20 replies to this topic

[Pops Racer]

Government changes mammogram recommendations
Posted: Nov 16, 2009 10:57 PM EST Updated: Nov 16, 2009 10:57 PM EST

(NBC) – The government is changing its recommendation when it comes to who needs to get mammograms and when.

The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force now says women how are not high risk for breast cancer can wait until they’re 50 to be screened. Then they only need to be screened every other year.

Computer models convinced the government experts to change their advice. Those models show getting mammograms too soon may cause more harm than good.

"That is, the likelihood of having a false positive test with all the attendant anxiety, the additional imaging tests, perhaps even leading to biopsy that may have been unnecessary," said Dr. Diana Petitti of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

However, some major medical groups think the government’s making a big mistake. They still recommend mammograms under 50 years of age and worry this new advice may confuse patients.

"The worst outcome for this study would be for women to throw up their arms and say, 'well, I’m not going to get screened at all,'" said the American Cancer Society’s Len Lichtenfeld.

They argue the government puts more emphasis on computer models than real patients.

"We're not satisfied at this point that the approach that they used is sufficient and adequate to discard a proven way of saving lives from breast cancer," Lichtenfeld said.

Now, it is unclear if insurance will pay for mammograms for those under 50 because of the new recommendations.

[7 VII 7]

what a mess

[Pops Racer]

Closet Obamites -1 Dave again!

However I don't get de-rated for posting the original info.


Hey, I'm sure this translates into prostate cancer prevention also. Or endoscopy for colon cancer.

Ask your wives, moms and girlfriends what they think about this. I know what my wife thinks.

We prefer the scare of a false positive. And the accompanying relief after further testing.

But then again we pay for our health care.

[7 VII 7]

Honestly... if I was paying $400 a month for health care for my family (which it will be) I am fine with that... but if people start getting free health care and it is the same type of service and "judgement" then f that I am not going to pay $400 out of my pocket if others are getting it for "free" and same "type" of service.

And that is when we go bankrupt

example

people give me -1 because they are jealous or just have nothing better to do than search my posts.

[Chilled Man]

7 VII 7, on 18 November 2009 - 02:38 PM, said:

people give me -1 because they are jealous or just have nothing better to do than search my posts.

agreed

that and you have more balls then most to speak whats on your mind , most here just go with the flow .

Obviously I am defintaly not one of those

[cbon]

Over the years I've seen the medical/health care community change positions so many times on the management of many particular diseases/health care issues. Studies are done on the same issue/disease year after year, and different, often apparently opposing, conclusions are made. Conclusions in the studies are based on what facts were included as "evidence" (and which facts were NOT included), and the methods used to study the "evidence" (and what methods were NOT used). Outcomes and conclusions can be skewed without difficulty based on which particular facts, methods, and statistical analyses are used, or NOT used. The result, when bureaucrats and healthcare panels get involved, is often "policy schizophrenia".

This most recent episode (the 'mammogram' thing) ought to indicate to some, and reinforce to others, how heavy-handed and over-bearing will be a government that involves itself in health care. You, as an individual, will see that if, how, and when you're treated for a health issue will be more and more based on someone else's ideology, rather than on your reality. If you want to see "self-interest", "waste", "mean", and "harmful", give the feds more control over healthcare, business, information/media, etc, etc.

"$98 billion improper US Government payments" (including $55 billion to Medicare/Medicaid)? I'd like to see what all they included in "improper", how they determined and defined "improper". I'd also like to see the media accompany this report with one that tells us the $ amount in improper US Government Medicare/Medicaid NON-payments.

My rant for the day!

[Pops Racer]

Thats what they want, Dave. Govt has a competitive advantage. They make the rules. And they'll tax you if you already have a decent plan, now that's f'd up. Everyone jump on the govt train, on tracks that are too short.

2000 pages of HCB went to the Senate. 30 million will STILL not be covered! So whats the point if not control and power?

2000 pages of a bill that doesnt do what they want, 17 pages of the Constitution runs the whole country. With abortion for all.

Shit, I rant for a living.

[mrtl321]

WINGNUT, on 18 November 2009 - 02:32 PM, said:

However I don't get de-rated for posting the original info.

They got ya with the -1 monster but I fixed that for ya.

2000 pages, and I thought that they want green everything. How does using 2000 pages of paper help the environment?

[Pops Racer]

ONOZE! Not a -1!

What ever shall I do.

They fear my massive intellect.

You should have to post your member name when you rate someone. Positive or negative.

Otherwise it's like a Congressman passing a tax increase in the middle of the night on a Friday. Cowardly.

Otherwise I call NO BALLS. Or E-Balls.

Bring it.

HHS secretary just said woman should keep doing what they have been doing, self checks and over 40 mamygrams. To her credit.

[7 VII 7]

I heard this on the Radio this morning... a lot of women are pissed... which they should be... I am glad this has hit main-stream

[ErikS]

7 VII 7, on 17 November 2009 - 05:12 PM, said:

what a mess

The current members of the USPTF panel were appointed by the Bush administration. They don't make policy, only recommendtions based on evidence-based medicine and applied research.

They mostly are chairs of research departments of the top teaching hospitals and private universities in the US.

[7 VII 7]

ErikS, on 19 November 2009 - 04:43 PM, said:

The current members of the USPTF panel were apponited by the Bush administration. They don't make policy, only recommendtions based on evidence-based medicine and applied research.

They mostly are chairs of research departments of the top teaching hospitals in the US.

who said anything about Bush Erik? You brought it up.

I said the situation is a mess. sooo stop trollin' and dropping in so that you can bash me and -1 me.

You say this but does not mean it makes sense that they use skewed research to make judgment calls on people's lives.

This is just the start of Gov't making life or death situations and choices based off their horrible skewed research and what the $$$$$ bottom line is.

Luckily my family has never had breast cancer but my best friends mom died of it 2 years ago... and he is pretty upset about this. I would hope you had a different view if you were affected by it closer. ACS is also pretty upset about it.

[ErikS]

7 VII 7, on 19 November 2009 - 04:55 PM, said:

who said anything about Bush Erik? You brought it up.

I said the situation is a mess. sooo stop trollin' and dropping in so that you can bash me and -1 me.

Its an assumption that when something like this is announced, its because of the current administration, which it is in fact, not. Its due to the political heat of Health Care reform and its all about divisive politics

No one bashed you, just clearing up the facts, and I ignore the rep thing entirely and don't "rep" you down, get over yourself.

7 VII 7, on 19 November 2009 - 04:55 PM, said:

You say this but does not mean it makes sense that they use skewed research to make judgment calls on people's lives.

This is just the start of Gov't making life or death situations and choices based off their horrible skewed research and what the $$$$$ bottom line is.

I guess they only throw together inexperienced panels like this who only look at "skewed research", again this isn't policy, its a recommendation. A primary care doctor doesn't have to follow it, and anyone can ask for a mammogram.

Bruce N. Calonge, M.D., M.P.H. (Chair)
Chief Medical Officer and State Epidemiologist
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO

Diana B. Petitti, M.D., M.P.H. (Vice Chair)
Professor of Biomedical Informatics
Fulton School of Engineering
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

Susan Curry, Ph.D.
Dean, College of Public Health
Distinguished Professor
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

Allen J. Dietrich, M.D.
Professor, Community and Family Medicine
Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH

Thomas G. DeWitt, M.D.
Carl Weihl Professor of Pediatrics
Director of the Division of General and Community Pediatrics
Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH

Kimberly D. Gregory, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Women's Health Services Research
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA

David Grossman, M.D., M.P.H.
Medical Director, Preventive Care and Senior Investigator, Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative
Professor of Health Services and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics
University of Washington, Seattle, WA

George Isham, M.D., M.S.
Medical Director and Chief Health Officer
HealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN

Michael L. LeFevre, M.D., M.S.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO

Rosanne Leipzig, M.D., Ph.D
Professor, Geriatrics and Adult Development, Medicine, Health Policy
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Lucy N. Marion, Ph.D., R.N.
Dean and Professor, School of Nursing
Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA

Joy Melnikow, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
Associate Director, Center for Healthcare Policy and Research
University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA

Bernadette Melnyk, Ph.D., R.N., C.P.N.P./N.P.P.
Dean and Distinguished Foundation Professor in Nursing
College of Nursing & Healthcare Innovation
Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ

Wanda Nicholson, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A.
Associate Professor
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD

J. Sanford (Sandy) Schwartz, M.D.
Leon Hess Professor of Medicine, Health Management, and Economics
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and Wharton School, Philadelphia, PA

Timothy Wilt, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Medicine, Minneapolis VA Medical Center
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

We've all had personal dealings with cancer, and I don't need to go in to my personal details, and I don't need to prove which one of us is the troll here.

[7 VII 7]

Just because you ask your PCP for a mammogram and he recommends one and writes a referral to your insurance does not mean your insurance is going to pay for it.

Took me 4 letters and calls from my Doctor to get an MRI on my torn Achilles tendon... took 2 months after my injury to get it... so the DR can say you need one all they want but it is the insurance that hast to say yes.

I was not about to shell out $5k to get 2 MRIs that my insurance might not seem justified even though I saw 2 Drs.

This has nothing to do with the past or current administration. It has something to do with the Health Care "reform"

[ErikS]

7 VII 7, on 19 November 2009 - 05:22 PM, said:

Just because you ask your PCP for a mammogram and he recommends one and writes a referral to your insurance does not mean your insurance is going to pay for it.

Took me 4 letters and calls from my Doctor to get an MRI on my torn Achilles tendon... took 2 months after my injury to get it... so the DR can say you need one all they want but it is the insurance that hast to say yes.

I was not about to shell out $5k to get 2 MRIs that my insurance might not seem justified even though I saw 2 Drs.

This has nothing to do with the past or current administration. It has something to do with the Health Care "reform"

Wow, from the sound of your example, we need to reform the current way you receive health care.

[7 VII 7]

ErikS, on 19 November 2009 - 05:24 PM, said:

Wow, from the sound of your example, we need to reform the current way you receive health care.

I have great heath care, no need to reform mine. Insurance across the board are cracking down on MRIs in general along with other services.

[ErikS]

7 VII 7, on 19 November 2009 - 05:26 PM, said:

I have great heath care, no need to reform mine. Insurance across the board are cracking down on MRIs in general along with other services.

So as usual when someone challenges your thinking, you end up trying to make sense, but only end up contradicting yourself.

And you wonder why people get sick of seeing you in every thread.

[7 VII 7]

ErikS, on 19 November 2009 - 06:19 PM, said:

So as usual when someone challenges your thinking, you end up trying to make sense, but only end up contradicting yourself.

And you wonder why people get sick of seeing you in every thread.

It is not people challenging my thinking, they are just trying to bash me.

how do you think I am contradicting myself?

[Pops Racer]

"Its an assumption that when something like this is announced, its because of the current administration, which it is in fact, not. Its due to the political heat of Health Care reform and its all about divisive politics"

I think ( big deal), that many of us are skeptical about Govt ability to run anything. I'm still not convinced that anything is done in the best interest of the country any more. The more I read the more it seems the change promised is just more of the same, no transparency and special interests rule the country. I keep replaying vids of Obama rallying SEIU/ACORN, and referring to these losers as major player in policy. The person who has visited the WH the most? Andy Stern head of SEIU. At least 22 times by my count. I checked the WH visitor registry, Bill Ayers was on there a couple of times also. Michael Jordan 5 times :lol: Michael Moore 8 times

I still have a bad feeling about all this, Bush leftovers not withstanding. It's almost a blessing they are trying to ram an assload of shit down our throats, as opposed to a trickle over time. We are reacting faster, and with more verve than if it was a gradual erosion. So they are stupid, and will get caught. It won't be pretty in 2010- 2012.

The Dems still think were stupid, but they are already busted by middle America and the Independents are running, not walking away from the Dems.

It's interesting. I was afraid of what would happen, and I had lost confidence, a bit, in the folks. But they have stood up and recognized the problem. And reaffirmed my belief that the best asset the US has is an informed electorate.Despite the efforts of the pols to hide the truth.

Plus whats so great about 10 yrs of tax increases to pay for 4 yrs of shitty health care. Just start looking at the numbers, deeply, its damn scary.

[gdizzle]

ErikS, on 19 November 2009 - 06:19 PM, said:

So as usual when someone challenges your thinking, you end up trying to make sense, but only end up contradicting yourself.

And you wonder why people get sick of seeing you in every thread.

Yes, there has to be health care reform, but that doesn't mean we need to hand out free health care to everyone, and gain trillions more in national debt. This current bill is not the answer and I do not want. It's a black hole for the public option. The CBO said they're going to have to significantly raise taxes to pay for it, and cut medicare. Again, do not want. Also, the 10 year budgetary outlook the CBO did was w/ skewed numbers, the plan costs are going to increase significantly after the 10 year mark. The first ten years taxes will be begin instantly, but incentives won't kick in until 4 years later. So you have 4 years of profits and 6 years of costs.