news-record.com

BLOGS

Off the Record

Breast-cancer screening switch: Is it a cost issue, too?

Critics from across the political spectrum say congressional health-care reform plans do little to rein in medical costs, NPR reported this morning.

But here comes a recommendation to cut back on routine breast-cancer screening. (New York Times report here. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations here.)

The USPSTF cites medical reasons for its reversal ...

... but maybe cost savings also figures into the decision.

We'll see if similar recommendations follow for other early detection procedures.

There's long been a debate about the costs vs. benefits of routine screening. Maybe that becomes more relevant in the effort to produce affordable health-care reform.

Permalink

Posted by Doug Clark on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 9:08 am

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

SueP

November 17, 2009 - 10:17 am EST

Honestly, this recommendation did NOT come from doctors and it DID come via lobbyists from the health care industry, ya think? (I swear, if this were men's testicles, they'd have invented a home test already.) On top of the Stupak amendment, do you honestly think women should believe this?

brian444

November 17, 2009 - 3:19 pm EST

No, it came from a federal panel appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services. Lobbyists for the health care industry had nothing to do it. And why would they? They make money on procedures like this. I know the health care industry is the preferred bad guy these day, but really, facts should be occasionally consulted.

Doug

November 17, 2009 - 5:44 pm EST

The question is whether this decision previews what's coming under health-care reform, particularly under a "government option."

Doug

November 17, 2009 - 5:47 pm EST

Addendum: The Canadian Press reports that the new U.S. guidelines are now in line with those north of the border:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5irxkQAYaBOT...

brian444

November 18, 2009 - 12:24 am EST

I doubt it. The only reason to support "reform" is that maybe, possibly it would enforce sensible cost-saving measures like this one (aka rationing). Rationing is, IMO, best done by the market--by making individuals make choices about what to do with real dollars--but even government rationing is arguably better that the current price-free system. That said, the government would surely cave on an issue like this that pitted hard science against the wishes/opinions of a core constituency.

But the cost-lowering side of the project has long since gone by the boards. What's left is another rapidly expanding, unaffordable entitlement, and that's too bad.

Dogwood

November 17, 2009 - 12:21 pm EST

Deadly breast cancers occur between 19 years of age and 35. These ladies die. Between 40 and forty-five there is a lesser risk. But around 45 hormones begin going off course. Menopause, atrophy excellerate. By 50 all women are at high risk.

Women with mothers, grandmothers, aunts and siblings are exempt from "routine " guidelines. The cost of a diagnotic mammogram is just a few dollars more (if you have insurance). Screening yearly every year till the other kind of death is not in the best interest of non-high risk women.

Ultrasound works better at critical diagnosis. A compromise might recommend an every three year routine verses fear.