New Mammogram Guidelines...a sign of things to come in healthcare?

[Drekce]

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=866719&category=state

A Government Panel released new mammogram guidelines today that change the recommendations of when a woman should begin getting the test performed and how often it should be performed. All of the cancer groups out there have been vehemently challenging this today, because it will certainly lead to more cancer deaths than we have today.

From what I have read, the panel's recommendations are focused greatly on the costs associated with the mammograms. They even state that there will likely be a 3% increase in breast cancer related deaths per year because of the new guidelines.

Since this is just a guideline it doesn't mean that women have to follow it. What concerns me is when we have Government run health care this would not just be a guideline, it would be policy. Who knows how many other areas of health care will receive similar evaluations.

Thoughts?

 

[LittleNemoNES]

I did find this interesting and I immediately made the connection.
Seems like the foundation is being laid for the coming HC bill.

IMO the bill as it stands now is the worst piece of legislation of all time -- OF ALL TIME!

::cue kanye + Tarp::

 

[Infohawk]

Under either a government or private system, there needs to be "rationing" or prioritizing of medical services. All these tests are expensive. We could test everyone in the country for all possible diseases next year and probably save lives. But ultimately it would bankrupt us. The best thing we can do is have patients pay for and decide what is necessary for them. The alternative is having the government or insurance company pay for it but then they get to decide what is necessary.

 

[rudder]

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=866719&category=state


Since this is just a guideline it doesn't mean that women have to follow it. What concerns me is when we have Government run health care this would not just be a guideline, it would be policy. Who knows how many other areas of health care will receive similar evaluations.

Thoughts?

Insurance companies can set payments based on these guidelines. At least so far in this case most have said they will still cover the exams.

I would listen to the American Cancer Society though before the U.S. Government.

 

[rudder]

Under either a government or private system, there needs to be "rationing" or prioritizing of medical services. All these tests are expensive. We could test everyone in the country for all possible diseases next year and probably save lives. But ultimately it would bankrupt us. The best thing we can do is have patients pay for and decide what is necessary for them. The alternative is having the government or insurance company pay for it but then they get to decide what is necessary.

The Government is even discouraging self exams. How is that expensive? Of course if people do self exams... they may think they have found something and go get a test.

 

[shira]

I did find this interesting and I immediately made the connection.
Seems like the foundation is being laid for the coming HC bill.

IMO the bill as it stands now is the worst piece of legislation of all time -- OF ALL TIME!

::cue kanye + Tarp::

Let me guess: You advocate the government cut cost and inefficiency. But whenever a "liberal" bill advocates a method to reduce inefficiency and cost, it's bad.

Note that even if these recommendations - which have not been adopted - are in fact accepted as the new standard, it doesn't stop low-risk women from - at their own cost - from getting mammograms in their forties or low-risk, over-50 women from getting yearly mammograms (which they'd paid for half of).

Now, please inform us what part of "personal responsibility" you actually believe in (you know, other than the lip-service variety).

 

[Fear No Evil]

I guess the new plan for the democrats if you get breast cancer under age 50 - Die Quickly.

 

[sandorski]

A year or 2 ago there was a Study suggesting that Mammograms were being over used. Not just in the US, but practically throughout the First World. As Our knowledge of Cancer improves many things will change. Whether that be Tests and who should receive them or Treatments for particular types of Cancer, it is pretty much inevitable.

I wouldn't call this "Rationing" or even putting Cost before Health. It is more about efficiently using Resources based upon our further understanding of particular Health issues.

 

[Genx87]

Under either a government or private system, there needs to be "rationing" or prioritizing of medical services. All these tests are expensive. We could test everyone in the country for all possible diseases next year and probably save lives. But ultimately it would bankrupt us. The best thing we can do is have patients pay for and decide what is necessary for them. The alternative is having the government or insurance company pay for it but then they get to decide what is necessary.

/agreed

 

[shira]

From what I have read, the panel's recommendations are focused greatly on the costs associated with the mammograms. They even state that there will likely be a 3% increase in breast cancer related deaths per year because of the new guidelines.

Edit (thanks to bfdd from pointing out my own mis-reading):

This may be from what YOU read, but that's not what the article states:

The probability of dying of breast cancer after age 40 is 3 percent, they calculate. Getting a mammogram every other year from ages 50 to 69 lowers that risk by about 16 percent.

That's not saying deaths will go up 3% if yearly screenings for women over 40 are replaced by every-other-years for women over 50. In fact, about all one can conclude from this statement is that deaths would increase 16% (well, actually by 19%) if NO screenings were performed.

 

[shira]

Under either a government or private system, there needs to be "rationing" or prioritizing of medical services. All these tests are expensive. We could test everyone in the country for all possible diseases next year and probably save lives. But ultimately it would bankrupt us. The best thing we can do is have patients pay for and decide what is necessary for them. The alternative is having the government or insurance company pay for it but then they get to decide what is necessary.

Or even better: Based on research, government should pay for what is determined to be cost-effective. Anything additional should be borne by individuals.

 

[shira]

I guess the new plan for the democrats if you get breast cancer under age 50 - Die Quickly.

Where on earth do you come to that conclusion? There's nothing in this article that refers to TREATMENT of those who get cancer. This article refers solely to recommendations about under what circumstances women should get mammograms.

 

[Slick5150]

Where on earth do you come to that conclusion? There's nothing in this article that refers to TREATMENT of those who get cancer. This article refers solely to recommendations about under what circumstances women should get mammograms.

He comes to that conclusion in the same process he comes to every conclusion. If its something the Government is proposing to do under a Democratic administration, its the worst thing to ever happen in the history of humanity.

 

[Specop 007]

Let me guess: You advocate the government cut cost and inefficiency. But whenever a "liberal" bill advocates a method to reduce inefficiency and cost, it's bad.

Note that even if these recommendations - which have not been adopted - are in fact accepted as the new standard, it doesn't stop low-risk women from - at their own cost - from getting mammograms in their forties or low-risk, over-50 women from getting yearly mammograms (which they'd paid for half of).

Now, please inform us what part of "personal responsibility" you actually believe in (you know, other than the lip-service variety).

Hey news flash, if the government was trying to ram UHC down our throats they wouldnt have to suddenly decide who does or does not get what treatments.

Funny how you overlook that little bit.

 

[sandorski]

Hey news flash, if the government was trying to ram UHC down our throats they wouldnt have to suddenly decide who does or does not get what treatments.

Funny how you overlook that little bit.

Fail. They have been making such recommendations for Decades.

 

[Deeko]

From what I read this morning, the amount of positives found in young-aged regular mammograms are dwarfed by the number of false positives, complications, side effects, and costs of the procedures.

However, to make the link to the health care debate, is just stupid.

 

[BoberFett]

Or even better: Based on research, government should pay for what is determined to be cost-effective. Anything additional should be borne by individuals.

Why should individuals have to pay additional for their health? Stop defending the rich who can afford to pay extra for healthcare. What kind of hate monger are you? Leave the country you selfish bastard.

 

[fskimospy]

Why should individuals have to pay additional for their health? Stop defending the rich who can afford to pay extra for healthcare. What kind of hate monger are you? Leave the country you selfish bastard.

Can you show me a single post on this forum that wasn't made by Dave where someone has argued against the rich being able to afford a better standard of care?

 

[werepossum]

Under either a government or private system, there needs to be "rationing" or prioritizing of medical services. All these tests are expensive. We could test everyone in the country for all possible diseases next year and probably save lives. But ultimately it would bankrupt us. The best thing we can do is have patients pay for and decide what is necessary for them. The alternative is having the government or insurance company pay for it but then they get to decide what is necessary.

Bingo. Everything that has value and costs time or treasure is inherently rationed.

 

[Robor]

I guess the new plan for the democrats if you get breast cancer under age 50 - Die Quickly.

And here we have the (I assume) male version of Sarah Palin.

/that is not a compliment, FNE.

 

[shira]

Hey news flash, if the government was trying to ram UHC down our throats they wouldnt have to suddenly decide who does or does not get what treatments.

Funny how you overlook that little bit.

What are you talking about? Who does and doesn't get what treatments is EXACTLY how insurance works right now, and government-provided insurance will be no different.

You seem to think that under a government-provided insurance system - or ultimately under a single-payer system - every procedure is covered under all circumstances for all patients. You're totally misinformed.

If you go to you doctor right now, in November 2009, and ask for a C-Reactive protein test because you've heard some researchers think that elevated levels might be an indication of future heart problems, chances are your insurance company won't pay for it. Why? Because no firm connection between C-reactive protein levels and heart disease has been established, and the results would currently be of no value.

If you are age 43 and not at elevated risk for colon cancer, yet you go to get a colonoscopy, chances are your insurance company won't pay for it, because the current guideline is a colonoscopy every five years, starting at age 50. Would YEARLY colonoscopies starting at age 10 detect more cancers? Sure, but it's not cost-effective to do so.

If you take a physical and have a normal ECG result and a normal cardiac stress test, yet you ask your physician to give you a Nuclear Stress Test, chances are your insurance company won't pay for it. Would more serious heart problems be detected if everyone received a Nuclear Stress Test every year? Sure, but it's not cost-effective to do so.

What the study provided in the OP is doing is judging the cost-effectiveness of mammograms. The current guidelines is yearly starting at age 40. The new results suggest that those guidelines are wasteful, and that fewer mammograms should be performed.

If you don't understand the concept that insurance defines what medical procedures are covered, for whom, and under what circumstances, and denies coverage for those who don't meet the criteria, don't confuse the debate by throwing in ignorant comments.

 

[her209]

What are you talking about? Who does and doesn't get what treatments is EXACTLY how insurance works right now, and government-provided insurance will be no different.

You seem to think that under a government-provided insurance system - or ultimately under a single-payer system - every procedure is covered under all circumstances for all patients. You're totally misinformed.

If you go to you doctor right now, in November 2009, and ask for a C-Reactive protein test because you've heard some researchers think that elevated levels might be an indication of future heart problems, chances are your insurance company won't pay for it. Why? Because no firm connection between C-reactive protein levels and heart disease has been established, and the results would currently be of no value.

If you are age 43 and not at elevated risk for colon cancer, yet you go to get a colonoscopy, chances are your insurance company won't pay for it, because the current guideline is a colonoscopy every five years, starting at age 50. Would YEARLY colonoscopies starting at age 10 detect more cancers? Sure, but it's not cost-effective to do so.

If you take a physical and have a normal ECG result and a normal cardiac stress test, yet you ask your physician to give you a Nuclear Stress Test, chances are your insurance company won't pay for it. Would more serious heart problems be detected if everyone received a Nuclear Stress Test every year? Sure, but it's not cost-effective to do so.

What the study provided in the OP is doing is judging the cost-effectiveness of mammograms. The current guidelines is yearly starting at age 40. The new results suggest that those guidelines are wasteful, and that fewer mammograms should be performed.

If you don't understand the concept that insurance defines what medical procedures are covered, for whom, and under what circumstances, and denies coverage for those who don't meet the criteria, don't confuse the debate by throwing in ignorant comments.

Stop bring facts into this discussion. We need more UHC fearmongering.

 

[DrPizza]

Whoa, an intelligent, rational person posting in P&N?! Shira, what are you doing in here - there's only supposed to be fear-mongering for one side or the other.

 

[RoloMather]

What are you talking about? Who does and doesn't get what treatments is EXACTLY how insurance works right now, and government-provided insurance will be no different.

You seem to think that under a government-provided insurance system - or ultimately under a single-payer system - every procedure is covered under all circumstances for all patients. You're totally misinformed.

If you go to you doctor right now, in November 2009, and ask for a C-Reactive protein test because you've heard some researchers think that elevated levels might be an indication of future heart problems, chances are your insurance company won't pay for it. Why? Because no firm connection between C-reactive protein levels and heart disease has been established, and the results would currently be of no value.

If you are age 43 and not at elevated risk for colon cancer, yet you go to get a colonoscopy, chances are your insurance company won't pay for it, because the current guideline is a colonoscopy every five years, starting at age 50. Would YEARLY colonoscopies starting at age 10 detect more cancers? Sure, but it's not cost-effective to do so.

If you take a physical and have a normal ECG result and a normal cardiac stress test, yet you ask your physician to give you a Nuclear Stress Test, chances are your insurance company won't pay for it. Would more serious heart problems be detected if everyone received a Nuclear Stress Test every year? Sure, but it's not cost-effective to do so.

What the study provided in the OP is doing is judging the cost-effectiveness of mammograms. The current guidelines is yearly starting at age 40. The new results suggest that those guidelines are wasteful, and that fewer mammograms should be performed.

If you don't understand the concept that insurance defines what medical procedures are covered, for whom, and under what circumstances, and denies coverage for those who don't meet the criteria, don't confuse the debate by throwing in ignorant comments.

Win

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Let me guess: You advocate the government cut cost and inefficiency. But whenever a "liberal" bill advocates a method to reduce inefficiency and cost, it's bad.

Note that even if these recommendations - which have not been adopted - are in fact accepted as the new standard, it doesn't stop low-risk women from - at their own cost - from getting mammograms in their forties or low-risk, over-50 women from getting yearly mammograms (which they'd paid for half of).

Now, please inform us what part of "personal responsibility" you actually believe in (you know, other than the lip-service variety).

You've guessed wrong. Go find someone else to unload on.

I am an unashamed progressive but I am appalled by how crappy the Bill is. I'm surprised you auto associated a dislike for the bill to be conservative. There are tons of people online and out in the real world who think the bill is a POS. Forced to buy crappy healthcare -- Jesus Fucking Christ.