Have Y'all Heard This News About Mammograms?

[Lynnie]

A few years ago, the standard was first (baseline) at 40 and then every two to three years until 50, then every year. Then, the standard was at 40, every year.

And, they are now talking about false-positives? I had a false positive at 34 and that mammogram became my baseline. I went every couple of years after that and argued that mine be covered by my carrier. Only one wasn't and I came out of pocket about $350 for that one. But, I'd rather be safe than sorry!

Now, I go every year and will continue to do so regardless of these proposed new recommendations. The new standard is based upon 1.6MM women/year receiving false positives and then undergoing additional testing costing up to $6K????? Who is gathering this information? I cannot imagine a biopsy and ultrasound after a mammogram costing that much!

This proposal in the midst of a potential government run health plan! Every body is different. Some women have been diagnosed in their 20's and some in their 70's. I say err on the side of caution!

Hmph!

 

[jpbhen]

ding ding ding ding ding!!!!!!! my bullsh---tometer is going off. this seems to be just in time for the new government-run healthcare folks to say that they don't need to cover quite so many mammograms.

i was diagnosed on my 35th birthday, biopsied, excised, carved up, and "nuked". would have been long dead under these new - stupid - rules. idiots.

 

[Lynnie]

ding ding ding ding ding!!!!!!! my bullsh---tometer is going off. this seems to be just in time for the new government-run healthcare folks to say that they don't need to cover quite so many mammograms.

i was diagnosed on my 35th birthday, biopsied, excised, carved up, and "nuked". would have been long dead under these new - stupid - rules. idiots.

Beach Angel, I am glad you're cancer free! We ALL have been touched by this either ourselves, family member or friend.

This article is from the CDC. I am just completely distressed that 'they' want to change the standard to first mammography at age 50 and then every two years after that.

There will be a backlash from this! And, it definitely smells fishy!

CDC - Breast Cancer Statistics

 

[scooterbug44]

ding ding ding ding ding!!!!!!! my bullsh---tometer is going off. this seems to be just in time for the new government-run healthcare folks to say that they don't need to cover quite so many mammograms.

i was diagnosed on my 35th birthday, biopsied, excised, carved up, and "nuked". would have been long dead under these new - stupid - rules. idiots.

And it's not just you!

Dunno about the stats on false positives, but given the number of my close friends who had breast cancer or needed biopsies/lumpectomies for something not found through exams they can take this new "advice" and shove it! :angry:

 

[Mango]

Here's an article from the New York Times about it. I was looking for one they ran a couple of weeks ago that discussed the same issues, ie, starting at 50 for mammos, etc. One thing that stood out to me, and also is in this article, is that woman can have cancers that are so slow growing they will never effect them? Last time I heard, cancer of any kind, any where, was not good. To me that's like being a little pregnant. They also quoted the dangers of radiation. Well, in case y'all didn't know, you get more radiation from an airplane trip from NY to San Francisco than you do from a chest x-ray.
I'm betting that they have been seeing the cost rising as well, because in addition to a mammo, it has become standard practice to do an ultrasound, especially if there is dense breast tissue.

Ironically, I had my mammo on the schedule right after I saw the article, and I inquired about this with the Dr. who reviewed the films. He had not heard anything about these findings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html

 

[scooterbug44]

Here's an article from the New York Times about it. I was looking for one they ran a couple of weeks ago that discussed the same issues, ie, starting at 50 for mammos, etc. One thing that stood out to me, and also is in this article, is that woman can have cancers that are so slow growing they will never effect them? Last time I heard, cancer of any kind, any where, was not good. To me that's like being a little pregnant. They also quoted the dangers of radiation. Well, in case y'all didn't know, you get more radiation from an airplane trip from NY to San Francisco than you do from a chest x-ray.
I'm betting that they have been seeing the cost rising as well, because in addition to a mammo, it has become standard practice to do an ultrasound, especially if there is dense breast tissue.

Ironically, I had my mammo on the schedule right after I saw the article, and I inquired about this with the Dr. who reviewed the films. He had not heard anything about these findings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html

Mama Scooterbug had to get an ultrasound because of a weird spot - the culprint: the technician's THUMB has skooshed her boob weird!

This whole thing sucks! It's hard enough getting women proper medical care!

 

[Lynnie]

I'd like to see who this task force whose Co-Chair is a Dr. from AZ State is 'in bed with.'

My cousin was diagnosed at 33! Double mastectomy at 43! Slow growing? Yes! But, dangerous, regardless. She is a local spokesperson for the American Cancer Society today and I'll go with their guidelines.

 

[scooterbug44]

Sebelius: U.S. mammogram policy unchanged - Cancer- msnbc.com

WASHINGTON - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says federal policy on who should get breast cancer screening has not changed.
Sebelius issued a statement Wednesday to ease confusion over a government panel's recommendation on Monday that said most women don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50. That recommendation was a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position that women should get screening mammograms starting at age 40.
The task force does "not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government," Sebelius said.

 

[Santiago]

Get ready for a hell of a lot more health care rationing when the annointed one gets his f'd up health care bill passed. It amazes me how many seemingly intelligent people are duped by this charlatan.

 

[Paula]

I have 3 friends who were diagnosed with breast cancer through mammograms before the age of 50. All 3 still alive and well and now cancer free thanks to the screening in their 40s. So, these new recommendations sure scare me.