You might wonder why I would care about this issue. Am I just being political somehow? Yes and no. I lost my mother to cancer and I am hopeful that people will keep an eye on potentially political decisions on health care.
For the last 20 years the American Cancer Society has recommended that women start preventative exams at the age of 40 and recommends self exams regularly and mammograms once per year. At the same time the government committee called the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force claims that the costs associated with breast cancer screening and biopsy scares a lot of people unnecessarily and doesn't “substantially” improve the odds for survival.
I recall when my friend Gregg became sick with cancer. He and his wife did everything they possibly could to fight, fight, fight. I seriously doubt that they weighed the idea of not trying something because the odds weren't “substantial.”
In the case of my mother, every medical professional agreed: if her cancer had been caught earlier, it wouldn't have been fatal. In her case colon cancer became liver cancer which eventually spread until her body couldn't fight it any longer.
According to Dr. Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, “This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over.” He went on to say that the committee is “essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them.”
While Medicare and private insurance companies are currently not announcing any changes in coverage at this time, they admit that the U.S. Preventative Service Task Force reports do influence the coverage plans of those groups.
All of this to say, I believe we are looking at an in-kind example of government managed health care decision models that would change the rules for mandated insurance coverage and cost containment. If you haven't been paying attention, it would be likely true that a government run health option would decide rules like this and fine health insurance that didn't “competitively” conform to the types of service decided by new government managed health care rules.
What is even more disconcerting is the idea that these declarations are coming from a preventative task force. This is like your local Police deciding not to respond to all 911 calls because, statistically a certain number of crimes never get solved. At what point should efforts in prevention decide to stop passing along preventative advice and instead only pass along advice proportionate to the amount of potential benefit? I know the answer to that one. Never! Nobody wants to be a cancer statistic.
So with respect to statistics, and in conclusion, let's briefly review a few stats. According to cancer.gov, if you are woman who is diagnosed with breast cancer...
- you are 1 in 233 if you are in your 30s
- you are 1 in 69 if you are in your 40s
- you are 1 in 38 if you are in your 50s
- you are 1 in 27 if you are in your 60s
Which of those statistics do you want to become? If I could ask your families and friends that question, I know the answer would unanimously be, "You are 1 person fully worthy of not becoming a cancer statistic."
2 comments:
a) in general, I miss conversations in the 'Dev Den'
b) you have a lot of great points here
c) it's rare that I talk political but...
d) Steve McDonald for president? Or, advisor (that's probably a better role)
I would never put the country through me playing politics.
Post a Comment