news-record.com

OPINION

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Editorial: Needless confusion over mammograms

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

(Updated 3:05 am)

Confusion surrounding a government-funded study questioning the frequency of mammograms plays into the hands of those who predict that reform will lead to health care rationing.

For the Obama administration, the timing couldn't have been worse as the Senate prepared to debate proposed reforms. Subsequent attempts at damage control by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius have failed to quell the uproar.

The independent task force's conclusions that screening for breast cancer should start later and can be done less often than now recommended run counter to widely held, common-sense views that early detection is the key to successfully treating most diseases.

It was the ideal opening for critics wary of greater government involvement in the nation's health care system to say the motivation must be saving money -- at the cost of early treatment and lost lives. They warn that the mammogram study is just a precursor of diagnostic cutbacks to come, if the government's role grows.

Considering that surveys consistently show breast cancer is the No. 1 health issue among women, administration officials should have anticipated the resulting outcry.

Needed was a timely disclaimer that the study isn't intended to override widely accepted physicians' recommendations that their patients receive frequent testing.

And there should have been an immediate acknowledgment that the highly respected American Cancer Society maintains its long-standing policy calling for women to be screened at least by age 40.

Without such qualifications, women understandably could be confused over which conflicting advice to follow. They also may worry whether their private insurers or Medicare will continue paying for expensive tests in light of the new study's controversial conclusions.

How best to diagnose and treat disease is a never-ending endeavor fueled by grants, research and technical advancements. What once was held to be accepted methodology can be replaced by a different, more effective -- even radical -- regimen.

But in the case of breast cancer, one constant all along has been that early detection undeniably saves lives.

A Harvard University study shows that 75 percent of women who die of breast cancer never had a mammogram or were diagnosed after just one test. Only 25 percent of those who died had received more than one X-ray.

Belatedly, Sebelius said the task force doesn't set policy or determine "what services are covered by the federal government." However, it will take more than a tardy clarification to restore lost government credibility.

What do you think?

21 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Comments

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 notify us.

Sawdust

November 24, 2009 - 7:32 am EST

Of course they should have seen the controversy coming, but they didn't. Just another reason not to trust the bureaucrats in DC with our health care. They never see anything coming, except the next election.

Panacea

November 24, 2009 - 10:11 am EST

The people who made this recommendation are not government bureaucrats. They are physicians and nurses, scientists all, who had been working on this study and preparing their recommendations for some time.

They probably thought women would welcome the news that mammograms were less necessary, given how uncomfortable they are.

The same goes for ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) recent recommendations regarding Pap smears.

This is all much ado about nothing.

Beachwalk

November 24, 2009 - 10:55 am EST

WRONG Panacea. This was a "government-funded" study. They are physicians, nurses and scientist whose job depends on the government paying them. Anyone who thinks these findings wasn't designed to reduce Medicare coverage is blinded by your own liberal partisan agenda.

Panacea

November 24, 2009 - 3:57 pm EST

Beachwalk, your paranoia is truly amazing.

The members of this advisory board work full time jobs in academia. They teach medical and nursing students. Study of health care issues is a big part of what medical and nursing academics do.

This particular study started during the Bush administration. They came to their conclusions some time ago; it takes time to write the conclusions of a study in a formal report. These recommendations have nothing to do with politics, and the members of this panel earn their bread from the academic institutions they work for, not the federal government.

Furthermore, their conclusions match previous recommendations regarding mammograms. The evidence based research on mammograms for some time has shown that the frequency of screening under the old recommendations was unnecessary. Herman Kattlove, an oncologist with the American Cancer Society, found in the 1990's that mammograms catch the small, slow growing tumors that are seldom dangerous, and miss the fast growing tumors that are the real killers. The National Cancer Institute tried to introduce these guidelines in the 1990's, and were eviscerated for it. Why? Because we've been conditioned to screen early for everything.

So women will continue to get unnecessary mammograms and be misled into thinking they have a dangerous cancer when often times they don't, and the reason they will go through this trauma is because it is politically popular to urge unnecessary screenings.

Beachwalk

November 24, 2009 - 10:37 pm EST

Read the first sentence of the editorial Panacea. This study was "government funded".
They were pandering to the ones who buttered their bread. Medicare is going broke, so they need to cut services. This is one of many to come under obamacare.

tonymo

November 24, 2009 - 11:13 am EST

Yeah, panacea, and the AMA represents working phycicians! Actually fewer than 20% of them belong to the AMA! And the AARP represents the elderly! Another joke. The head of the AARP is an Obama supporter, and large contributor. The AARP is merely an appendage of the Demo-Rat Party. All polling data shows that 55-60% of actual seniors oppose this disaster!

The Demo-Rats "Destruction of American Health Care Act" cuts approximately $450 billion from Medicare, the AARP supports it. Why, because many seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage plans, which AARP does not sell, and will be forced to buy the more expensive Medigap plans which AARP does sell! AARP represents the Demo-Rat Party, and AARP, period!

Panacea, like all brainwashed robots, will defend every government initiative no matter how destructive. Many licensed physicians are bureaucrats. Many of them no longer practice medicine but become media personalities, and government EMPLOYEES!

Panacea is panicked because he/she knows this is just the beginning, and has shown many just how dangerous these government BUREAUCRATS will be when they get to make your health cared decisions! Panacea is always spitting out unsourced, and mostly ludicrous statistics. I suggest the he/she check the stats on cancer survival rates in Canada and the UK against the same rates here!

Does Panacea know, or care that this "deficit neutral" disaster will cost approximately $2.5 Trillion despite the shennigans of collecting revenues for 10 years, while providing benefits for only 6 years. Does Panacea know, or care that the CBO says that (even with the dishonest accounting) health care costs will rise for EVERYONE, and that 10 years out as many as 24 million people will still be uninsured!

And Panacea, it does not require a Top Secret clearance to access the above information!

CADDMAN

November 24, 2009 - 3:08 pm EST

She by HER own admission is a nurse that works for the state college

Panacea

November 24, 2009 - 4:07 pm EST

Community college. Get it right.

CADDMAN

November 24, 2009 - 4:49 pm EST

The nazi's were not tried before military tribunals . I know everything just ask me :)

Panacea

November 24, 2009 - 4:07 pm EST

Here's a statistic for you, tony.

The lifetime risk of breast cancer for women is 2.86%. The risk a woman in her 40's will get breast cancer is 0.19% according to the National Cancer Institute.

Cancer survival rates are not the same thing as cancer occurance rates. The big factor in breast cancer for women is whether or not the cancer is attracted to estrogen. Estrogen is a female hormone that accumulates in fat tissues. Women with estrogen cancers are more at risk, are more difficult to treat, and have a lower survival rate. This is why menopausal women with certain risk factors should not take estrogen only hormone replacement therapy.

Tony is usually pitting out rampant paranoid nonsense. Tony has no understanding of pathophysiology, nor does he wish to. No these things aren't secret, but clearly tony has not taken the time to educate himself on cancer, what causes it, how it is diagnosed, treated, and what factors influence survival rates. He would rather blather on and on about how "bureaucrats" are going to "take over" health care, forgetting that bureaucrats in private industry run our health care right now, with the financial interests of the corporations they work for at heart rather than the best interest of the patient.

The CBO estimate of the cost of the House version is 1 trillion dollars, not 2.5. Tony likes to inflate cost estimates to inflame his readers, and justify his narrow world view.

Tony forgets the the CBO estimates do not take into account savings from use of best practices in health care, and reduction/elimination of Medicare fraud, so the 1 trillion dollar amount is probably inflated.

Tony also forgets that the 10 year estimates the CBO likes to fling around are almost always wrong. The CBO estimated huge costs to Medicare reform in 1986 over 10 years. Instead, Medicare reform saved billions of dollars.

No, tony, it doesn't take a Top Secret clearance to access information. All it takes is an ability to read, and a willingness to entertain more than one point of view. You might try it some time.

MR.SOFTBALL27

November 24, 2009 - 4:41 pm EST

So Panacea since you know what causes cancer why don't you just cure the whole world! Don't hold all this information you got stored away in that brilliant head of yours??? So tell me why people die everyday from lung cancer everyday and have never smoked! I like to know where you come up with some if this stuff you come up with, you must have a whole lot of time on your hands. Remind everyone if I need to know anything I need to contact Panacea because she knows everything.

tonymo

November 25, 2009 - 11:15 am EST

Panacea, I promise you that I know more about cancer than you ever thought about knowing. A little more than 4 years ago my wife was diagnosed with lung cancer. From the day of her diagnosis we began researching the disease. She is fine today, and spends most of her time as an advocate for EARLY DETECTION. Last week we, on behalf of Lung Cancer Allianced, met with our senators and representative to lobby for them to co-sponsor more funding for lung cancer research. With our group was a young woman Taylor Bell, now 22 who though never having smoked a cigarette in her life was diagnosed with lung cancer about a year ago. She is typical of about 20% of all new lung cancer cases, younger, femal NEVER smokers.

As I said in my answer to you the Heritage Foundation projected the "reform" would cost $2.5 trillion because of the blatanly dishonest phony information given the CBO, which must only use the info they are given even if they know it is phony!

Yes, the numbers the CBO puts are almost always wrong, and in every case except for the Medicare Part D, vastly understated. As I said, when Medicare was introduced in 1965 the projected 1990 cost was $12 billion. The actual cost was $111 billion, today it is $450+ billion! They UNFUNDED promises are $78 TRILLION!

"Reductions in Medicare fraud." Why do we need a bill to reduce Medicare fraud. Why haven't the politicians been doing it all along? This is just another government speak meaningless phrase that has no connection to real life in Washington! But being a big government robot you can't understand that fact.

As long as you are quoting the CBO why did you leave out the part that says that this plan will RAISE everyone's health insurance premiums! Or that after 10 years there will still approximately 24 million still uninsured! During his last lie fest regarding "reform" the Community Organizer said there were 30 million uninsured americans. So after we destroy the system, destroy the economy we've insured 6 million more people!

What disturbs me most about people like Panacea, is not their ignorance, but their dishonesty.Her statement about Medicare reforms "saving billions is a blatant lie! Medicare cost have skyrocketed from $111 billion in 1990 to nearly $459 billion today. That information can be found in numerous places. If the truth is on your side why do you have to lie? You government employees are like leeches sucking the blood from the private economy, while offering little to help the economy. With more than 15 million unemployed,and with a nearly 11% unemployed here in NC, you march on Raleigh to whine about a small pay cut! Then you support every government spending initiative that drives us deeper into debt!

CADDMAN

November 25, 2009 - 12:58 pm EST

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!

MR.SOFTBALL27

November 24, 2009 - 4:42 pm EST

Well Panacea looks like I am not the only one who disagrees with you and with every bogus thing that you spit out of your mouth. I could not agree more with what tonymo told you! I was going to leave you alone and not bother you on this one, but I could not help it! You have lost your mind!!! WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP and see what is going on in the world around you. All these LIBS are going to tear this country apart!!!

newkid

November 24, 2009 - 8:12 pm EST

Ah, there's Mr. Softball27 again, unable to express himself in a civil manner and confusing disagreement on issues with just be disagreeable.

Beachwalk

November 24, 2009 - 10:41 pm EST

I would like to repeat what newkid said;
Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah,

MR.SOFTBALL27

November 25, 2009 - 8:38 am EST

No newkid you only confuss yourself, you are just confused as ole panacea. why don't you two just meet for lunch one day and get it all out so nobody else has to listen to your crap!!!

tbench

November 24, 2009 - 5:10 pm EST

I've asked this question once before [with no response] name me one entitlement program that the federal
government runs or has run that wasn't a total cluster ----. Social Security, Welfare, Medicare-Medicade,
and don't forget fanymae-fredymac, and let's not forget cash for clunkers they couldn't even get that small program right. What make's you think they can take over the health care system [ 1sixth of our economy] and not totally
screw that up to. It's not really about health insurance it's having control of your life. Telling you what care you can have because of your age or current health statis. It's all about control!! Why wold they put in a health bill that they
will fine you or even get jail time. There going to shove this monstrosity right down our dam throats if we let them.
I heard on the radio that some dem sen said they are willing to lose there seats to get this thing passed. They know
that there voter's don't want this and willbe voted out of office next cycle. All they want is power at Americans expense.
I pray that this bill goes down in flames. God help our children they will have to pay for this there entire lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

newkid

November 24, 2009 - 8:14 pm EST

The U.S. military is a branch of the Federal government.

tbench

November 25, 2009 - 8:34 am EST

You said it the military is a branch of gov. not an entitlement programe you big dummy

tonymo

November 25, 2009 - 3:52 pm EST

Newkid, you are truly not very bright. It is not government bureaucrats fighting the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other enemies, it is you, patirotic men and women who love this country, and are wiiling to die for it! How many of the useless bureaucrats are willing to do that! The biggest problem with the miltary today is the inept, clueless civilian leadership, or lack therof. While our troops are dying our useless "Commander" in chief can't amke up his mind concerning a strategy he picked, and listening to a field commander he chose!

The problem with 21Century America is we are littered with fools Panacea and new kid who don't understand that government, under Demo-Rats, or Republicrats is the problem, not the solution!