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.
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.