Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cancer Screening in Seniors Yields Few Benefits
Medpage Today ^ | Aug 18, 2014 | Charles Bankhead

Posted on 08/18/2014 6:42:51 PM PDT by Innovative

Screening older patients for cancer provided minimal benefit at considerable cost and increased use of invasive procedures, reported investigators in two separate studies.

"It is particularly important to question screening strategies for older persons," Gross continued. "Patients with a shorter life expectancy have less time to develop clinically significant cancers after a screening test and are more likely to die from noncancer health problems after a cancer diagnosis."

(Excerpt) Read more at medpagetoday.com ...


TOPICS: Health/Medicine; Science
KEYWORDS: cancer; cancerscreening; cancertests; deathpanels; government; medical; medicalcare; medicare; medicine; obamacare; seniors; socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: Soul of the South

Link to the NY Times article on Ted Kennedy’s cancer treatment: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/health/28brain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


21 posted on 08/18/2014 6:58:59 PM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

In a couple of years Obamacare won’t pay for treatment anyway, because the death panels will prohibit it.


22 posted on 08/18/2014 7:02:09 PM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

Just checked and there are a LOT of articles on that — they are all trying to “educate” people to not get tested.

https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dOUnUi0wpFua3jMvvN_QWqvPKaXOM&q=cancer+screening&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eLDyU4v2Ks7bigK1xoDABA&ved=0CCUQqgIwAQ

I wouldn’t be surprised, in fact, I am quite suspicious that doctors are privately being told to NOT test or prescribe medications for “older” or “undeserving” people. Pay attention, you might notice this trend as well.


23 posted on 08/18/2014 7:05:32 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kaehurowing

They’ll probably pay for an injection to put sick people out of their misery quickly — and save $$$.


24 posted on 08/18/2014 7:07:11 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

“At least we don’t hear about “useless eaters”, yet.”

Well, not in those exact words, but this is exactly the meaning of such guidelines.


25 posted on 08/18/2014 7:08:58 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

“At least we don’t hear about “useless eaters”, yet.”

Well, not in those exact words, but this is exactly the meaning of such guidelines.


26 posted on 08/18/2014 7:09:16 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

I suspect that disincentives are built into ACA insurance guidelines. A younger person will pay less for diagnostics than an older one. I’ll ask around, but I’ve found that libs are very reluctant to disclose details of their health costs, lol!


27 posted on 08/18/2014 7:10:56 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: steve86

You just want her to croak so you can have her money!


28 posted on 08/18/2014 7:18:16 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FR_addict
Most of the commenters here are outright rejecting cost-benefit analysis, as though it is some kind of devil's work. But one can't ignore the costs and focus only on potential benefits. We can't all have every test every day nor would we want to. It is very important to note that costs are not just dollar costs, but medical complications as well. The more often you do an invasive screening (at any age) the more likely it is that a medical complication will arise.

The study looked at frequency of screening over different patient ages and what the cost-benefit would be of shorter or longer screening intervals for different age patients. Most people here would agree that scheduling ordinary people for a colonoscopy or pap smear every 30 days would be excessive at age 50 or 70. Why? because the dollar costs would be high, the chance of an infection or perforation for a given patient say after a year or 12 colonoscopies would be quite high, and the screening benefit compared to say a three year scheduling interval would be modest.

One of the things the study looked at was 3 year vs. 5 year vs. no screening at all.

As compared with no screening, guideline-based screening colonoscopy prevented 14 cases of colorectal cancer and 7.7 cancer-specific deaths, and resulted in 63.1 life years gained per 1,000 beneficiaries screened. In contrast, a 5-year screening interval led to prevention of an additional 1.7 cases of colorectal cancer and 0.6 cancer deaths and a gain of 5.8 life years per 1,000 beneficiaries screened.

"To achieve this relatively small added benefit, 783 additional colonoscopies had to be performed, causing 1.3 additional complications," the authors noted.

Reducing the screening interval to 3 years and increasing the duration of screening to age 85 prevented fewer cancers and cancer deaths and further reduced the life years gained per 1,000 patients screened, they added.

I don't see the satanic intent here, just realistic analysis. Also didn't see where anyone is advocating that people be prevented from paying for more frequent screenings if they care to.

Personally, I get none.

29 posted on 08/18/2014 7:22:11 PM PDT by steve86 ( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: steve86
Also didn't see where anyone is advocating that people be prevented from paying for more frequent screenings if they care to.

You need to get up to speed. Any physician who provides screening that is not mandated will be first fined and then charged with breaking the law.

30 posted on 08/18/2014 7:25:03 PM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

bookmark


31 posted on 08/18/2014 7:26:33 PM PDT by dadfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

“Any physician who provides screening that is not mandated will be first fined and then charged with breaking the law.”

Exactly — I think it’s already going on and it will only get worse.


32 posted on 08/18/2014 7:28:21 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Innovative
"Patients with a shorter life expectancy have less time to develop clinically significant cancers after a screening test and are more likely to die from noncancer health problems after a cancer diagnosis."...well, that's the reassuring message my GP gave me as he informed me that at 76 this would probably be the last year I was scheduled for a PSA test - actually he went on to say the virtually all men have some form of slow-growing prostate cancer from about their early sixties on, and that if science could magically eliminate all other forms of fatalities, all men would probably die from prostate cancer by about the time they reached 120 - I sure went home feeling good that day......
33 posted on 08/18/2014 7:28:46 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
She had a colonoscopy about 20 years ago and said "never again".

Actually, the longer she lives the larger her estate will probably be due to gov pensions. Neither here nor there to me though -- I haven't been in a spending mood for about 35 years and am not likely to ever get back into that habit.

34 posted on 08/18/2014 7:29:02 PM PDT by steve86 ( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: steve86

Haven’t you heard that “there are liars, d&*n liars, and statisticians” — i.e. you can prove anything with statistics.

And you might view things differently if you were one of the ones whose cancer is discovered too late, when it would have been curable, had it been diagnosed early.


35 posted on 08/18/2014 7:30:47 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Intolerant in NJ

“Any physician who provides screening that is not mandated will be first fined and then charged with breaking the law.”

One “little problem” with this is that they can’t tell whether it’s slow of fast growing until it’s too late.


36 posted on 08/18/2014 7:32:11 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Innovative; AllAmericanGirl44; Armen Hareyan; B4Ranch; Ban Draoi Marbh Draoi; bayareablues; ...
Here we go again...

CANCER WARRIORS PING

This is a ping list for cancer survivors and caregivers to share information. If you would like your name added to or removed from this ping list, please tell us in the comments section at this link (click here). (For the most updated list of names, click on the same link and go to the last comment.)

37 posted on 08/18/2014 7:32:39 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane
You need to get up to speed.

LOL No, you do. I'm not generally referring to primary care providers anyway. There are commercial operations around here that provide all manner of screenings for cash or credit. These private operations are in no way affected by ACA or other health insurance-related legislation (assuming you didn't just make that up -- I'm not so sure).

38 posted on 08/18/2014 7:34:10 PM PDT by steve86 ( Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: steve86

At 93, you probably don’t want to do a colonoscopy.

But for those younger who hate the notion of colonoscopy, I read there is a highly accurate stool test for colon cancer.

FDA approves more reliable at-home screening test for colon cancer

http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/08/17/fda-approves-more-reliable-home-screening-test-for-colon-cancer/WesXPKWAbJUH1ZsASkS1rK/story.html

“Cologuard detected 92 percent of colorectal cancers and 42 percent of advanced adenomas, according to the FDA,”


39 posted on 08/18/2014 7:35:06 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Intolerant in NJ

Sorry — I don’t know how I messed up, my post 36 was not meant for you.


40 posted on 08/18/2014 7:36:22 PM PDT by Innovative ("Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." -- Vince Lombardi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson