Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Reversal, U.S. Urges Mammograms at 50, Not 40 (Here comes Obamacare)
New York Times ^ | 11/16/09 | by Gina Kolta

Posted on 11/16/2009 2:50:45 PM PST by earlJam

11/16/09

Most women should start regular breast cancer screening at age 50, not 40, according to new guidelines released Monday by an influential group that provides guidance to doctors, insurance companies and policy makers.

The new recommendations reverse longstanding guidelines and are aimed at reducing harm from overtreatment, the group says. It also says women age 50 to 74 should have mammograms less frequently — every two years, rather than every year. And it said doctors should stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis.

The new report conflicts with advice from groups like the American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology. They are staying with their guidelines advising annual mammograms starting at age 40....

The cancer society, in a statement by Dr. Otis W. Brawley, its chief medical officer, agreed that mammography had risks as well as benefits but, he said, the society’s experts had looked at “virtually all” the task force and additional data and concluded that the benefits of annual mammograms starting at age 40 outweighed the risks.

Congress requires Medicare to pay for annual mammograms. Medicare can change its rules to pay for less frequent tests if federal officials direct it to...

Private insurers are required by law in every state except Utah to pay for mammograms for women in their 40s.

But the new guidelines are expected to alter the grading system for health plans, which are used as a marketing tool. Grades are issued by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a private nonprofit organization, and one measure is the percentage of patients getting mammograms every one to two years starting at age 40...

Researchers worry the new report will be interpreted as a political effort by the Obama administration to save money on health care costs.

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


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: breast; breastcancer; cancer; screening
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: earlJam

yeah right - tell that to three of my friends, all who discovered lumps in their thirties. Sadly, two of them lost their battle. The third one is doing okay...


21 posted on 11/16/2009 3:06:21 PM PST by SueRae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlizzy

“And it said doctors should stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis.

Huh?”

I can’t believe the article didn’t bother to explain this. My guess is that the self-exams can give women a false sense of security (”I didn’t feel anything, so why bother having them checked by a doctor”), when quite often women don’t really know what they’re doing when they do a self-exam. Might also be because it causes unnecessary worry (and unnecessary doctor’s visits), when a woman thinks she’s feels something but it’s nothing. Just a guess—but still lousy reporting to not explain (would have taken all of a sentence).


22 posted on 11/16/2009 3:06:33 PM PST by The4thHorseman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mlizzy
And it said doctors should stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis. Huh?

Doctors should teach men to examine women's breast on a regular basis.

23 posted on 11/16/2009 3:07:45 PM PST by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

Obama wants to kill your mama?


24 posted on 11/16/2009 3:10:19 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out ( <<< click my name: now featuring Freeper classifieds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
FWIW, My wife’s acorn-sized breast tumor was discovered when she was 47

I think you mean acorned-sized tumor in the breast?

25 posted on 11/16/2009 3:10:47 PM PST by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ilgipper

My cousin was 35 when she had breast cancer and a good friend was 39.


26 posted on 11/16/2009 3:10:50 PM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BertWheeler

No one should be surprised by this. This is part of 0zer0 and the dumbcrats master plan. Study after study shows that over 25% of all annual Medicare costs are spent on patients in their last year of life. The “savings” the dumbcrats will get from Medicare will come by restricting coverage for elderly sick patients. Delay health screening and you get more sick patients. Then you can rule that they are terminal and not worth saving.

This is the “death panels” and is why the libs go bonkers whenever it is brought up. This type of media article needs to be forwarded to every senior, soon to be senior, and congressman and explained how ghoulish it is.


27 posted on 11/16/2009 3:11:15 PM PST by SDShack (0zer0care = Socialized Soylent Green Healthcare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: earlJam
And it said doctors should stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis.

OK, that one's so weird I have a hard time believing it. "Be ignorant" is seldom sound medical advice.

28 posted on 11/16/2009 3:11:16 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

“..... examine their breasts on a regular basis.”

I’ve been doing to examinations for decades and I’m not going to stop..... even though my wife says she doesn’t need them anymore.

Sorry, I can’t help myself. ;>)


29 posted on 11/16/2009 3:11:26 PM PST by Gator113 (Obamba, Reid, Pelosi, the socialist triad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The4thHorseman

A friend from church did a self-exam and found cancer just a few months after her annual mammogram.


30 posted on 11/16/2009 3:11:43 PM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

This is ridiculous, my friend died of breast cancer at the age of 33. 50 is too late for some women. This is conditioning us for 0bamacare which will sanction white women for mammograms at the age of 65, while black women should begin by age 40.


31 posted on 11/16/2009 3:12:31 PM PST by FrdmLvr ("The people will believe what the media tells them they believe." Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Go Gordon

I recall a study years ago that indicated the majority of breast lumps were initially located by male partners.


32 posted on 11/16/2009 3:13:17 PM PST by NautiNurse (Obama: A day without TOTUS is like a day without sunshine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mlizzy
This is such B.S. Trust virtually NO ONE who has M.D. after their name but who spends >90% of their time as a policy wonk. Further, this organization is based on outcomes assessments and “quality assurance” measures. This is at best a very faulty system of assessments that measures cost/benefit rations in terms of dollars spent per patient year of life saved etc. Patients aren't statistics. They are individuals, and each needs to be assessed and treated independently.

Part of working hard in life, getting an education, trying to live healthy, saving money, looking for a job with good benefits etc. is so that you can assure your family and yourself that you'll have a choice when it comes to treatment options.

Buttheads like Obama don't want anyone to have anything more than anyone else (unless you are a politician/lawyer/or work in Hollywood). So they think the best way to make sure that happens is to come up with standards that are applied universally. Inevitably those standards have to restrict care to some extent in order to keep the governments part of this cost from looking unsustainable right out of the box. The result is that they lower the standard of care for everyone, and the costs will be higher anyway. The reality is that everyone can get a great standard of care. There are plenty of ways to do this, but none of them are the ways that are being proposed now.

33 posted on 11/16/2009 3:16:27 PM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: earlJam
It seems that o-bow-man is obsessed with death, babies, older people, and for now, at least, women under 50 years old. My late was discovered to have breast cancer while in her early forties after having a mammogram. If we waited until she was in her fifties she would have died eighteen years earlier.
34 posted on 11/16/2009 3:17:05 PM PST by chiefqc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

Wow, my sister would be dead - she was 45 and Stage 3. Luckily she’s a 10 year survivor now.


35 posted on 11/16/2009 3:19:36 PM PST by Clintons Are White Trash (Lynn Stewart, Helen Thomas, Rosie ODonnell, Maureen Dowd, Medea Benjamin - The Axis of Ugly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rocksblues
Researchers worry the new report will be interpreted as a political effort by the Obama administration to save money on health care costs.

Ya think?

You took the response right off my keyboard!

36 posted on 11/16/2009 3:22:20 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FrdmLvr
Premenopausal women are at the greatest risk of virulent cancer. It needs to be identified early if any survivability is to be expected. Postmenopausal women typically have quite treatable/managable breast cancer. This seems to be indicative of making the value judgement that young women with breast cancer have low survial rates and cost the most money to treat. Therefore, the healthcare gurus have decided to just pass on agressive care. Not unbelievable at all. Welcome to our brave new world.
37 posted on 11/16/2009 3:23:42 PM PST by downtownconservative (As Obama lies, liberty dies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

Seeing as the Dems have absolutely no intention of paying doctors to treat anything...there’s certainly no incentive to diagnose anything...


38 posted on 11/16/2009 3:24:03 PM PST by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle
Here's a real life example in which outcomes measures would likely change management based on cost/benefit ratio.

Th traditional thinking about suspected appendicitis is that it is better to have a 10% false operation rate (i.e. normal appendix) than to miss anyone with appendicitis. It would likely be very hard to justify this based purely on outcomes measures and cost/benefit ratios. So to save on costs one might institute a higher bar to jump over before going to surgery. This would likely reduce the number of unnecessary operations, but would also increase the number of those that get missed that really needed surgery. If you're one of those who didn't get operated on and your appendix ruptures, you as an individual will pay the price for being on the wrong side of a statisticians equation.

39 posted on 11/16/2009 3:26:13 PM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: earlJam

Death Panel.


40 posted on 11/16/2009 3:26:29 PM PST by NotSoModerate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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