If I'd Followed This Advice, I'd Be Dead.

I was shocked when I first heard about this on the news too. Of all the women I know who have battled breast cancer, many more were diagnosed before 50 than after. Many of them probably wouldn't even have had a chance to fight if they had not done their BSE's and had the annual Mammograms that detected their cancers. I think this is one of the most assinine reccomendations that I have ever heard.
 
As a woman this sickens me. If these guidelines are followed think how many women will lose a breast, or even worse, their lives.
 
I'm no longer employed by them, but covered by COBRA (for now...shopping for new insurance). I have no idea if they set it up that way or if the plan does. It's a high deductible plan - no copays, they'll pay for one preventative visit, but no tests. You're responsible for the first $2900, then 20% after that. Per year. They claim that's how they're keeping premiums down...Yep, $361 a month for a single is really cheap! :rotfl:

Wow. It's hard to tell. I don't know very much about COBRA other than it's very expensive (and you don't get much evidently!). That's a steep arrangement, but you have to have it. I hope you find something better soon.
 
I don't understand. Isn't it said that preventative care is actually less costly than treatment? If these guidelines are followed won't the insurance companies just have to pay even more since likely more women will end up with more advanced cases of cancer?

Wow, this is so awful. I wonder what your average mammogram costs.

Unfortunately, its detection and not prevention and early detection will still require treatment. Perhaps the panel is hoping to save enough money on cancer that isn't detected (and isn't there) to pay for the cases of advanced breast cancer. :sad2:
 

ABSOLUTELY! The government's role at this time is focused on reducing the cost of health care. Limiting screening and bumping up the recommended guidelines by ten years saves a ton of money. The National Cancer Society, The American College of Surgeons, Radiology, etc. advocate for the patient.
Don't surgeons and radiologists make money from performing procedures? Why do you assume that their motivations are purely to advocate for patients but this panel has the goal of reducing the cost of health care? This panel has existed since the 80's and made dozens of similar recommendations.
 
Why would you think the National Cancer Society's recommendation would be less valid?
I don't. I think information is good. You can read the recommendation of the panel and their reasoning, and you can read the National Cancer Society's recommendation, etc., and make your own judgments of what is good for you.
 
Wow. It's hard to tell. I don't know very much about COBRA other than it's very expensive (and you don't get much evidently!). That's a steep arrangement, but you have to have it. I hope you find something better soon.

We have had to COBRA our oldest son because he has returned to school full time and needs insurance. He has Crohns Disease so can't be without insurance. It is pricey but it covers everything that our plan covers and cheaper than his $10K hospital bill last month. On the other hand, our DS who just graduated college and is without benefits is able to get a BC and BS, with dental policy for $160/mo.
 
Heard this on the news and I honestly can't say I'm surprised. My insurance company doesn't even pay for an annual pap anymore :sad2:

My gyn said the new guidelines for pap tests are every two years and did not perform one on me last year. She also said that I had numerous tests with no abnormal indications so it should be OK. I'm not happy with this but knew it was coming.

A former gyn of mine (we moved away) always said that every two years is fine as long as nobody makes a mistake. If a patient has a false negative test it is then another two years before the cancer might be caught. So he always did a pap annually.
 
Unfortunately, its detection and not prevention and early detection will still require treatment. Perhaps the panel is hoping to save enough money on cancer that isn't detected (and isn't there) to pay for the cases of advanced breast cancer. :sad2:
Oops! Yes, detection.

Either way, it's horrible. :(
 
I don't understand. Isn't it said that preventative care is actually less costly than treatment? If these guidelines are followed won't the insurance companies just have to pay even more since likely more women will end up with more advanced cases of cancer?

Wow, this is so awful. I wonder what your average mammogram costs.
You are making an assumption that the panel's recommendation is based on dollar costs. It is not.
 
This also was meant for those who have no history. Those with family history of breast cancer are still encouraged to get their regular screenings.

No one, on either side of my family, has had breast cancer except me. I had my mastectomy at age 31. You better believe that all woman need to know their own bodies. If you notice a change, don't assume it is nothing just because you are young.
 
I don't. I think information is good. You can read the recommendation of the panel and their reasoning, and you can read the National Cancer Society's recommendation, etc., and make your own judgments of what is good for you.

It seems like your arguments are for the government task force. No matter. We clearly don't agree. I'll agree to disagree with you.
 
Don't surgeons and radiologists make money from performing procedures? Why do you assume that their motivations are purely to advocate for patients but this panel has the goal of reducing the cost of health care? This panel has existed since the 80's and made dozens of similar recommendations.

I think that there is enough evidence right here, on this board, that if some women follow the panel's advice, they would be dead. Yes, surgeons and radiologists make money from the procedures, and they will still make money performing more radical surgery for metastatic breast cancer, imaging that will be required to follow the progress of that cancer, etc. While a medical career affords a good quality of life, most physicians go into medicine to advance the health of their patients and take care of the infirmed. Why do I assume the goal is to reduce cost? Are you kidding??
 
I think that there is enough evidence right here, on this board, that if some women follow the panel's advice, they would be dead. Yes, surgeons and radiologists make money from the procedures, and they will still make money performing While a medical career affords a good quality of life, most physicians go into medicine to advance the health of their patients and take care of the infirmed. Why do I assume the goal is to reduce cost? Are you kidding??
If you are correct and this advice leads to "more radical surgery for metastatic breast cancer, imaging that will be required to follow the progress of that cancer, etc." how will it reduce costs?
 
If you are correct and this advice leads to "more radical surgery for metastatic breast cancer, imaging that will be required to follow the progress of that cancer, etc." how will it reduce costs?
ITA. But then what is this recommendation based on?
 
If you are correct and this advice leads to "more radical surgery for metastatic breast cancer, imaging that will be required to follow the progress of that cancer, etc." how will it reduce costs?

How will it reduce costs? I think the answer is either in short sightedness or lack of logical compassionate thought. In the short term it does save money to discard preventative diagnosis. The upfront costs are still high. But the cases that aren't caught early are higher in cost, if caught too late it costs nothing for medical treatment. :(
 
I know...... it is ridiculous.
 
ITA. But then what is this recommendation based on?
It's all set forth in the recommendation, which I linked to earlier:

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm

Among other things, it says:

Importance
Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States. Widespread use of screening, along with treatment advances in recent years, have been credited with significant reductions in breast cancer mortality.

Detection
Mammography, as well as physical examination of the breasts (CBE and BSE), can detect presymptomatic breast cancer. Because of its demonstrated effectiveness in randomized, controlled trials of screening, film mammography is the standard for detecting breast cancer; in 2002, the USPSTF found convincing evidence of its adequate sensitivity and specificity.

Benefits of Detection and Early Intervention
There is convincing evidence that screening with film mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, with a greater absolute reduction for women aged 50 to 74 years than for women aged 40 to 49 years. The strongest evidence for the greatest benefit is among women aged 60 to 69 years.

Among women 75 years or older, evidence of benefits of mammography is lacking.

Adequate evidence suggests that teaching BSE does not reduce breast cancer mortality.

The evidence for additional effects of CBE beyond mammography on breast cancer mortality is inadequate.

The evidence for benefits of digital mammography and MRI of the breast, as a substitute for film mammography, is also lacking.

Harms of Detection and Early Intervention
The harms resulting from screening for breast cancer include psychological harms, unnecessary imaging tests and biopsies in women without cancer, and inconvenience due to false-positive screening results. Furthermore, one must also consider the harms associated with treatment of cancer that would not become clinically apparent during a woman's lifetime (overdiagnosis), as well as the harms of unnecessary earlier treatment of breast cancer that would have become clinically apparent but would not have shortened a woman's life. Radiation exposure (from radiologic tests), although a minor concern, is also a consideration.

Adequate evidence suggests that the overall harms associated with mammography are moderate for every age group considered, although the main components of the harms shift over time. Although false-positive test results, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary earlier treatment are problems for all age groups, false-positive results are more common for women aged 40 to 49 years, whereas overdiagnosis is a greater concern for women in the older age groups.

There is adequate evidence that teaching BSE is associated with harms that are at least small. There is inadequate evidence concerning harms of CBE.

USPSTF Assessment
The USPSTF has reached the following conclusions:

For biennial screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years, there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is small. Although the USPSTF recognizes that the benefit of screening seems equivalent for women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 59 years, the incidence of breast cancer and the consequences differ. The USPSTF emphasizes the adverse consequences for most women—who will not develop breast cancer—and therefore use the number needed to screen to save 1 life as its metric. By this metric, the USPSTF concludes that there is moderate evidence that the net benefit is small for women aged 40 to 49 years.

For biennial screening mammography in women aged 50 to 74 years, there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate.

For screening mammography in women 75 years or older, evidence is lacking and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.

For the teaching of BSE, there is moderate certainty that the harms outweigh the benefits.

For CBE as a supplement to mammography, evidence is lacking and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.

For digital mammography and MRI as a replacement for mammography, the evidence is lacking and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.
 














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top