Posted on 11/17/2009 5:46:05 AM PST by NMEwithin
The long-standing recommendation that women age 40 and older at average risk of breast cancer get annual mammograms and the notion that women benefit from doing breast self-examination at home is being turned on its head. In a nod to the risks of false positives and unnecessary procedures that mammograms can generate, especially in younger women, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued new guidelines this week saying women in their 40s who have average risk generally don’t need regular screening and that women 50 to 74 should cut back and get mammograms no more than once every two years. The group calls for a more individualized approach in deciding whether regular mammograms are warranted in cases that don’t involve a family history of the disease or genetic biomarkers that raise a woman’s risk for it.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is an independent, nongovernmental body. Its new recommendations are at odds with those of other high-profile groups such as the American Cancer Society, which stands by its guidance that women in their 40s receive regular mammograms, and could affect the way private insurers and Medicare cover such screenings.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.marketwatch.com ...
The US Preventive Services Death Panel. It “prevents” services.
I don’t know what the immediate present state of the art is, but I’ve seen claims to this effect. Without a single doubt, the mammograms can catch dangerous breast cancers, like your wife’s, before they have a chance to become life threatening. To complicate matters, however, the mammograms and examinations don’t catch anywhere close to all of these cancers, and conditions frequently show up through them that look like they might be cancers but are not. Women ought to be able to choose whether they get mammograms or not, and it needn’t necessarily be an insurance covered service (they are about a couple hundred dollars to do). It is the sticky one-size-fits-all cost-benefit wicket that we would be shoved through against our will by Bummercare.
My wife and I saw this on ABC news last night and that is exactly what we thought. If they can get this to become “the standard” and only pay for a screening once every two years it is the begining of rationed care.
Wow, I wonder if everyone thought the same thing. I know I did. I found it very suspicious...coming out, right before they want to pass their government takeover of healthcare. I will bet you we are going to hear a lot more about what we dont need.
Then there's H1N1 vaccine....NO VACCINE FOR SENIORS despite the fact that the highest death rate is among seniors.
Right..but thats a recommendation. You can get it, if its available. My town had it a week ago. Anyone could get it...it wasnt limited to just children...and besides..a lot of people dont want to take it, anyway. You dont know who to trust anymore..and I dont think anyone trusts the government.
It’s debatable how much early screening helps. For the very few like your wife who got diagnosed at 29 it might help. I say “might” because there are many types of cancer and often the ones found early are benign and do not lead or morph into other forms. IOW, they can be safely ignored. Also I don’t trust anything the ACS says on prevention and treatment since they are in the tank for Obamacare.
IMHO, It's probably very bad timing, with the threat of government virtual takeover of healthcare, for the right message, the actual benefit of mass screening of a population for various diseases has been vastly oversold as the wisdom of preventive medicine without looking at the total costs including the costs of false negatives to the individual as well as the cost of false positives with the subsequent testing that a false positive will cause, not to mention the adverse effects that happen from treatment.
If this story saying mammograms aren't that effective for those under fifty years old without a positive family history or positive brca1 or brca2 mutations from genetic testing didn't happen during Obama's attempt to reform healthcare, then the reaction among most folks would have probably been it's nothing to get excited about, with the exception of the feminazis who probably would be up in arms about male sexists denying women adequate healthcare. Fortunately, that same story said the benefits of prostate screening for men are similarly overrated.
Cancer Society, in Shift, Has Concerns on Screenings
Another point to consider is that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has a history of skewering sacred cows in medicine during less controversial times. Their recommendations are based on evidence, not medical tradition. In 1995, after the threat of Hillarycare had passed, they said that the benefit of regular annual check ups for preventive care is not there. If a person has a specific complaint, that's different.
Talk More, Test Less, Panel Urges Health Providers
The 10-member Task Force rejected the traditional emphasis on a standardized annual physical examination as an effective tool for improving the health of patients. Instead, they emphasized that the content and the frequency of the periodic health exam need to be tailored to the age, health risks and preferences of each patient. The panel recognized the proven benefits of specific measures such as periodic screening for high blood pressure and cervical cancer, scheduled vaccinations, and counseling about tobacco, alcohol and other lifestyle issues. In contrast, the Task Force found little evidence of important benefits from other tests often included in routine check-ups, such as blood tests for diabetes, thyroid diseases or anemia, chest x-rays, electrocardiograms and urine tests.
Third party medical insurance has totally distorted the market for medical care in the US. It should be only for catastrophic care coverage. Everything else should be out of pocket for the consumers, preferably tax free, IMHO.
Full disclosure, I'm a family practice doc. Neither the gov't or insurance companies should be practicing medicine.
How did I know that a doctor was writing this, before I got to the end? lol
No offense, but I am in my early 60s and keep as far away from you guys as possible. For a very long time, I wondered about all of this testing...wondering if most of it was necessary, or a money maker..or what.
I remember the days when we had bluecross/blueshield which paid 80% of the doctor and hospital, should you need to be hospitalized. We paid everything else ourselves..including maternity. However, healthcare was affordable then. As soon as these insurances took over, things changed. Also, some people tend to run to doctors, for every little thing.
If I have a sore throat, I want to be able to go to a doctor for that..and not have him/her looking to test my entire body for everything under the sun. Because of this..I treat my own sore throats.
I did the eyeroll when this news about breast exams hit the news. But for years, I wondered if all of this breast irradiation was actually causing the damage in some people.
A couple of years ago, my husband pulled a muscle in his chest. He felt it happen. When he went to make a doctors appointment..she suggested he go to the emergency room. He did. Of course, because his chest hurt, they did heart tests. He had an abnormal ekg..which is normal for him. When they called his doctor, she said it was normal for him...however, did that stop the testing? Why no. Four days, two hospitals, and massive worry later, they told him..um..he had a pulled muscle in his chest..take advil. All of this came to a whopping 40 thousand dollars for the insurance company to pay.
I am sure some people like all of this over testing. I personally dont. The last thing I want to be doing is worrying while waiting for some test results from a test I probably didnt need. Could this be bad for my health? Maybe..but it got me thru so far.
They are usually called specialists or subspecialists who do the tests. Primary care docs usually can't refer patients for this testing to themselves, it can be called a conflict of interest, but they need to rule out or in morbid or lethal diagnoses, both for the benefit to the patient as well as to protect themselves from lawyers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.