I absolutely didn’t know that.
Your point is that an insurance company would rather do a pre-emptive breast removal (with those odds) than have to deal with a possible cancer diagnosis later?
I think we are underestimating the life saving ability of this test. Breast cancer is one issue, the other is the high risk for ovarian.
If I had risk factors, I would have this test in a heart beat. If I was positive, the girls would be gone (any age) and I would have my ovaries out too, if I was older. If I was younger, I would be very very careful of ovarian cancer, have my children young and get those out asap.
I don’t what an insurance company would rather do, but I think if someone has a heart condition that would lead a doctor to give you those kinds of odds (89%), it wouldn’t be
considered unusual for an insurance company to cover the necessary surgery.
Removal of the breasts is the same thing. I am a two time breast cancer survivor, which means I opted for a lumpectomy and radiation the first time around and kept my breasts, which I enjoyed having. :) I was then diagnosed with a different kind of breast cancer 8 years later. Lucky me, huh? :)