Yesterday, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), a breast cancer survivor, accused Republicans of politicizing breast cancer. This afternoon, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) — a doctor who runs a private orthopedic practice and serves as Chief of Staff of the Wyoming Medical Center — proved her point. Barrasso called Fox News to register his opposition to the Senate health care bill and argue that the new mammogram guidelines would have pulled the plug on his wife:

And we just saw this past week the first step in rationing of health care in the country with this panel that they have, this preventive panel. A government panel that says women between 40 and 50 shouldn’t have mammograms. You know, my wife Bobbi is a breast cancer survivor. She was diagnosed by a mammogram, went for an operation, the cancer had already spread. The mammogram has saved her life, but yet this preventive panel that the bill says, this health care bill says, ‘oh no, they’re the ones who get to decide what preventive measures are paid for or not.’ That panel would have not allowed her to have this care.

Watch it:

Given Barrasso’s medical background and personal experience with breast cancer, his claim is especially irresponsible. It’s also completely inaccurate. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is an independent panel of experts first convened by the U.S. Public Health Service during the administration of President Ronald Reagan. The panel “is financed by the Department of Health and Human Services but works at arms length from it, making its decisions without consulting the agency.” Panelists are prohibited from “considering costs when they make guidelines.”

Rather than mandating “what preventive measures are paid for or not,” the task force issues recommendations that help doctors decide on a course of treatment. Providers can use the recommendations as a starting point to examine a patient’s particular needs, but the task force has no authority over coverage or treatment decisions.

Barrasso’s wife Bobbi Brown would have received a mammogram regardless of any recommendation. Wyoming, along with 48 other states, requires insurers to cover mammograms and if the Senate bill were to become law all insurers would be required to pay for the procedure.

Under the bill, health insurance issuers would offer “services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force” without “any cost sharing requirements.” Last week’s guideline was rated ‘C,’ meaning that the panel “recommends against routinely providing the service” but stipulates that doctors should “offer or provide this service only if other considerations support the offering or providing the service in an individual patient.”

Ultimately, the Panel’s recommendations are just guidelines, not mandates. They have no authority to “decide what preventive measures are paid for or not.”

Over the weekend, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released new estimates for how much a typical four-person family will spend on health care under the new merged Senate legislation. Below, I’ve compared the House bill with the Senate alternative and threw in the old Senate Finance Committee (SFC) numbers to show how Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) improved the affordability measures for middle class Americans.

The chart below indicates what percentage of income a family of four purchasing coverage within the new health insurance exchanges can expect to spend in 2016 on a health care plan with an actuarial value of 70% (in 2016 dollars):

Meanwhile, MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber ‘s new analysis relies on available CBO data to compare the cost of coverage within the Senate bill’s exchanges to the cost of an individual policy in the non-group market absent reform.

Even though the plan purchased under the Senate legislation would have an actuarial value of 70% — 10 percentage points higher than the policy sold in the individual market absent reform — a family would pay less for reform’s more substantial coverage than they would for a plan that offers less benefits and even fewer consumer protections in the unreformed individual market. Moreover, “the same plan that cost $6,000 without reform would cost $4,460 with reform, or 25% less,” Gruber concludes:

Analysis of the non-partisan information from the CBO suggests that for those facing purchase in the non-group market, the Senate bill will deliver savings ranging from $500 for singles to $1400 for families – even without subsidies. The savings are much larger for lower income populations that receive premium credits. This is in addition to the higher quality benefits that those in the exchange will receive, with actuarial values for low income populations well above what is typical in the non-group market today.

Correction: the original post incorrectly assumed that the CBO calculated premiums in 2009 dollars. The numbers for 2016 are actually calculated in 2016 dollars.

During an appearance on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), a breast cancer survivor, strongly criticized Republicans for suggesting that the new mammogram guidelines released by the Preventive Task Force last week would restrict access to cancer diagnosis. “What’s unfortunate is that, the Republicans and Ms. Blackburn, have for the first time politicized breast cancer,” she said.

In the exchange below, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) repeatedly misquoted the House health care bill to suggest that the Task Force’s guidelines would become law:

BLACKBURN: The guidelines that came out this week, by the Preventive Services Task Force, have a direct link to what would be offered if the House and the Senate bills were to go into law…if you go to page 1296 of the House bill, the engrossed copy…They become the law. They become the law. The mandate…. When you look at what’s going to happen with these 118 new bureaucracies on what insurances can be offered, and what’s going to be paid, you know that this is the bureaucrat in the exam room. This is how it’s going to happen. This is the first step.

Watch it:

In reality, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is an independent panel of experts in primary care and prevention. The panel offers evidence-based guidelines and issues recommendations on a scale of A to D (and even I) for providers to consider when treating patients. Grades A and B indicate that “there is high certainty that the net benefit is substantial” and suggest that providers “offer or provide this service.” Grade C “recommends against routinely providing the service” but stipulates that doctors should “offer or provide this service only if other considerations support the offering or providing the service in an individual patient.” Generally, all of these guidelines are a single piece of scientific data that could help guide physicians in treating individual patients. They are not binding.

The House and Senate health care bills only include “services recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services” in standard benefit packages, but even these guidelines could be expanded by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Last week’s mammogram guideline would not be included in the packages. It received a ‘C’ rating from the Task Force.

Ultimately, as Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz points out, Republicans are manipulating the Task Force decision to scare women into opposing a health reform package that expands access to screenings. The legislation requires insurance companies to cover mammograms and other cancer screenings at no additional cost, ends unfair insurer price discrimination against women and guarantees that all health insurers provide women with the health care services they need.