New mammogram advice from gov't: Wait another 10 years

Say what?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575371,00.html

Yes, here is it - the government has decided that what getting a mammogram starting at age 40 isn't worthwhile, you should wait until you're 50. Oh yes, and don't bother with yearly scans; every-other year is fine too. Oh, and self exams aren't actually productive either. Too many false positives.

Sad to say, but my first gut reaction was: Is this the beginning of "rationed healthcare"? Is this how they are going to cut down on health care costs?

It makes no sense to me to change the recommendations when so many lives have been saved by early detection. Who has really been detrimentally injured by playing it safe?

I just have to wonder about the cost issue because I know that my insurance covers 1 per year at zero expense to me. I know those tests aren't cheap. I guess when the government is looking into getting into the insurance business for the masses then it makes sense to reduce the number of expensive tests recommended because then they don't have to cover those expensive tests nearly as often.

Maybe I think of it a little differently because I lost my mother to breast cancer. Even if self exams showed irregularities 99% of the time, the 1% that found something before they would have gotten a mammogram that turned out to be cancer makes those false positives and biopsies worth it, expense wise. For those 1% who were able to get into treatment and not die because the cancer was detected early it was definitely worth it.

For the record, my mother had no family history of cancer, and didn't fit into any of the so-called risk groups. She still got cancer. It still killed her. And it was in large part because she did find an irregularity and her doctor didn't think it was a big enough deal to get it tested for 3 years. So for at least 3 years she had cancer that was completely unchecked because her doctor was sure it was "just a cyst". Thank goodness he retired! Mom had a good case to sue him but that wasn't her way; but she still blamed him for not taking the precautions he should have.

But now you have the government saying that you shouldn't even check for those lumps and bumps, let alone get them biopsied, because there are too many false positives. I guess if you don't find the cancer for a few years it's cheaper to treat since the person certainly won't live as long either.

IMO if you don't want to get screened that is 100% your choice. I wouldn't say boo about your choice. How often any individual gets them, when they choose to start getting them, and how much of a risk the radiation from the mammogram poses is really between that person and their doctor. If your doctor doesn't think you need to start getting screened until you're 50, fine. If you don't like the risks of the tests, OK. (I get an MRI of my head & spine at least once/year, possibly twice - the radiation from a little mammogram doesn't make me think twice compared to that! ) If the idea of being diagnosed with cancer scares you more than just dying from it, that's still your choice to make.

What worries me about them changing these recommendations is that currently my insurance does cover 100% of one mammogram/year, because that is what is recommended for women to get. If those recommendations change then regardless of what I or my doctor think is appropriate my insurance may or may not cover it. That is where my concern lies. I don't fall into the high-risk categories. My mother is the only one in my family with cancer, so they don't consider that a real family history. But if I want to start screening early, and my doctor recommends it, then I should be able to without paying out the nose for it.

And government option or no in the current legislation, they are still only offering insurance and if that insurance doesn't cover the screening then it doesn't cover the screening. My concern here is that they are putting the cart before the horse and using these kinds of recommendations (not just breast cancer, who knows what else they have down the pike) to reduce the number of claims and then claim to be changing the system and bringing down the costs to consumers.