Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines

Recs

7

November 23, 2009 – Comments (12)

Useless reporting from the NY Post.

"This is how rationing begins. This is the little toe in the edge of the water," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). "This is when you start getting a bureaucrat between you and your physician. This is what we have warned about." ...

...."If we can cut through the Republicans' political gamesmanship on this issue, the new breast cancer recommendations, as always, were an attempt to put the best possible evidence in the hands of women and their doctors, so they can assess their own risk and benefit," Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.) said in a statement.

Educate your own damn self. 

12 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On November 23, 2009 at 8:21 AM, drgroup (69.08) wrote:

It does not matter what the outcome of some biased report is.

THE GOVERNMENT OR ANYONE ELSE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL ANYONE HOW AND WHEN TO RECEIVE MEDICAL TEST THEY DEEM RELEVANT TO MAINTAINING THEIR MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH!!!!!

Report this comment
#2) On November 23, 2009 at 8:35 AM, lemoneater (71.41) wrote:

This problem runs in my mother's side of the family. I'm not even close to 50 and I've already had screening. Nothing was found, but I was relieved to know for sure. I cannot imagine a doctor not recommending testing when advising a patient with two or more relatives with the disease. However, if someone has no history of the disease in her family and no other factor in her life to make her a higher risk, I don't think a doctor would push the test on her. Medicine is a series of judgment calls. There are many things I've never been tested for partly because I have none of the symptoms and none of the risk factors. I'm thankful for all those who take their jobs seriously and do their best to provide quality care to every patient which includes suiting their diagnosis to the patient's condition regardless of medical "fads" or political agendas. 

Report this comment
#3) On November 23, 2009 at 9:53 AM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

The problem here is that one size does not fit all.

Women with average or low risk factors for breast cancer probably should follow the new guidelines. Women with high or very high risk factors (like all genetically related females have had cancer by 40) should ignore these guidelines and test early and often. If insurance (of whatever form) won't pay for it, they should save up and pay for it themselves.

One part of being a responsible adult is figuring out when the common wisdom is a bad fit for you and taking charge of your own care and feeding. You are the only you you have and while others are concerned, you are committed.

Report this comment
#4) On November 23, 2009 at 2:11 PM, devoish (96.15) wrote:

drgroup.

Your mind is shot. Slow down, read the link, then comment. You will learn that it is a guideline, not a law, and also much more nuanced. All the old information you are using to make judgements came from your Gov't too.

Lemoneater and chk999, if you read the link you will learn that the new guidelines agree with you both, and recommend your physician discuss earlier testing with you if you have risk factors.

I am sorry that it is not being reported that way, and that is one point of this post. The second was to provide the link for Fools to read the information as given by the authors, not the shouting heads on blogs and TV and unfortunately, Congress.

 

Report this comment
#5) On November 23, 2009 at 4:04 PM, ChrisGraley (29.76) wrote:

Great, that's the 2002 study. It has pretty much nothing to do with the law being implemented other than they are citing their research.

They will either limit the tests in the new law or they won't and both of those things are a losing proposition.

We either allow people to die due to the statistical rationing of care that is necessary to keep costs in check or we overspend and allow frivolous testing to occur and allow spending to get out of control.

That's what you get when you put the government in charge of everything. You get an environment where no one is going to be happy.

They will be making this decision for 10,000 other ailments as well, so everyone better hope that they are statistically average on everything.

Once it's forced on you, it's never going away, so better to hear about it now than later.

Report this comment
#6) On November 23, 2009 at 4:32 PM, devoish (96.15) wrote:

Jeese, Chris,

You scared me into thinking I had linked the wrong report. My link is to the most current recommendation as I intended. It is an update of the 2002 report as it says in the first line of the link.

What law is being implemented Chris? What the hell are you reading? What is being forced? People who want to get screened before age 50 can get screened, and will for as long as takes women and Doctors to be comfortable with choosing to wait. This recommendations puts choice in the hands of Doctors and Patients.... wait... choice was in the hands of Doctors and Patients and still is. Now it is just easier for Doctors to say screening at age 41 will not help you much, if they believe that is what is true for you. Thanks for jumping off the big Gov cliff into the shallow end. Jeese, just go read the damn thing.

Recommendations: The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation)

The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation)

Report this comment
#7) On November 23, 2009 at 5:45 PM, drgroup (69.08) wrote:

devoish... you are right. My mind is shot(from the daily pounding it gets from having to discuss the simplest reasons why it is better to live free than under the shakles to tyranny). I am aware that this is only a recommendation, but now is the time to shout it down. Items like this are test ballons used to check the waters of public sentiment. We can not afford to give this government one more inch of our freedom. 

Report this comment
#8) On November 23, 2009 at 6:54 PM, devoish (96.15) wrote:

drgroup,

The world didn't end and it was a recommendation yesterday too... Just a different one. Now the question can be, is it a better recommendation generally, and specifically for you.

Report this comment
#9) On November 24, 2009 at 12:32 AM, sleepreading (< 20) wrote:

This is just like drgroup says a "test balloons used to check the waters of public sentiment". It's just the first step in the decline of health care for everyone.

Report this comment
#10) On November 24, 2009 at 12:51 AM, ease1 (90.15) wrote:

I agree with sleepreading and to some extent drgroup.  This is a slippery slope.  Right now it's a recommendation, but what about in 3 or 5 years?

Chris said it nicely:

We either allow people to die due to the statistical rationing of care that is necessary to keep costs in check or we overspend and allow frivolous testing to occur and allow spending to get out of control.

Our current system somewhat reflects his second point; out of control spending.

But I can certainly forsee what the government might have in store for us with the first point; rationing of care for cost. 

Sorry grandma, your too old for that new hip and it just costs too much.  That money could better be used to help a crack momma get off the pipe...

I'm kidding, but you get the point.

Report this comment
#11) On November 24, 2009 at 1:48 AM, sleepreading (< 20) wrote:

I would also like to point out:

"Screening Mammography in Women 75 Years or Older Potential Preventable Burden.

No women 75 years or older have been included in the multiple randomized clinical trials of breast cancer screening. Breast cancer is a leading cause of death in older women, which might suggest that the benefits of screening could be important at this age. However, 3 facts suggest that benefits from screening would probably be smaller for this age group than for women aged 60 to 69 years and probably decrease with increasing age: 1) the benefits of screening occur only several years after the actual screening test, whereas the percentage of women who survive long enough to benefit decreases with age; 2) a higher percentage of the type of breast cancer detected in this age group is the more easily treated estrogen receptor–positive type; and 3) women of this age are at much greater risk for dying of other conditions that would not be affected by breast cancer screening. "

Report this comment
#12) On November 24, 2009 at 7:23 AM, devoish (96.15) wrote:

We either allow people to die due to the statistical rationing of care that is necessary to keep costs in check or we overspend and allow frivolous testing to occur and allow spending to get out of control.

Our current system somewhat reflects his second point; out of control spending

I guess our current system is truly extraodinary then. Spending is out of control... and we have statistical rationing done by private insurers for profit. I guess that is a double suck.

Personally I think the private insurers did great with Congress's health plan. They have taxpayer funded new customers, the ability to blame gov't for cost increases, and no limit on the amount of healthcare dollars they can divert to their own payroll and bonus plans.

Unfortunately I only made about a dozen calls to my Representative and a few who are not mine. The private insurer lobby made 5 or 6 visits with every one, every day. And they are the experts in the industry, not the Socialist, slippery slope, advocate I am accused of being.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement