The recommendations were made by a federal task force and the appointees are holdovers from the Bush administration.
That fits perfectly with Bush administration priorities and goals, doesn’t it? Throw a few gifts to the big insurance behemoths; hey, those durn mammograms are expensive and it’s only women’s health at stake. Men still get their PSA test and free Viagra.
A government rep was on CNN the other night, claiming that the ” findings”of the study will in no way
result in insurance companys refusing to pay for exams. This is
shameful,dishonest and dangerous.
I hope cancer survivors who were saved by screenings and
early detection continue to speak out.
If you support any kind of health reform, this report, based on the public’s shocked response, is probably the most
counter-productive thing the government could have done.
And, of course, Big Insurance Inc. will continue to have their own way.
bueller, the timing of this task force finding is indeed suspicious. And I do believe it’s worth noting that the task force is comprised of Bush appointees. I think it was intended to result in exactly what is happening, with GOP jumping on it as example of government trying to ration care.
Most states have regulated some form of mandatory insurance coverage for mammograms for policies sold within its borders. Some mandate coverage for women over 40, some mandate coverage for women over 50. Only Utah has no regulations re mammograms.
http://hrc.nwlc.org/Policy-Indicators/Addressing-Wellness-and-Prevention/Mammogram.aspx
Since the fed. govt. has announced it will not change its regulations for Medicare and medicaid, the findings of this task force could only have an effect if states change their regulations, or if employers negotiate changes in their health plan benefits.
An interesting note is that the GOP call for “inter-state” policies across state lines, would usurp state regulations and allow insurance cos. to adopt Utah’s no mandatory coverage policy.
I also heard on news that the task force did not base its findings on a new study, rather it took existing studies and asked an outside group to review the same data others had reviewed before.
I find all of this, including the timing, highly suspect.
Thanks for the data, fennec. I’ve been talking to people far more expert than myself, and what I am thinking is not that we should stop screening until fifty for those with no history, but that we need better screening techniques! The problem is that the screening isn’t catching enough people in the early days, and I understand there are issues around tissue density or structure (I’m not clear on this part) which is why it’s more likely later.
Count me among those who are now thoroughly confused. And fennec, my friend, actually I am calm. This is just confusing. I do suspect the timing. I watched a news conference with GOP women legislators suggesting this is the first step of “obamacare” plan to control costs by rationing care. It’s just suspect to me, and the fact that it deals with women specifically is also suspect in its timing as women are more likely to be the deciders in healthcare decisions.
We’ve had years of warnings that early detection saves lives. Catch it early and your chance of survival is much greater. We all believed it. These recommendations are 180 degrees opposite what we’ve been told for so long. There has to be a much better explanation than we’ve been given.
And boy I am all for better screening techniques. I’m one of those with “dense” tissue for whom mammograms turn into torture and sometimes they take 3 or 4 before they’re satisfied even though I tell them from the outset I have dense tissue. Yet, in other places, once is fine. (I always assumed it was the quality of the machine itself that made the difference.) Now they recommend I get an MRI instead which I haven’t done yet.
Sanjey (sp?) Gupta on CNN said that 75 percent of women who get breast cancer do NOT have a family history of it so that doesn’t seem to be a reliable marker to use either.
Sanjay Gupta. So again, we need better measurements. MRIs used to be expensive as all get-out; they’re more common now, and far more sophisticated as the technology (including computer analysis) improves. Hopefully we’ll get something more sensible for you, bcs.
BCS, i’d like to know when the task force asked the outside group to review the existing information.
Fennec., thank you for the information, and for posting the link .
The statistics are what they are,and surely they’re solid or
the task force would not have used them as the foundation
of the report.
But, you weigh statistics against stories recounted by survivors who found their cancer through early detection,
and you see where the problem is. We’re all familiar with
the ways the insurance industry uses satistics.
bueller, I wasn’t able to ascertain when the task force undertook this new look at data, though did read one member said their recommendations were “misunderstood,” whatever that means. I do find the timing suspect, but still reading about it, trying to take in more information. That means digging, of course, since media gives a smidgen of info than moves onto conflict and what does this mean for healthcare reform yada yada yada.
Just remember that, like all powerful techniques, screening can have serious side-effects. This is why the benefits and the disadvantages of screening - in particular screening of individuals without symptoms, so called «general screening» - must be investigated thoroughly - one study is hardly enough. And as believecommonsense indicates, these advantages and disadvantages are subject to change according to the screening techniques used - and since, if we are talking about cancers, many types grow so slowly that end points are decades away, those employed when the study began may well be outdated when it reaches its end. One thing does seem sure - better techniques which increase the detection rate of those who have the disease or pre-condition in question, while reducing the rate of false positives, are very much needed. Instead of investing lives and treasure in killing people abroad, invest in research designed to better detect and heal disease - that’s the kind of soft power to which a country and its people should aspire !…
freidafraidy over 14 years ago
Nonsense. It is the “healthcare industry” laying the goundwork for denying an unnecessary test.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
The recommendations were made by a federal task force and the appointees are holdovers from the Bush administration.
That fits perfectly with Bush administration priorities and goals, doesn’t it? Throw a few gifts to the big insurance behemoths; hey, those durn mammograms are expensive and it’s only women’s health at stake. Men still get their PSA test and free Viagra.
citynights over 14 years ago
I get nervous when the government studies our health in the shadow of health reform.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
^Yep.
ANandy over 14 years ago
Get used to it, suckers.
bueller over 14 years ago
A government rep was on CNN the other night, claiming that the ” findings”of the study will in no way result in insurance companys refusing to pay for exams. This is shameful,dishonest and dangerous.
I hope cancer survivors who were saved by screenings and early detection continue to speak out.
If you support any kind of health reform, this report, based on the public’s shocked response, is probably the most counter-productive thing the government could have done.
And, of course, Big Insurance Inc. will continue to have their own way.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
bueller, the timing of this task force finding is indeed suspicious. And I do believe it’s worth noting that the task force is comprised of Bush appointees. I think it was intended to result in exactly what is happening, with GOP jumping on it as example of government trying to ration care.
Most states have regulated some form of mandatory insurance coverage for mammograms for policies sold within its borders. Some mandate coverage for women over 40, some mandate coverage for women over 50. Only Utah has no regulations re mammograms. http://hrc.nwlc.org/Policy-Indicators/Addressing-Wellness-and-Prevention/Mammogram.aspx
Since the fed. govt. has announced it will not change its regulations for Medicare and medicaid, the findings of this task force could only have an effect if states change their regulations, or if employers negotiate changes in their health plan benefits.
An interesting note is that the GOP call for “inter-state” policies across state lines, would usurp state regulations and allow insurance cos. to adopt Utah’s no mandatory coverage policy.
I also heard on news that the task force did not base its findings on a new study, rather it took existing studies and asked an outside group to review the same data others had reviewed before.
I find all of this, including the timing, highly suspect.
Magnaut over 14 years ago
how many really believe that doing nothing is just as good as self-exam (free) and mammography (cheap)?….TEAM OBAMBI pants on fire!
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
Thanks for the data, fennec. I’ve been talking to people far more expert than myself, and what I am thinking is not that we should stop screening until fifty for those with no history, but that we need better screening techniques! The problem is that the screening isn’t catching enough people in the early days, and I understand there are issues around tissue density or structure (I’m not clear on this part) which is why it’s more likely later.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
Count me among those who are now thoroughly confused. And fennec, my friend, actually I am calm. This is just confusing. I do suspect the timing. I watched a news conference with GOP women legislators suggesting this is the first step of “obamacare” plan to control costs by rationing care. It’s just suspect to me, and the fact that it deals with women specifically is also suspect in its timing as women are more likely to be the deciders in healthcare decisions.
We’ve had years of warnings that early detection saves lives. Catch it early and your chance of survival is much greater. We all believed it. These recommendations are 180 degrees opposite what we’ve been told for so long. There has to be a much better explanation than we’ve been given.
And boy I am all for better screening techniques. I’m one of those with “dense” tissue for whom mammograms turn into torture and sometimes they take 3 or 4 before they’re satisfied even though I tell them from the outset I have dense tissue. Yet, in other places, once is fine. (I always assumed it was the quality of the machine itself that made the difference.) Now they recommend I get an MRI instead which I haven’t done yet.
Sanjey (sp?) Gupta on CNN said that 75 percent of women who get breast cancer do NOT have a family history of it so that doesn’t seem to be a reliable marker to use either.
Motivemagus over 14 years ago
Sanjay Gupta. So again, we need better measurements. MRIs used to be expensive as all get-out; they’re more common now, and far more sophisticated as the technology (including computer analysis) improves. Hopefully we’ll get something more sensible for you, bcs.
bueller over 14 years ago
BCS, i’d like to know when the task force asked the outside group to review the existing information.
Fennec., thank you for the information, and for posting the link . The statistics are what they are,and surely they’re solid or the task force would not have used them as the foundation of the report. But, you weigh statistics against stories recounted by survivors who found their cancer through early detection, and you see where the problem is. We’re all familiar with the ways the insurance industry uses satistics.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
bueller, I wasn’t able to ascertain when the task force undertook this new look at data, though did read one member said their recommendations were “misunderstood,” whatever that means. I do find the timing suspect, but still reading about it, trying to take in more information. That means digging, of course, since media gives a smidgen of info than moves onto conflict and what does this mean for healthcare reform yada yada yada.
mhenriday over 14 years ago
Just remember that, like all powerful techniques, screening can have serious side-effects. This is why the benefits and the disadvantages of screening - in particular screening of individuals without symptoms, so called «general screening» - must be investigated thoroughly - one study is hardly enough. And as believecommonsense indicates, these advantages and disadvantages are subject to change according to the screening techniques used - and since, if we are talking about cancers, many types grow so slowly that end points are decades away, those employed when the study began may well be outdated when it reaches its end. One thing does seem sure - better techniques which increase the detection rate of those who have the disease or pre-condition in question, while reducing the rate of false positives, are very much needed. Instead of investing lives and treasure in killing people abroad, invest in research designed to better detect and heal disease - that’s the kind of soft power to which a country and its people should aspire !…
Henri