Skip to main content

And So It Begins...

Over the last week or so, a new controversy has emerged about breast cancer screening. What has become the standard of screening over past years, has suddenly come in to question. Interestingly enough, this controversy demonstrates a perfect example of what life will be like under government health care.

For years, women have been told that they should do breast self-examinations and start their mammogram screening at age 40. On November 17, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, announced new guidelines that include the following:
-recommendation against women in their 40's receiving mammograms,
subject to individual patient needs and doctor input
-women in their 50's should receive biennial mammograms (every
other year)
-recommends against teaching women breast self-examination

Generally, I don't have a problem with these recommendations. However, I don't have a history of breast cancer in my family. On the other hand, we all know people who do and would not do well if these recommendations were adopted. We also know people with no family history who have developed breast cancer which was caught early either through self-examination or mammography.

Herein lies the problem. The USPSTF is an "independent government-appointed panel" (Washington Post, Rob Stein, 11/17/09). This is a highly influential panel made up of doctors and scientists. It's influence is felt as insurance companies and government agencies determine what care will be covered. Furthermore, "under health care reform legislation pending in Congress, the conclusions of the 16-member task force would set standards for what preventive health care services insurance plans would be required to cover at little or no cost". (Washington Post, Stein) If their recommendation becomes law, what will be the future results? Will women at high risk be able to get screening? If we are all forced on to the government plan (or should I say when?), will we be able to pay for services that are not covered? Where would that leave people that can't afford to pay full price for treatments that are not covered?

To the credit of the USPSTF, they did suggest that women make individual decisions in regards to their breast health. Unfortunately, that will neither be the result of their recommendations nor the pending legislation regarding health care. The American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology have both strongly condemned the recommendation. It is also enlightening to know that the USPSTF panel includes neither an oncologist (cancer doc) or radiologist. By contrast, another recommendation was made in regards to women's health a couple of days later. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists "has released new guidelines for when and how often women should have Pap smears. They include: Routine Paps starting at 21 and women waiting three years between Paps if they're over 30 and have had three consecutive clear tests." (L.A. Times, Shari Roan) This recommendation carries far more weight with me than that of the USPSTF, for several reasons. The ACOG is not a government entity, it includes doctors that specialize in women's health issues and I believe their sole motivation is to address the best way to treat their patients and efficiently utilize their resources.

Ultimately though, the main issue is obscured by all of these corollary discussions. These recommendations are all useful on a certain level. But in the end, each one of us should be having a conversation with our doctor about our medical needs. Treating an individual should never be reduced to tables, statistics and number crunching. I have neither a family history of breast cancer nor have I participated in the behaviors that will put me at risk for cervical cancer. I have also never had an abnormal Pap. Why can't my doctor and I sit down and determine what kind of breast or cervical cancer screening is appropriate to me? In the end, it would save the system money to treat ME and not the statistics. On the flip side, some of my friends should start having mammograms annually at age 30 based on their family history. Will that be paid for? (It is my understanding that in Canada, you cannot pay out-of-pocket for anything not covered under the government plan.) My fear is that, in the future, those decisions will be made for us by policy wonks and government panels; breast health will only be the beginning. The only realistic solution to our health care problems is to wrest control from the government and insurance companies and return it to the rightful owners: me and my doctor.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

So What Can We Do?

I have spent a lot of time picking apart the liberal plan for reforming health care in the U.S. I do not have any confidence in a government that cannot run anything cheaply or efficiently. They are the last people I would trust to manage one sixth of our economy--I wouldn't trust them to do my lawn care. So, it's high time to talk about what can and should be done instead. Here are some ideas that would go a long way to lowering the cost of health care for everyone without a government takeover of health care. 1) Individual responsibility: As with anything in life, when we are directly responsible for the outcomes of our decisions, we are better for it, individually and as a society. That responsibility includes being accountable for our life choices, the amount of risks we take and paying our bills. It seems like a no-brainer doesn't it? Unfortunately, we have gotten away from that thinking in reference to our health care. If I choose to have multiple sexual partners, why...

Flawed Arguments and Stubborn Facts

My last post addressed some of the things we can do to improve health care without government involvement. I got a few comments, but wanted to address a couple in particular. These comments brought up issues that are worthy of response. One of the comments is as follows: " I would like to direct your attention to the writers first stated premise - there is no trust in the government with one sixth of our economy. My question is, how did it become one sixth of the economy? With every step of a 'free' enterprise system being everything but free, freedom is placed upon the back of those who are a dwindling base of contributors to support the greediness of astronomical proportions and the government is the recipient of easy target fingerpointing. If we insist on blaming government for a sick system, we are trying to fix the wrong problems." My initial reply was the following: "There are many causes of the problems in medical care which I have also written about on m...

National Lack of Integrity

According to dictionary.com the definition of integrity is: "adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty". Integrity in politics is becoming more scarce than ice cubes in hell. For example, a Huffington Post blog on why people really hate Hillary, was recently shared on Facebook. This blog post was one of the most egregious examples I have ever seen of felony intellectual fraud. The sum and substance of this blog excused everything St. Hillary the Martyr has ever done, or been accused of, because Trump is SO much worse. It then concluded that the real reason people hate her is because she's a woman. I'm not sure if I was more disturbed by the violent dry-heaving caused by this tripe or the fact that someone who I respect, who is smart and accomplished actually believes and shared it. If ever there were a more glaring example of the systemic loss of national integrity in the United States, it is the Presidential Election of 2016. ...