Hot Topic (11/24): Are the new mammogram guidelines bad for women?

[Cafe GroupAdmin]

 Mammogram Recommendations Could Reverse Years of Progress
By Mary Kate Cary, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

I'm upset about the controversial decision by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force—an agency appointed by HHS, the federal department at the center of healthcare reform—to recommend that women not begin regular mammograms until age 50, and even then, only every two years.

The breast cancer awareness lobby in the United States has spent years convincing women that we must get checked early and often for breast cancer. It's just what you do: Every year I get my teeth cleaned (twice), I get a Pap smear and a mammogram, and get my cholesterol checked. It's part of being a grownup. It's as if they came out and said that seat belts in cars really aren't necessary anymore, or that it's okay for pregnant women to drink tequila again.

According to the New York Times: "The task force concluded that one cancer death is prevented for every 1,904 women age 40 to 49 who are screened for 10 years, compared with one death for every 1,339 women age 50 to 59, and one death for every 377 women age 60 to 69."

No one wants to be the one woman—the one mom, sister, daughter, or friend—whose death was preventable. Who wants to take that chance? Two years is a long time to wait and wonder. I bet most women will pay for a yearly mammogram out of pocket just for the peace of mind. Many paid out of pocket a few years back when the new improved Pap smears came out and insurance wouldn't cover the difference. I know I did.

The task force also recommended that doctors stop teaching patients how to do a self-exam for breast cancer on a regular basis. What? We all know women who have survived breast cancer in their 40s who either found a lump by self-exam or had a bad mammogram. So if you're cutting back on mammograms and telling women to stop the self-exams, what other way is there to find breast cancer?

According to the American Cancer Society, "death rates from breast cancer have been declining since about 1990, with larger decreases in women younger than 50." The improvement in survival rates reflects progress in early detection, increased awareness and, to be fair, better treatments as well. The last thing we should do is reverse that progress by cutting back on early detection.

If this is the beginning of reducing costs as part of healthcare reform—as some pleased observers have called it—why did we start by rationing healthcare for women, especially such a high-profile disease that affects so many of us?

* * *

What do you think about the new recommendations for routine mammograms?

Do these guidelines put women's health in jeopardy? 

Is there a connection between health cafe reform and these recommendations, as well as the new guidelines for pap smear (not until age 21)? 

Your thoughts?

[mmtosam06]

35 should be the start it has been that way for awhile why change it now i mean seriously 

[NearSeattleMom]

I kind of understand where they are coming from . . . if you consider only statistics.

I do tend to wonder if this is in conjunction with the government's health care reform.  It sounds a lot like rationing to me.  

[mistynights234]

What do you think about the new recommendations for routine mammograms?  Im hoping this is not a precurser to whats to come.

Do these guidelines put women's health in jeopardy?  I personally know three women who are breast cancer survivors and they ranged in age from mid 30's to 45.  Now, for one person to know three women under 50......thats saying something right there.

Is there a connection between health cafe reform and these recommendations, as well as the new guidelines for pap smear (not until age 21)?  Once again, it just leads you to wonder what we are in store for. 

[heathermarie32]

I definitely disagree about self breast exams being useless. That is ridiculous. Maybe the mammograms ARE more difficult to read at younger ages, but I keep going back to that one life that is saved by having them yearly after 40.

I imagine the insurance companies WILL use these guidelines to  deny paying for mammograms even if "you and your doctor decide that you need one" against the advice of the guidelines.  That is what it all boils down to.

[EireLass]

I'm 51, so apparently I'm "in the clear" on this. Although at 50 I had my first "bad" mammogram....and had to have a biopsy, etc. I do worry for my daughter and daugther-in-law. I think it should be up to the patient, if they are concerned and would like to have it. 

[anxiousschk]

I horribly disagree with the new guidelines..and think we have the new health care reform to thank for them.

[Raintree]

I often wonder if the yearly irradiation of breast tissue is a good idea, actually.

[zweedledee]

HRT and mammography killed my mother.

I will never submit to junk science, for the profits of others.

Even if they try to scare me by saying that I will "die" if I dont'.

What a crock.

[zweedledee]

Quoting Raintree:

I often wonder if the yearly irradiation of breast tissue is a good idea, actually.

Smashing a cancerous tumor, or even biopsying it is asking for it to be mastatsticised.

It's about as good of an idea as to inject mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde into your babies to protect them from the flu. LOL!

It's about as good of an idea as to heat up the amniotic fluid in the uterus to see the sex of the child, or to get a good picture for a scrap book.

It's about as good as putting women's legs up in stirrups to give birth. 

LOL!!

Do people even think about these things anymore??? If they did, they might realize they don't even make sense.

Let's contemplate medical history on this one.

Doctor's used to give women orgasms to "cure" anxiety. 

Doctor's used to advocate the sale of little metal rings with nails pointed toward the inside of it to put around a male child's penis at night in case he was "naughty."

Dentists used to recommend smoking to protect the teeth.

Dentists now recommend (d-con rat poison) err.. fluoride (main component of prozac) to protect your teeth. (Read: Weston A. Price free e-book)

Yeah... not a very credible industry.. I could go on..

[stormcris]

What do you think about the new recommendations for routine mammograms? That it is bunk. It did not come from the American Cancer Society and the government is actually saying to stick with the old recommendations.

Do these guidelines put women's health in jeopardy? Yes they do.

Is there a connection between health cafe reform and these recommendations, as well as the new guidelines for pap smear (not until age 21)? I had cancer at 16 if I had not had paps I would have died it grew quickly. I think there is a connection and it was meant to control healthcare costs but was a stupid idea.

Your thoughts?They also recommended not self examining your breast.I find that utterly stupid. That is almost like saying we don't want you to be proactive in your health.