And now a change for the Pap tests as well?

[C.Ann]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091120/hl_nm/us_cancer_cervical_screening

 

[glitterkittyy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091120/hl_nm/us_cancer_cervical_screening

Think this is all leading up to insurance being able to say "oh that test isn't needed so therefore it's not covered annually"???

Insurance lobbyists working hard!

 

[DWGal210]

Think this is all leading up to insurance being able to say "oh that test isn't needed so therefore it's not covered annually"???

Insurance lobbyists working hard!

MTE!! I have other thoughts as well, but they would get me points for talking about politics....

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

Eh - this is old news. It has been around for years that women (after so many years of normal paps) can go 2-3 years between.

 

[glitterkittyy]

Eh - this is old news. It has been around for years that women (after so many years of normal paps) can go 2-3 years between.

Yeah but start at 21?!? It used to be recommended that you start as soon as you're sexually active or 18, whichever came first. And these days it's usually sexually active that comes first. lol

 

[Nik's Mom]

I had Kaiser insurance a few years back and they had already started the policy of having a pap smear every 3 years.

That's pretty much all I can say on the subject since the rest would turn political.

 

[jpaxton1118]

I am thankful it has not been recommended for me to do that. I have always had normal paps and then a few years ago one came back wrong and I ended up having surgery. A women should have one every year! Our bodies are always changing and they have no way of knowing if one year it is going to be the same.

 

[DawnCt1]

That really has been a guide line that some gyns have followed for a while. A lot of cervical cancer is caused by HPV and if, by the time you are 30, you haven't had any questionable PAPs for three years in a row, chances are, you aren't infected with HPV. Also, with the advent of vaccines, such as Gardasil, the incidence of cervical cancer will decrease significantly. If women have bleeding, other gyn health issues, weakened immunity, etc. then all bets are off and they should be screened as before. These new guidelines are actually based on SCIENCE, by physicians who work with and treat women, unlike the mammogram recommendations. They also found that some of the dysplasia resolved by itself and that by overdiagnosing it and treating it, they exposed young women to a weakened cervix which may result in cervical incompetency during pregnancy.

 

[DisneyFan32WI]

My doctor won't refill my BC pills unless I come in for a yearly pap.

If it weren't for the pills hanging over my head, I doubt I would ever go in for that test!!!

 

[DawnCt1]

My doctor won't refill my BC pills unless I come in for a yearly pap.

If it weren't for the pills hanging over my head, I doubt I would ever go in for that test!!!

It doesn't mean that you don't need a yearly exam, you do, especially on BC pills. He may be revising his plan however to do a yearly pap or he may not. It really depends upon your history.

 

[ead79]

I didn't realize this was new news. My GYN told me at last year's appointment that I won't have to do it yearly once I turn 30 (which I did this year).

 

[DebbieB]

Ironically I was at the gyn this week for my annual exam. She looked at my file and before she started the exam, she made the comment that I had a pap last year. The exam seemed to go quicker than usual, which makes me wonder now if she did do a pap. She did have the nurse come in to "assist", I thought that was to handle the slide. I guess I'll find out when I get the EOB, there's always a separate one from the lab plus one from the person who reads it. I'm almost 50 and never had an abnormal one.

 

[clgwli]

I would still pay for it every year even into my 40s and 50s. Probably because I know not all cervical cancer is caused by HPV and can happen as well as kill later in life. Fortunately so far my OB/GYN will continue to do it yearly for me if anything for my own piece of mind. I am in my 30s and have not missed a year since I started going to see her.

 

[wdwfan16]

My Dr. does it every year.

 

[chell]

They just want us all to die sooner so they don't have to pay for us as we age.

I think it bothers me most to start getting them at 21, especially since many girls have had their periods for 8 years or so by then. (If the average age to start is 13 - I don't really know what the age is.)

 

[Angelhalo]

Yeah but start at 21?!? It used to be recommended that you start as soon as you're sexually active or 18, whichever came first. And these days it's usually sexually active that comes first. lol

I didn't have my first until I was like 25

 

[luvmy3]

If HPV is an STD that is known to cause cervical cancer and girls are becoming sexually active long before they turn 21, why would it be good advice to wait until you are 21?

 

[luvmy3]

I didn't have my first until I was like 25

If I didn't have my first one until 25 I'd probably be dead.

 

[Mysteria]

If HPV is an STD that is known to cause cervical cancer and girls are becoming sexually active long before they turn 21, why would it be good advice to wait until you are 21?

MTE!!!

Even at 30. Is that the magic no HPV number?! Don't think so.

I read that they think there are so many false positives that doing surgery for pre-cancer is hurting more than helping. I call BS!! If it's thought to be a false positive do the test again!

If I didn't have my first one until 25 I'd probably be dead.

You and many others including me. Guess that's why it's such a hot topic for me. If this were a men's issue this wouldn'tbe happening.

 

[teskak]

Speaking as an Australian where the vaccine is free to young girls and was fully funded for the up to 25 year olds...

There was some commentary from the Australian scientist whose work led to Gardisil that because there is wide coverage of the vaccine which should cover 70% of the potential cancers.

Then the arguement was that the cancers are generally slow growing, and if abnormal 'pre-cancerous' cells are treated surgically then the woman is at a greater risk of pregnancy issues, c-sections, preemie birth etc.

Not so much a cost saving measure but instead trying to save those preemie births etc IF the pre-cancerous treatment was not necessary