- Share This Post
- submit
- 8
-
Sparkle (0)
Unless you've been under a rock all week, you have probably heard about the government task force that has recommended new guidelines for breast cancer screening. It goes something like this...
If you're younger than 50 or older than 75, you no longer have to worry your pretty little head about breast cancer, or getting those pesky boob squishing mammograms.
Hallelujah! I wonder how long it will be before we go back to giving women Valium for chest pain? Who needs preventative care when it's not 100% effective anyway? Hell, just go ahead and give us anti-anxiety meds for all of our ills...I'll betcha we save a bundle on healthcare costs. Women already outlive men by a bunch of years, maybe this will even things out a bit...Isn't equality what we've been cryin about all these years?
OK, I know, I went a little too far with my analogy. But seriously, this is what's going on...
From Kaiser Health News - Guidelines on Cancer Screening Spark Debate...
On Monday, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended that routine mammograms start at age 50 instead of 40, that women receive the test every two years as opposed to annually, and that physicians no longer train women to perform breast self-examination.
Imaging centers saw cancellations for mammograms more than double since the news of these "recommendations" were announced. I wonder how many of those women may actually have breast cancer right now and will miss the opportunity for early detection and treatment?
I have to admit, I've been having a lot of cynical thoughts running through my head since I heard this disturbing news. Like...
I can't help but think that if the pharmaceutical companies were profiting from mammograms these recommendations would be suggesting that they begin ten years earlier rather than later.
And then there's this one...
If a healthcare reform bill is going to benefit the insurance industry (and it must - considering all their lobbying dollars), then insurance companies need guidelines that will allow them to reduce the amount of money they shell out for quality health care.
I know these are just thoughts, but when government panels are established to become corporate bean counters of women's health policy, it makes me a little angry.
The thing is, when it comes to healthcare for women - I want to see more choices for women, not less.
Check out this video, it really does a nice job of addressing the problems associated with these new guidelines...
Is healthcare for women under attack?
Was I the only one who was completely shocked to find out that this so called panel of experts had three representatives from insurance companies, but no experts in oncology or breast cancer?
From Feminist Legal Theory - How Many Women Does Breast Cancer Cost?
I am not naive to the fact that cost-benefit analysis plays a role in major agency decisions, particularly in allocation of resources, but this is disturbing. Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical Office for the American Cancer Society, shares my concern. "With its new recommendations, the [task force] is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives; just not enough of them.”
. . .
Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia, the chairwoman of a panel that developed the guidelines, assured the New York Times the releases are not political. However, that certainly does not mean the application will not be. While a universal health care package can mean valuable screenings for the uninsured, continued release of materials like this could mean a reduction in coverage for preventative care.
Not everyone disagrees with these new guidelines...
From Our Bodies, Our Blog - New Mammogram Guidelines Make Sense...
The guidelines are in sync with international recommendations; the World Health Organization recommends starting screening at age 50, and in Europe, mammograms are given to post-menopausal women every other year and detection rates are similar to the United States. During an interview on MSNBC on Tuesday, breast cancer expert Dr. Susan Love said the government’s guidelines bring us into line with the rest of the world and with current research. (Read more at her blog.)
You might be thinking: Wait a moment, isn’t earlier better? Why would delaying detection be in my best interest? I’m going to explain why, but let’s first take a closer look at the guidelines, which were released by
