants to kill your mama?

[Go Gordon]

FWIW, My wife’s acorn-sized breast tumor was discovered when she was 47

I think you mean acorned-sized tumor in the breast?

[luckystarmom]

My cousin was 35 when she had breast cancer and a good friend was 39.

[SDShack]

No one should be surprised by this. This is part of 0zer0 and the dumbcrats master plan. Study after study shows that over 25% of all annual Medicare costs are spent on patients in their last year of life. The “savings” the dumbcrats will get from Medicare will come by restricting coverage for elderly sick patients. Delay health screening and you get more sick patients. Then you can rule that they are terminal and not worth saving.

This is the “death panels” and is why the libs go bonkers whenever it is brought up. This type of media article needs to be forwarded to every senior, soon to be senior, and congressman and explained how ghoulish it is.

[Billthedrill]

And it said doctors should stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis.

OK, that one's so weird I have a hard time believing it. "Be ignorant" is seldom sound medical advice.

[Gator113]

“..... examine their breasts on a regular basis.”

I’ve been doing to examinations for decades and I’m not going to stop..... even though my wife says she doesn’t need them anymore.

Sorry, I can’t help myself. ;>)

[luckystarmom]

A friend from church did a self-exam and found cancer just a few months after her annual mammogram.

[FrdmLvr]

This is ridiculous, my friend died of breast cancer at the age of 33. 50 is too late for some women. This is conditioning us for 0bamacare which will sanction white women for mammograms at the age of 65, while black women should begin by age 40.

[NautiNurse]

I recall a study years ago that indicated the majority of breast lumps were initially located by male partners.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

This is such B.S. Trust virtually NO ONE who has M.D. after their name but who spends >90% of their time as a policy wonk. Further, this organization is based on outcomes assessments and “quality assurance” measures. This is at best a very faulty system of assessments that measures cost/benefit rations in terms of dollars spent per patient year of life saved etc. Patients aren't statistics. They are individuals, and each needs to be assessed and treated independently.

Part of working hard in life, getting an education, trying to live healthy, saving money, looking for a job with good benefits etc. is so that you can assure your family and yourself that you'll have a choice when it comes to treatment options.

Buttheads like Obama don't want anyone to have anything more than anyone else (unless you are a politician/lawyer/or work in Hollywood). So they think the best way to make sure that happens is to come up with standards that are applied universally. Inevitably those standards have to restrict care to some extent in order to keep the governments part of this cost from looking unsustainable right out of the box. The result is that they lower the standard of care for everyone, and the costs will be higher anyway. The reality is that everyone can get a great standard of care. There are plenty of ways to do this, but none of them are the ways that are being proposed now.

[chiefqc]

It seems that o-bow-man is obsessed with death, babies, older people, and for now, at least, women under 50 years old. My late was discovered to have breast cancer while in her early forties after having a mammogram. If we waited until she was in her fifties she would have died eighteen years earlier.

[Clintons Are White Trash]

Wow, my sister would be dead - she was 45 and Stage 3. Luckily she’s a 10 year survivor now.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Researchers worry the new report will be interpreted as a political effort by the Obama administration to save money on health care costs.

Ya think?

You took the response right off my keyboard!

[downtownconservative]

Premenopausal women are at the greatest risk of virulent cancer. It needs to be identified early if any survivability is to be expected. Postmenopausal women typically have quite treatable/managable breast cancer. This seems to be indicative of making the value judgement that young women with breast cancer have low survial rates and cost the most money to treat. Therefore, the healthcare gurus have decided to just pass on agressive care. Not unbelievable at all. Welcome to our brave new world.

[mo]

Seeing as the Dems have absolutely no intention of paying doctors to treat anything...there’s certainly no incentive to diagnose anything...

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Here's a real life example in which outcomes measures would likely change management based on cost/benefit ratio.

Th traditional thinking about suspected appendicitis is that it is better to have a 10% false operation rate (i.e. normal appendix) than to miss anyone with appendicitis. It would likely be very hard to justify this based purely on outcomes measures and cost/benefit ratios. So to save on costs one might institute a higher bar to jump over before going to surgery. This would likely reduce the number of unnecessary operations, but would also increase the number of those that get missed that really needed surgery. If you're one of those who didn't get operated on and your appendix ruptures, you as an individual will pay the price for being on the wrong side of a statisticians equation.

[NotSoModerate]

Death Panel.