GOP Lawmakers Complain About Revised Mammogram Guidelines While Opposing Requirements For More Tests
GOP Lawmakers Complain About Revised Mammogram Guidelines While Opposing Requirements For More Tests
On Wednesday, a group of women GOP lawmakers held a press conference to denounce a new recommendation by the federal Preventive Services Task Force that women receive mammograms less frequently. “This is how rationing begins,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). “This is the little toe in the edge of the water.”
“Women in particular may lose a great deal of clout in decision making,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). “We don’t know how far government will go in this bureaucracy,” she added, noting that they “want to empower women” and “want to have all the data on the table so individuals can make the best decision they can.”
On MSNBC this afternoon, Dr. Nancy Snyderman took Blackburn to task for getting the “public health message lost in the politics.” “Now, there’s nothing that came out of this panel recommending rationing,” said Snyderman. “Just a prudent use of screening tests.” When Blackburn tried to claim that the guidelines meant “bureaucrats deciding what they’re going to allow,” Snyderman pointed out that Blackburn was acting as a “bureaucrat” standing between patients and “the best possible evidence”:
BLACKBURN: It is troubling also that another of our colleagues has said many times, we. And that we means bureaucrats deciding what they’re going to allow.
SNYDERMAN: But you’re one of those bureaucrats. You’re my bureaucrat!
BLACKBURN: But I’m not, no. And you see, I don’t think a bureaucrat should be between a patient and a doctor. See, I don’t want to be that bureaucrat.
SNYDERMAN: Excuse me, I think that’s exactly where you are right now.
Watch it:
As the Washington Independent’s Mike Lillis notes, the concern of the congresswomen about rationed mammograms is especially ironic considering that they oppose legislation that “would require insurance companies that cover diagnostic mammograms also to cover routine, annual breast cancer screenings for all women 40 and older.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
.
Grayson was correct. The G(no)P plan is…
… DO NOT GET SICK.
… IF SICK, DIE QUICKLY!
.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:33 pmThese guys are immoral. They have no empathy and live off people’s fear. Steven King could not come up with a more terrifing creature than the men who are in the Repug Party.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:34 pmWell, that shut her up.
Tennessee politicians tend not to be the brightest of the lot*
*with no particular offense intended for anyone here from the great state of Tennessee. also, with exceptions to Al Gore Sr/Jr, Estes Kefauver, and Steve Cohen.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:35 pmIt’s a shame that no one is covering why they want to reduce mammograms. Mammograms expose a woman’s body to radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray, which poses risks of cancer. Mammography also compresses a woman’s breasts tightly, and often painfully, which could lead to a lethal spread of cancerous cells, should they exist.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:38 pmCan anyone point me to any research which measures the value of monthly self exams as compared to annual mammograms for women under 50 and data as to whether or not women are in fact executing this simple cost effective procedure?
November 20th, 2009 at 4:39 pmDamned Straight!
We don’t want to require insurance companies to cover diagnostic mammograms also to cover routine, annual breast cancer screenings for all women 40 and older, but we “want to empower women” and “want to have all the data on the table so individuals can make the best decision they can, so that when the insurance company denies your claim you can yell at the bureaucrat who allowed this travesty to occur.
Wait…Wait, that would be me..WTF?
November 20th, 2009 at 4:42 pmI was waiting for the I know you are but what am I retort from one of the conservative women.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:43 pmBlue in a Red State,
Statistics show that the numbers of tumors from radiation received through screening are virtually the same numbers of women who are diagnosed IF they weren’t screened early.
Are you suggesting that women NOT get screened just to prevent a potential tumor?
Whet then, about the women who’s early screening do catch tumors? Your rant leaves them out of your equation.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:46 pmIs there anything the GOP won’t use for cheap, partisan purposes?
I believe the recommendation was that Republican women stop getting mammograms. At any age. Especially Bachman and Blackburn – yeah, that’s the ticket – I remember seeing them specifically told to do nothing for themselves along the lines of preventative care.
Trust Jeebus, GOP ladies, and you’ll be just fine…..
November 20th, 2009 at 4:46 pmThis is a recommendation of people who review scads of data, nothing more than a recommendation that people don’t consume more that a certain number of eggs in a week or drink more than a certain number of alcoholic beverages a day or consume 5 servings of vegetables daily.
But just who is really going to implement this? As I see it, it will be the insurance companies that will take these guidelines and use them to cut services to women, not the government.
It isn’t the government that will ration the care, it will be the insurance companies that refuse to pay for the testing based on these new guidelines.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:46 pmSmiles,, I am wondering if the congress lady removed her shoes before she inserted her feet in her mouth and azzz.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:46 pmThen swap them, So how they taste there.
I can’t understand the GOPs lack of empathy. They KNOW people are dying, they KNOW people are losing their homes, they KNOW if this continues it will affect every one in middle class and they won’t be able to afford it. They are willing to torpedo something that can benefit millions of people. WHY? Because if it is successful, people will never vote Republican again. But instead of joining together and pass something meaningful, they will forgo all of it just to score politcal points to regain power. That is immoral.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:51 pm.
Insurance Companies write their policies based on these “GUIDELINES” and “RECOMMENDATIONS”.
THAT’S YOUR RATIONING!
.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:51 pm“You’re MY bureaucrat…”. Best line this year from a media member…
And that’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman to you, bozo Congresswoman bureaucrat…
November 20th, 2009 at 4:54 pmI think you can make a pretty convincing case that Republicans are always against public health on principle. I think they would happily expunge ’support the general welfare’ from the preamble of the Constitution if they could.
November 20th, 2009 at 4:57 pmWhen are people going to stop taking Republicans seriously?
Seriously!
Everyone knows what they are now, including them.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:01 pm“We women in particular may lose a great deal of clout in decision making,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). “
November 20th, 2009 at 5:04 pmWeI don’tknow how far my government will go inthismy bureaucracy,”Influential US lawmakers on Thursday called for levying a new income tax to pay for the war in Afghanistan, warning its costs pose a mortal threat to efforts like a sweeping health care overhaul.
How about we GTFO?? And use what we save for health insurance reform instead
November 20th, 2009 at 5:07 pmWell it’s about time they found a new scare tactic.
That death panels meme was getting a bit stale.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:08 pmGOP has reached a new low when they complain that Obama wants to take away doctor control of health care and then slam doctor recommendations. It’s just all politics…
http://www.political-buzz.com/
November 20th, 2009 at 5:20 pmThe ONLY difference between Blackburn and Palin………Blackbaurn got elected to congress. This B*t*h is a nut job!!!!
November 20th, 2009 at 5:21 pmThere is a difference between RATIONING… and using Scientifically based research to evaluate the efficacy of various Medical Proceedures.
A Routine proceedure, that is NOT beneficial is a WASTE of Health Care Dollars.
Sec. Sebelius said , on the record, that Women should Talk to their Doctors about WHETHER to get a Mamogram… & not just Routinely Get One, regardless of their individual situation.
And we already RATION Healthcare…by ability to pay, and by insurance Company Recisions.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:23 pmNovember 20th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Why don’t the vote down, thumbs down babies show their faces. Pussy cowards all of them.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:35 pmP.D.
November 20th, 2009 at 5:40 pmIt’s laundry day for them. They need time to bleach out the pooper stains from their diapers.
dbadass says:
Can anyone point me to any research which measures the value of monthly self exams as compared to annual mammograms for women under 50 and data as to whether or not women are in fact executing this simple cost effective procedure?
November 20th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Perhaps this may be of assistance:
Summary of Recommendations and Evidence
Here’s what the USDHHS used for their research.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:02 pmMax Anax junius -1
What I posted was not in any way a rant. It is based upon medical research. Here’s a quote:
“The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade’s screening,” points out Dr. Samuel Epstein, one of the top cancer experts.
* In July 1995, The Lancet again wrote about mammograms, saying “The benefit is marginal, the harm caused is substantial, and the costs incurred are enormous …”
* Dr. Charles B. Simone, a former clinical associate in immunology and pharmacology at the National Cancer Institute, said, “Mammograms increase the risk for developing breast cancer and raise the risk of spreading or metastasizing an existing growth.”
* “The high sensitivity of the breast, especially in young women, to radiation-induced cancer was known by 1970. Nevertheless, the establishment then screened some 300,000 women with Xray dosages so high as to increase breast cancer risk by up to 20 percent in women aged 40 to 50 who were mammogramed annually,” wrote Dr. Epstein.
This is an emotional issue but please don’t get so emotional. Trying to get some facts vs. emotion in the thread.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:22 pmebbAndflow:
Here’s a link to a free site that you may have to sign up for:
Do a search using mammogram on his site for more articles.
BTW, the best means of detection is thermography. Non invasive, accurate, finds potential cancer way before self exam and a mammogram.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:27 pmI want to see the day when PSA tests are not recommended for men over 50.
I want to see the day when Viagra is not covered under insurance plans.
Women’s health issues are always up for debate, discussion and denial — men’s issues are not.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:38 pmActually doctors no longer recommend PSA tests for much the same reason that they are reducing mammograms. False positives are common with both and lead to anxiety and invasive testing.
I have a neighbor who had a high PSA that led them to insert radioactive pellets into his prostate (major hospital around 2004-5). Those pellets damaged his prostate and surrounding organs which required subsequent surgeries. Yet there are much more natural and non-deadly means of treating the disease like a well researched (Columbia U, Cleveland Clinic) herbal supplement called Zyflamend.
There are many flaws in conventional medicine that should be re-evaluated for effectiveness.
November 20th, 2009 at 6:47 pmI live in New Jersey which requires by law that insurance companies pay for a yearly mammogram and pap smear. It’s the Republicans that want to sell insurance across state lines–it worked so well for the banks.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:19 pmoh goody… i’ve been doing some digging, to find out when the task force study was initiated (maybe i should’ve checked here first, but i’ve been away all day and scarce for several days)…
here is what i found:
Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force*
+ Author Affiliations
1.
From the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland.
Abstract
Reader Survey: Will the USPSTF Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations change what you do?
Description: Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer in the general population.
[...]
http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/716.abstract
.
.
Screening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
[...]
Abstract
Background: This systematic review is an update of evidence since the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on breast cancer screening.
[...]
Data Sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the fourth quarter of 2008), MEDLINE (January 2001 to December 2008), reference lists, and Web of Science searches for published studies and Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium for screening mammography data.
[...]
http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/727.abstract
.
more to follow…
November 20th, 2009 at 8:33 pmthe original 2002 study (the conclusion is a bit different):
Breast Cancer Screening: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
[...]
Abstract
Purpose: To synthesize new data on breast cancer screening for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:41 pm[...]
Conclusions: In the randomized, controlled trials, mammography reduced breast cancer mortality rates among women 40 to 74 years of age. Greater absolute risk reduction was seen among older women. Because these results incorporate several rounds of screening, the actual number of mammograms needed to prevent one death from breast cancer is higher. In addition, each screening has associated risks and costs.
[...]
This review was commissioned to assist the current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in updating its recommendations on breast cancer screening. We focus on information that was not available in 1996, when the second USPSTF examined the issue (6). Our goal was to critically appraise and synthesize evidence about the overall effectiveness of breast cancer screening, as well as its effectiveness among women younger than 50 years of age.
[...]
http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/727.abstract
About USPSTF
The New U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), first convened by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1984, and since 1998 sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), is the leading independent panel of private-sector experts in prevention and primary care. The USPSTF conducts rigorous, impartial assessments of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are considered the “gold standard” for clinical preventive services.
The mission of the USPSTF is to evaluate the benefits of individual services based on age, gender, and risk factors for disease; make recommendations about which preventive services should be incorporated routinely into primary medical care and for which populations; and identify a research agenda for clinical preventive care.
Background and Mission
Public Law Section 915 mandates that AHRQ convene the USPSTF to conduct scientific evidence reviews of a broad array of clinical preventive services, develop recommendations for the health care community, and provide ongoing administrative, research, technical, and dissemination support.
The Task Force’s pioneering efforts began with the 1989 Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. A second edition of the Guide was published in 1996. The current Guide to Clinical Preventive Services is available on the Web.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:45 pm[...]
http://www.uspreventiveservices.com/index.cfm
This is what health care rationing is all about.
November 20th, 2009 at 8:52 pmand, just an fyi…
my doctor told be a few years ago that guidelines for pap test had changed to every 2 years over 50…
the more i learn about the breast exam guidelines the more logical it sounds…
once again, i think team obama overestimated the intelligence of the general populace and released the information without
due caution and explanation…
they should’ve known it would be confusing…
AND that the frighties would go negative…
but SOMEbody needs to point out when this task force study was started…
not?
November 20th, 2009 at 8:56 pmDidn’t Congresswoman Blackburn learn not to try arguing with someone who is smarter than you are when Al Gore schooled her in that hearing?
November 20th, 2009 at 9:17 pmDoes this mean that Blackburn and the Republicans are in favor of a woman discussing legal reproductive options with their Doctors or is it OK for white southern christianist bureaucrats to step in there?
November 20th, 2009 at 10:01 pmOOOH PLEASE Democraps! You got caught! fess up!
The health Insurance company bonanza that is “health. insurance reform” will ration the poor, and working poors health care while the rich elitist get any kind of health care they want! Look at what’s happening with the token “post racial” negro in Massachusetts!
You mean to tell me that you’ve never heard of women under 50 developing breast cancer ???
Please tell me that there are Democraps out there with a heart somewhere…
How about the Editors of the NY Slimes agree to ration their own healthcare ? Then I’ll stop the critique.
November 20th, 2009 at 10:19 pmDr Venture
GOD you are stupid and brainwashed. You really NEVER know what you are talking about do you? Did you know there is NO really safe exposure level for radiation? Too many X rays are not good for you. Just like letting screechmonkeys do your thinking for you turns brains into mush. Of course you never HAD a functional brainpan and were BORN too stupid to think for yourself so I guess you have nothing to lose
November 21st, 2009 at 4:24 amOk now I know you people are don’t come out of your basement.
Eugene,
A yearly mammogram is not considered unsafe. And for someone who goes ranting about thinking for yourself, everything Obama says is like gospel to you. And you also write like you are about 15 with all the name calling.
You are just mad that Palin was right about Death Panels.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:03 amOur ignorant local paper also latched onto this, claiming in an editorial yesterday that this is just a preview of what to expect from health care reform.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:33 amYou are just mad that Palin was right about Death Panels.
No one is right about anything, you idiot. No bill has been signed into law and this nonsense about “Death Panels” is nothing but someone’s opinion.
On the other hand, Palin is such a f-king expert on Russia, so who knows.
November 21st, 2009 at 11:57 amfrances
It really isnt my fault you are so incredibly stupid. The LESS Xrays you can take the better. There is NO SAFE AMOUNT of exposure to radiation PERIOD. It is considered that the risks are acceptable thats it. Still if they arent necessary you shouldnt take them and that is all that is being said. My GOD you are stupid. There is NO ONE advocating anything like death panels and only someone as stupid and brainwashed as YOU. Only those who let Rush do their thinking for them even take that idiotic talking point seriously. Palin is also that stupid. It isnt anyone elses fault you are such a brainwashed moron
November 21st, 2009 at 5:42 pmThe process, starting from the original redaction of policy-until its full local implementation, realistically consumes months of time! IMO, any existing, shortages or gluts of goods and services at the local level, always has the potential to produce short, or mid-term, cautions-or rationing-locally.
However, media may frequently report only certain selected aspects of a normally, balanced approach, toward overseeing general health and safety, solely to the detriment of those un-biased points of view, which it had managed to highlight! IMO, the basic trouble with the ’survey’ value of such ommissions, is the representation of a ‘dividend’ of confusion between totals of real instances of rationing, versus actual, or perceived cases of rationing.
Classically, the standard facts underlying all correct social analysis, and the only real, beneficial conclusions will extrapolate from aggregate data of seniors citizens, adults, men, women, or children counted, in localized surveys.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:56 am