Less Mammography in my future

[ny biker]

Actually the recommendation regarding self exams was that having a doctor instruct the patient on how to do them was not helpful. It did not say that doing self exams was useless. I guess that means we are able to figure out how to do them on our own??

Anyway, as I said, due to my own risk factors I will continue getting annual mammograms unless my doctor advises otherwise. And I will be very surprised if he advises against them for my situation.

[shootingstar]

Each healthy woman makes an individual choice how often she would like to have a mammo...regardless of what her country's health care system advises.

I figure my chances on the bike on the road, I have greater chance of being doored, falling on the road (I have already --twice on ice.) or hit by a car (was hit as a pedestrian in front of a life insurance company)...are higher than breast cancer, at this time.

So I don't want to get a mammo yearly. Every 2 years ..continues to be the norm up in our jurisdiction...if a woman wants it that often.

As for being safe while cycling, that's why I would like my city to keep on building cycling infrastructure to make it safer. Meanwhile I continue to cycle my favourite routes that are quiet, etc.

Yes, it's all a risk. Meanwhile we all vigorously defend why we cycle so often on the road while other people think we are risking our lives/health.

[SLash]

I am high-risk for breast cancer and yet no family member has ever been diagnosed with breast cancer. I emailed my breast doc yesterday to see what he thought about the findings of the task force. I learned that prior to 1993; the National Cancer Institute endorsed mammography every 1-2 years in women age 40-49. Then in 1993 the NCI changed their policy and recommended mammograms at age 50. In 1996 the NCI changed its tune yet again and decided on “no policy”, then in 1997 they reinstated their original policy of mammograms ever 1-2 years for women in their 40s in accordance with the pre-1993 standards. Reportedly, none of these changes were based on new clinical trials either. Interesting huh…

In contrast, the American Cancer Society has maintained age 40 as the starting point for screening mammography from the beginning.

It is important to remember many women diagnosed with breast cancer have no known family history of breast cancer; and under the new guidelines if they are under the age of 50 they will not be targeted for a screening mammogram. According to the Task Force it is not statistically valid to screen women under age 50 because of the infrequency of cancer. I would say to the 1 woman per 1900 women in their 40’s that is found to have breast cancer, it is.

Dr. Otis Brawley, American Cancer Society's chief medical officer said it this way: the Task Force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1300 women in their 50's to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1900 women in their 40's to save one life is not."

If you are a conspiracy theorist like myself you have to wonder what is behind this change. For one thing there is a lot of money spent each year on biopsies generated often by mammograms and often resulting in a negative finding. The woman looks at that as great news, her insurance company may look at it as proof of an unnecessary and more importantly to them, expensive test. So, to avoid the cost of the mammogram, plus the potential costs generated from further tests and procedures, you stop doing the test that identifies the problem in the first place.

One of the real dangers is that because of this change in mammogram guidelines that in time some insurance companies will either not cover mammograms for women under the age of 50, or will cover them in very limited situations and that will result in fewer women getting them.

The fact is, coverage of mammograms expanded when the guidelines for mammograms changed to recommend them annually for women 40 years of age and older it is not unreasonable to think they will change again with the new guidelines.

When insurance companies do not cover preventative tests, people are not nearly as apt to get them, and when people do not get the preventative tests diseases such as cancer are not caught as early and the survival rate goes down. That's the real shame in all this.

Getting off soapbox now...

[Tuckervill]

I heard on the radio today that every state except Utah has laws that require insurance companies to cover mammograms for women 40+.

Karen

[SLash]

I heard on the radio today that every state except Utah has laws that require insurance companies to cover mammograms for women 40+.

Karen

The Natonal Women's Law Center has ranked each state's policy. See: http://hrc.nwlc.org/Policy-Indicator....aspx#footnote

"States that require private insurers to cover annual mammograms for women age 40 and older (1) are considered to have comprehensive breast cancer screenings and therefore receive a "meets policy." States receive a "limited policy" if they require private insurers to cover annual mammograms for women age 50 or older, or "if required by a physician." States receive a "weak policy" if they only require insurers to offer mammogram coverage as a benefit in employer-sponsored insurance plans, but have not required that it be a mandated benefit in all of these insurance plans. States that do not have any requirements regarding insurance coverage for mammograms receive a "no policy."

They show 20 states "meet policy", 27 states "limited policy" and 3 states "weak policy". The data is from 2007.