Breast Cancer Diagnostic Rationing

[TheFranklinParty]

Has politics already gotten in the way of good healthcare? On Monday, a government task force said that most women don't need mammograms in their 40’s and should get one every two years starting at 50. This is a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position. What's more, the panel said breast self-exams do no good, and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

At a time when more and more women are finding early diagnosis of breast cancer the difference between life and death, this government task force’s findings seem insane. Is the plan to let women in their 30’s and 40’s go virtually unchecked, potentially missing any chance of early detection? If mammograms are not an effective tool, then where is the prescription of another diagnostic method? There is no mention of other scans or DNA/RNA cataloging.

False positives, and cost per life, are not a good enough reason for sticking our heads in the sand. This is politics at its worst. If this diagnostic technology doesn’t work, then why keep it for women in their 50’s? Once again, this is about conservation and reduced consumption, but this time it isn’t about light bulbs or gasoline. It’s about the lives of our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. Washington, spend more time funding and approving better diagnostic technology and less time on rationing.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Breast Cancer Disagnostic Rationing

FIrst...you said Rationing...but yet there is none anyplace be in your story... or maybe you just wanted to use hyperbol to scare people or something? OooO look out Big goverment....just did not change anything!

But don't worry Breast cancer treatment already is rationed....its called those who do not have health care coverage and can't afford treatment. That would be real rationing....

and of course you fail to point out why they said they belive this...it could not possibly based on studies or anything could it? somehow I bet they have more info on why then just , no don't do it....

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Re: Breast Cancer Disagnostic Rationing

FIrst...you said Rationing...but yet there is none anyplace be in your story... or maybe you just wanted to use hyperbol to scare people or something? OooO look out Big goverment....just did not change anything!

But don't worry Breast cancer treatment already is rationed....its called those who do not have health care coverage and can't afford treatment. That would be real rationing....

and of course you fail to point out why they said they belive this...it could not possibly based on studies or anything could it? somehow I bet they have more info on why then just , no don't do it....

Tread very carefully here. We are talking about lives and families not some political football. I'm not referencing any Healthcare reform bills. This is a social political issue, not a right and left thing. They chose to make it a rationing issue when they chose not to provide alternative diagnostic measures.

This isn't the American Cancer Association, this is a politically appointed task force. They didn't back their finding up with very much in the way of quantifiable data. They focused on the fact that too many women get mammograms and that the 1 in 19,000 wasn't as statistically valid as 1 in 13,000. The data they used was in part based on WHO research which is always plagued with errors and manipulation.

My biggest concern was that they gave no alternatives. This is what drove my use of the term rationing. If you don't give an alternative, then you are quantifying the value of a life.

I know several under 50 women who are here today because of this testing process. It goes past anecdotal when they're friends and family.

 

[Dr.Who]

Has politics already gotten in the way of good healthcare? On Monday, a government task force said that most women don't need mammograms in their 40’s and should get one every two years starting at 50. This is a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position. What's more, the panel said breast self-exams do no good, and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

At a time when more and more women are finding early diagnosis of breast cancer the difference between life and death, this government task force’s findings seem insane. Is the plan to let women in their 30’s and 40’s go virtually unchecked, potentially missing any chance of early detection? If mammograms are not an effective tool, then where is the prescription of another diagnostic method? There is no mention of other scans or DNA/RNA cataloging.

False positives, and cost per life, are not a good enough reason for sticking our heads in the sand. This is politics at its worst. If this diagnostic technology doesn’t work, then why keep it for women in their 50’s? Once again, this is about conservation and reduced consumption, but this time it isn’t about light bulbs or gasoline. It’s about the lives of our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. Washington, spend more time funding and approving better diagnostic technology and less time on rationing.

How about each woman discusses this with her own doctor and leaves the government panels out of it altogether.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

How about each woman discusses this with her own doctor and leaves the government panels out of it altogether.

I agree, but the reality is that doctors and insurance companies will follow the lead of these panels because they can use them as protection in court.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Has politics already gotten in the way of good healthcare? On Monday, a government task force said that most women don't need mammograms in their 40’s and should get one every two years starting at 50. This is a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position. What's more, the panel said breast self-exams do no good, and women shouldn't be taught to do them.

At a time when more and more women are finding early diagnosis of breast cancer the difference between life and death, this government task force’s findings seem insane. Is the plan to let women in their 30’s and 40’s go virtually unchecked, potentially missing any chance of early detection? If mammograms are not an effective tool, then where is the prescription of another diagnostic method? There is no mention of other scans or DNA/RNA cataloging.

False positives, and cost per life, are not a good enough reason for sticking our heads in the sand. This is politics at its worst. If this diagnostic technology doesn’t work, then why keep it for women in their 50’s? Once again, this is about conservation and reduced consumption, but this time it isn’t about light bulbs or gasoline. It’s about the lives of our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. Washington, spend more time funding and approving better diagnostic technology and less time on rationing.

Come on Franklin...this was a report...even the Cancer Society has come out with a statement firmly in rebuke to this study.

While I see both sides of the issue and have twice in my life time had a 'FALSE POSITIVE' mammogram and then the biopsy was negative...the expense for those overly done tests for women that are 'NOT IN THE HIGH RISK GROUPS' seems extreme and senseless...save that money for more R & D, that in itself would go farther then having the masses go every year for a non-essential mammogram until they are in that Higher Age Bracket or have the 'NEED' to be checked more often.

But on the other side of this issue is the 'PANEL of DOCTORS' getting together to discuss the options for the necessary testing/surgery. My neighbor is having a resurgence of lung cancer: while it isn't the highly aggressive cancer cells that made her have a partial lung removal 1½ years ago...it is the same lung and the biopsy shows active cancer cells...so her Oncologist has to take this development before a review panel {she doesn't have any insurance NONE} and Medicare will only cover partial amount of this {and I'm clueless about the $$$$} but it would appear that SOMETHING HAS CHANGED ON THE MEDICARE END TO WHERE THE DECISIONS ARE NOT LEFT UP TO THE DOCTORS BUT A COLLECTIVE GROUP LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE/COSTS!!! Because this wasn't what she just went through 2 years ago...and now she has to have a panel of Doctors decide what is best for her??? Hmmmm

 

[top gun]

It's hardly rationing now is it. Tell the truth is anything being rationed?

Or is this a report... a recomendation from one groups study?

I get the spin here but you're putting the cart before the horse. This recomendation would right now only possibly help insurance companies. The people that are opposed to health insurance reform.

So this fear here is a little jumping the gun since we have no national healthcare system... yet.

 

[Dr.Who]

I agree, but the reality is that doctors and insurance companies will follow the lead of these panels because they can use them as protection in court.

One more reason not to have these "life" panels.

 

[Dr.Who]

My neighbor is having a resurgence of lung cancer: while it isn't the highly aggressive cancer cells that made her have a partial lung removal 1½ years ago...it is the same lung and the biopsy shows active cancer cells...so her Oncologist has to take this development before a review panel {she doesn't have any insurance NONE} and Medicare will only cover partial amount of this

Which is it? Does she not have any insurance or does she have crappy medicare?

I sure hope you will bake a casserole and bring it to her when she is having a hard time making her payments.

 

[Dr.Who]

It's hardly rationing now is it. Tell the truth is anything being rationed?

The report is about potential rationing so the answer would be that "no" it is not being rationed right now.

Unless we listen to ASPC4ever who just told us that part of his neighbors medical care is being rationed by medicare.

 

[Pandora]

If the government says its only needed after age 50 and even then every other year does that not mean when the government is paying for it, that is when they will pay for it... at the times they said its needed?

A private person with private insurance would still be able to get them at 40 or 30 or when ever but the government could and probably would deny people they pay for unless they had breast cancer in their history exc.

No matter what the American Cancer society or anyone else for that matter says, I dont see that changing what the government has decided.

But we will have to wait and see. If people on government insurance starts complaining
that they are not being able to get mammograms, we will know if I am right or not.

I personally dont want one and Im never gonna get one so it doesnt matter to me personally.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Which is it? Does she not have any insurance or does she have crappy medicare?

I sure hope you will bake a casserole and bring it to her when she is having a hard time making her payments.

I believe that I've already stated that she doesn't have ANY INSURANCE and is only ON MEDICARE and as we adults all know; MEDICARE doesn't pay all of any surgery {that's why elderly usually have a supplemental if they can afford the premiums...IF}

And that was supposed to be a 'JOKE' about a casserole...WOW, and I've been called RUDE for cracking jokes about people and their self inflicted stupidity...You just bypassed me and are on a level all of your own making! That was really, really pathetic...but so telling of your ILK!

MY POINT, OH SO INEPT ONE...WAS THAT SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS DOG & PONY SHOW A YEAR AND ½ AGO...SHE WAS THE ONE DECIDING WHAT SHE WANTED DONE: SURGERY, CHEMO, RADIATION, OR A COMBO CHEMO/RADIATION...OR SURGICALLY REMOVE THE PART THAT IS CANCEROUS AND SOME CHEMO TREATMENT TOO! But that was to much for your itty-bitty brain to assimilate so it was just a waste of bandwidth

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: Breast Cancer Disagnostic Rationing

Tread very carefully here. We are talking about lives and families not some political football. I'm not referencing any Healthcare reform bills. This is a social political issue, not a right and left thing. They chose to make it a rationing issue when they chose not to provide alternative diagnostic measures.

This isn't the American Cancer Association, this is a politically appointed task force. They didn't back their finding up with very much in the way of quantifiable data. They focused on the fact that too many women get mammograms and that the 1 in 19,000 wasn't as statistically valid as 1 in 13,000. The data they used was in part based on WHO research which is always plagued with errors and manipulation.

My biggest concern was that they gave no alternatives. This is what drove my use of the term rationing. If you don't give an alternative, then you are quantifying the value of a life.

I know several under 50 women who are here today because of this testing process. It goes past anecdotal when they're friends and family.

well then go look up what the word means....there is zero rationing...if you want one, its still your choice ( unless your health care coverage "rations" it of course.....of course you will not note that the reason for it was that for woman in the age 40 age group it made a very small differnece in finding anything wrong...but at same time there was a very large amount of misdiagnosis of problems due to it being harder to judge in younger womans breast.....But of course you don't debate any of the findings with stats of facts, no you just yell rationing!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Also why is it that people talk about medical Rationing...as if thats not a fact of life? Guess what people, private, Goverment, or what ever else you have....there is no Unlimited Health care is there?

Does anyone here have a Unlimited Health care plane? Please let me know...if not...you are RATIONED....

 

[Pandora]

Also why is it that people talk about medical Rationing...as if thats not a fact of life? Guess what people, private, Goverment, or what ever else you have....there is no Unlimited Health care is there?

Does anyone here have a Unlimited Health care plane? Please let me know...if not...you are RATIONED....

If I have an insurance company who is telling me I can not get a certian medical treatment, I can buy another policy or change my policy right?

If we all ended up on government health care (and that is the fear for some) and then they said you cant have this pill, like what is currently going on in the UK with woman having breast cancer but being denied the pill that could save their lives due to $$

where would we go?

Its not an issue today but it is something to be concerned about down the road.