|
Post by constructr on Nov 17, 2009 19:27:08 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Nov 17, 2009 19:34:53 GMT -4
Mammograms are not fun and not as accurate as other testing. They have better ways of testing, they just need to use them. I bet you won't see them say men should not get screened for prostrate cancer.
|
|
|
Post by constructr on Nov 17, 2009 19:43:01 GMT -4
Mammograms are not fun and not as accurate as other testing. They have better ways of testing, they just need to use them. I bet you won't see them say men should not get screened for prostrate cancer. No one said they were fun. Each of the women, that I know who survived BC found it through self-exam, followed by mammogram. This will have HUGE repercussions!
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Nov 17, 2009 19:44:35 GMT -4
Mammograms are not fun and not as accurate as other testing. They have better ways of testing, they just need to use them. I bet you won't see them say men should not get screened for prostrate cancer. No one said they were fun. Each of the women, that I know who survived BC found it through self-exam, followed by mammogram. This will have HUGE repercussions! I agree with you. I am just saying they have even better ways of testing besides mammograms and they should use it. Mammograms are not as accurate as some of the alternatives. The alternatives are also not painful or as unpleasant.
|
|
|
Post by hisea on Nov 17, 2009 22:27:24 GMT -4
Gov. health care modeled after Gov. housing, can't wait!
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Nov 18, 2009 3:52:07 GMT -4
There might just be some value in this recommendation; there is certainly value in the discussion.
Did it become health care rationing before or after "Critics" saw it that way? I think we let the polarized talking heads make up our minds for us too easily.
There is no way someone who benefited from the long-standing recommendations is going to agree with these new recommendations. Likewise, tere is unlikely that anyone hurt by the long-standing recommendations will object to the new ones.
In other discussions there is talk of doctors recommending unnecessary tests in order to cover their butts or to elp pay for the expensive equipment they bought. It is easy for the patient to accept these tests because the doctor knows best and because someone else is paying anyway. These new recommendations seem to be a step twards reducing what some believe are unnecessary tests. We should at least look at the data before blindly accepting what the critics have to say.
How can the tests be unnecessary if some have been saved because of them? Chances are good hat any test for a life-threatening condition would be more effective if applied to a larger group, but does it really make sense to test everyone for everything?
Then there is the cost of false positives. It is easy to see how a good diagnosis and treatment can help someone, but what about a bad diagnosis? What is the emotional, physical, and yes, financial cost of treating someone for cancer who turns out not to have it? There was this statement in that article:
What if here was a slightly painful and only slightly embarrassing test for testicular cancer? And what if the "treatment" was a biopsy or possibly the removal of the testicle (after all, you have two and only need one)? I wonder if it would still be OK to overdiagnose and overtreat seven or 10 men in order to catch the single real cancer? I know I would be more worried about being one of the seven and would hold out for a more accurate test.
|
|
|
Post by deputy on Nov 18, 2009 7:02:23 GMT -4
It'll be healthcare welfare. call it what it is.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Nov 18, 2009 11:27:28 GMT -4
The article raises an question. Dr. Diana Petitti, of the panel said "The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s,". What harms? A little clarification by the speaker or writer would be useful here. Doe these "harms" also impact women in their 50's & 60's?
Dr. Braverman , another supporter of this called manual examinations a total failure. I beg to differ with the doctor. My wife is still alive because a manual self exam detected a suspicious lump, which a mammogram backed up and biopsy confirmed was cancer. This was in the 1990's when she was still in her 40's.
There were concerns expressed that insurance may take these guidelines as an excuse to stop paying for mammograms for women in their 40's. With opinions like Dr. Braveman's, might they even deny it when manual exams detect something suspicious?
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Nov 18, 2009 11:31:11 GMT -4
This is not like the more advanced machines, but it still works.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Nov 18, 2009 11:44:30 GMT -4
This is not like the more advanced machines, but it still works. As an added benefit it uses a renewable source of energy!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Nov 18, 2009 11:51:01 GMT -4
I've seen it 100 times. It's still funny every time I see it!
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Nov 18, 2009 12:10:37 GMT -4
That pictures gives new meaning to the "taste" of healthcare.
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Nov 18, 2009 12:29:25 GMT -4
Well this year alone, I know of 6 people all under the age of 45 diagnosed with Breast Cancer....
My BBFF was diagnosed at the age of 42....she has been a survivor for 8 years....
Breast Cancer can hit anyone at any time.... and right now if one were to do a "statatistic" I would bet my last nickle that the greatest number of postitive tests for breast cancers are women between the ages of 32-45.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it you idiotic health care critics who speak with out knowing any really true facts.........(that remark was not aimed at KIOers.... well unless they find the shoe doth fit...(I was talking about the linked article).............
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Nov 18, 2009 13:10:33 GMT -4
My guess is that mammograms would still be covered for people with suspicious lumps, just not covered for people without any noticeable problems.
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Nov 18, 2009 13:15:42 GMT -4
My guess is that mammograms would still be covered for people with suspicious lumps, just not covered for people without any noticeable problems. I hope you are right.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Nov 18, 2009 13:33:58 GMT -4
Well, my experience with Medicare is that a lot of things aren't covered for people that don't have related problems. For example, eye exams aren't covered, but my eye exams are covered, because I have a related condition. So, I'd assume--unless told otherwise--that this would work similarly.
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Nov 18, 2009 15:31:34 GMT -4
My guess is that mammograms would still be covered for people with suspicious lumps, just not covered for people without any noticeable problems. Not everyone has suspicious lumps or noticeable lumps that get's diagnosed with breast cancer. Just not acceptable in my mind. Especially when it seems that more and more are being diagnosed with Breast cancer than a decline after all the years of research....(of course it's the information age where one hears about everything before it even has a chance of getting cold).....
|
|
|
Post by dej on Nov 18, 2009 18:48:19 GMT -4
Well, my experience with Medicare is that a lot of things aren't covered for people that don't have related problems. For example, eye exams aren't covered, but my eye exams are covered, because I have a related condition. So, I'd assume--unless told otherwise--that this would work similarly. I'm glad it has worked out so far for you but I just don't place a lot of faith in either government or insurance to always do the right thing. I realize both have appeals processes, but with something like breast cancer, it may be terminal before the right decision finally gets made.
|
|
|
Post by grova on Nov 18, 2009 20:32:43 GMT -4
"Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"
And Frank...that's a classic. Next years Halloween costume?
|
|
|
Post by constructr on Nov 18, 2009 20:47:11 GMT -4
And the other thing is, "They" say those women who are not "high risk" should follow these recommendations. With the exception of 1 of the 6 women that "I" know who survived BC, they were ALL what would be considered "low risk". As far as I'm concerned, this studdy was just ANOTHER example of the blatant WASTE of our tax dollars by our government for their own agenda! Personally, I think ultra-sound should be used instead of mammmograms, but I'm not a doctor.
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Nov 18, 2009 20:53:59 GMT -4
And the other thing is, "They" say those women who are not "high risk" should follow these recommendations. With the exception of 1 of the 6 women that "I" know who survived BC, they were ALL what would be considered "low risk". As far as I'm concerned, this studdy was just ANOTHER example of the blatant WASTE of our tax dollars by our government for their own agenda! Personally, I think ultra-sound should be used instead of mammmograms, but I'm not a doctor. Ultrasound is more accurate than a mammogram.
|
|
|
Post by eileen on Nov 18, 2009 22:24:43 GMT -4
The timing of these recommendations sends up huge red flags obviously, considering the current debate on health care reform. Why go to the extreme of even recommending AGAINST breast self-exams? I still can't understand that one. Just received an update email newsletter from the Susan G. Komen Foundation who, gratefully, have issued a statement denouncing this recent turn of events. This is so disturbing to me on so many levels, I feel frustrated and kind of "creeped out" by this (sorry for the terminology, can't figure out how to adequately express myself on this issue yet).
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Nov 19, 2009 7:07:38 GMT -4
It would be nice to see the data they used to support the new recommendations. Motives can be questioned, especially in light of other things going on right now, but the data should answer questions.
|
|
|
Post by safetildecember on Nov 19, 2009 8:30:28 GMT -4
It would be nice to see the data they used to support the new recommendations. Motives can be questioned, especially in light of other things going on right now, but the data should answer questions. They don't even have an Oncologist on the panel of geniuses that came up with this one about mammograms.
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Nov 19, 2009 8:45:52 GMT -4
It would be nice to see the data they used to support the new recommendations. Motives can be questioned, especially in light of other things going on right now, but the data should answer questions. They don't even have an Oncologist on the panel of geniuses that came up with this one about mammograms. Did they have anyone with breasts??
|
|