Posted on 01/21/2016 7:05:31 PM PST by BenLurkin
To assess how often older patients get unnecessary screenings, researchers reviewed survey data collected in 2012 for almost 150,000 people 65 and older.
Some older patients may receive screening for breast or prostate cancer even though the tests aren't recommended because they aren't expected to live long enough to benefit from treatment, a U.S. study suggests.
Screening isn't advised for patients with a life expectancy of less than 10 years because even if tests find cancer, it probably won't grow fast enough to kill them before something else like heart disease or diabetes does.
...
About 51 percent of these individuals reported having either a blood test to detect prostate cancer or a mammogram to look for breast tumors in the past year, the study found.
Roughly 31 percent of those screened had a life expectancy of less than 10 years, which corresponds to an estimated overall rate of non-recommended screening of 15.7 percent.
...
A woman who feels a lump in her breast, for example, or a man who has difficulty with urination or ejaculation, might benefit from screening because these symptoms can point to cancer, Bevers added. These cases are considered necessary diagnostic tests, as opposed to preventive screenings.
Often, though, the challenge with patients who don’t have symptoms is determining life expectancy, said Dr. Eric Klein, chairman of the Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
"It is simply an educated guess and nobody wants to be treated as a statistic," Klein, who wasn't involved in the study, said by email. "Some docs may not be aware of the guidelines, but most patients think they are going to live forever and want to do everything they can to make that happen."
(Excerpt) Read more at in.reuters.com ...
BS!! They just want to save money!! Who knows how long an elderly person might live with treatment?? Welcome to Gov’t Health Care! Where only those who the Gov’t deems worthy will get treatment!
The algores and zuckerbergs of the world will continue to get these screenings. No matter what “guidelines” are promulgated by the nanny state.
Count on it.
I have always found it amazing how medical studies line up with payment options by insurers.
Physicians can be sheep.
I read the study. It said that screening did not decrease overall mortality.
Not that screening did or did not decrease mortality in the area of screening interest.
Overall mortality
which could have many many confounding factors.
I think I have problem with that approach. My doctor says that if you have a low PSA number at 70, then your chances of ever having prostate cancer is remote. From two separate sources I heard stories of 70-somting men in our town who followed the recommendation to discontinue screening and then were found to have advanced prostate cancer. I think I will continue the screening.
Also how could you possibly forgo the rectal exam? Right?
Who is to say what someone’s life expectancy is? 90 years is not beyond anyone’s possible age.
Below is an excerpt from my essay on death panels. Studies such as this are a comfortable device for placing this approach to health care into society.
When focused on rationing, Ezekiel J. Emanuel (Rahm Emanuel’s brother), Barack Obama, Tom Daschle, and others have presented the case in part. However, Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer recently presented in the New York Times presented Congressional intent without equivocation. “Rationing health care means getting value for the billions spent by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse….There’s no doubt that it’s tough – politically, emotionally, and ethically - to make a decision that means that someone will die sooner than they would have if the decision had gone the other way….The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for resources they have been allocated….If a teenager can be expected to live another 70 years, saving that life gains 70 years, whereas a person of 85 can be expected to live another 5 years, then saving the 85-year-old will gain of only 5 life-years. That suggests saving one teenager is equivalent to saving 14 85-year-oldsâ€.
At 63, my prostate cancer would’ve killed me in a year or less. The PSA test saved me. Old people are becoming disposal.
They have to make enough money to pay for the people they’re forced to treat who don’t pay.
Gotta give some context on this...
If you are 50, then hey...go shop for a depression doc.
If you are over 75...throw a party and thank the doc for confirming your good health.
Sadly, when the Government is ‘funding’ healthcare (by raising EVERYONE’S taxes 10-20%, of course), the Gov’t decides who gets the care. And if you are retired, you are no longer a ‘contributing member’ to America, so yes, you are expendable. Never mind that we have been paying into Medicare for 40-50 years already!
And of course, the teenager will be paying into the Healthcare system (via new taxes) for 5 decades. Never mind that WE have already been paying for our future healthcare for 50 years. This SUCKS!
My insurance company’s protocol on when to do a prostate biopsy makes absolutely no mention of a PSA level at which a biopsy should be done. In fact, they don’t even want men to be tested for PSA.
As a result, I have metastatic prostate cancer with eight spots on my skeleton. Had I gotten the biopsy I should have had 13 months earlier, I would have been cured with surgery.
Guess who is getting sued within the next two months?
Because of these new “standards”, my doctors at MD Anderson said they were going to be seeing a lot more men like me.
My urologist at MD Anderson leads the prostate surgery department and is just about the best in the world. He has taught all the other surgeons in the department how to do robotic surgery on prostates.
If any male Freeper has prostate cancer and wants to see the best guy at MD Anderson, let me know. I can hook you up.
An aggressive prostate cancer untreated can kill you in under two years.
77 - sorry - somehow being reminded that I’ll most probably be dead in less than ten years just doesn’t seem worth celebrating....
I hope my PSA test saved me as well. My routine visit in November showed an elevated PSA. Right before Christmas my biopsy said prostate cancer. If my GP hadn’t been doing PSA tests regularly, I’d have never known. Bone scan was negative and I’m scheduled for surgery at the beginning of February. The “unnecessary PSA tests” might well have saved my life.
If MRIs ordered by all Obamacare doctors could be pushed back or postponed one month or two---the reduction of Obamacare users (due to death) would help to make Obamacare sustainable. They'll figure out the magic numbers to balance the users commensurate with the soon-to-be-dead users to make it work. It's called rationing, death panels. Soviet style.
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.
