Feds to women in their 40s: Skip the mammogram; Update: Meet the task force

posted at 10:55 am on November 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

What a difference six months — and a health-care overhaul proposal — can make!  Just six months ago, the U.S Preventive Services Task Force, which works within the Department of Health and Human Services as a “best practice” panel on prevention, sounded a warning signal over a slight decline in annual mammograms among women in their 40s.  In fact, they warned women of this age bracket that they could be risking their lives if they didn’t get the annual preventive exam (via HA reader Devil’s Advocate):

The downward trend, however slight, has breast cancer experts worried. Mammograms can enable physicians to diagnose the disease at early stages, often before a lump can be felt. “When breast cancer is detected early, it often can be treated before it has a chance to spread in the body and increase the risk of dying from the disease,” says Katherine Alley, medical director of the breast health program at Suburban Hospital in Bethesda.

The U.S Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts working under the Department of Health and Human Services, recommends that women older than 40 get a mammogram every one to two years. The task force finds the test most helpful for women between ages 50 and 69, for whom it says the evidence is strongest that screening lowers death rates from breast cancer. Other groups, including the American Medical Association, suggest a more rigorous schedule, saying the test should be done every year; insurers often pay for annual tests.

But experts say they are seeing gaps beyond two years in many cases. Carol Lee, chair of the American College of Radiology’s Breast Imaging Commission and a radiologist at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, says many women understand that they need to have a mammogram but don’t go back for repeat tests after the first one. In Bethesda, Alley said she has even heard anecdotal reports of breast cancer survivors forgoing recommended mammograms.

But today, that same panel says … never mind:

“We’re not saying women shouldn’t get screened. Screening does saves lives,” said Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which released the recommendations Monday in a paper being published in Tuesday’s Annals of Internal Medicine. “But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully.”

Several patient advocacy groups and many breast cancer experts welcomed the new guidelines, saying they represent a growing recognition that more testing, exams and treatment are not always beneficial and, in fact, can harm patients. Mammograms produce false-positive results in about 10 percent of cases, causing anxiety and often prompting women to undergo unnecessary follow-up tests, sometimes-disfiguring biopsies and unneeded treatment, including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

But the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology and other experts condemned the change, saying the benefits of routine mammography have been clearly demonstrated and play a key role in reducing the number of mastectomies and the death toll from one of the most common cancers.

“Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and these idiots want to do away with it,” said Daniel B. Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School. “It’s crazy — unethical, really.”

What changed in six months to change the USPSTF from a sky-is-falling hysteric on a 1% decline in testing to Emily Litella?  If the administration gets its way, the government will be paying for a lot more of these exams when ObamaCare passes.  That will put a serious strain on resources, especially since many of the providers will look to avoid dealing with government-managed care and its poor compensation rates.

The motivation for HHS will be to cut costs, not to save lives.  The sudden reversal in six months of the USPSTF, especially after it made such a stink over a relatively minor decline in screening, certainly makes it appear that they have other priorities than life-saving in mind here.

One final thought.  Barack Obama predicated his ObamaCare vision on the notion that increased prevention would save costs.  Suddenly, his administration is for decreased screening and prevention.  Could that have anything to do with the CBO scoring on screening?  And what does that say about how government will make decisions once they control the compensation and care in the US?

Update: Courtesy of an anonymous reader, here are the members of the US Preventive Services Task Force.  See if you can figure out the one thing they all have in common:

Current members of the Task Force are listed below. They have recognized expertise in prevention, evidence-based medicine, and primary care.

Bruce N. Calonge, M.D., M.P.H. (Chair)
Chief Medical Officer and State Epidemiologist
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO

Diana B. Petitti, M.D., M.P.H. (Vice Chair)
Professor of Biomedical Informatics
Fulton School of Engineering
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ

Susan Curry, Ph.D.
Dean, College of Public Health
Distinguished Professor
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA

Allen J. Dietrich, M.D.
Professor, Community and Family Medicine
Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH

Thomas G. DeWitt, M.D.
Carl Weihl Professor of Pediatrics
Director of the Division of General and Community Pediatrics
Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH

Kimberly D. Gregory, M.D., M.P.H.
Director, Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Women’s Health Services Research
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA

David Grossman, M.D., M.P.H.
Medical Director, Preventive Care and Senior Investigator, Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative
Professor of Health Services and Adjunct Professor of Pediatrics
University of Washington, Seattle, WA

George Isham, M.D., M.S.
Medical Director and Chief Health Officer
HealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN

Michael L. LeFevre, M.D., M.S.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO

Rosanne Leipzig, M.D., Ph.D
Professor, Geriatrics and Adult Development, Medicine, Health Policy
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY

Lucy N. Marion, Ph.D., R.N.
Dean and Professor, School of Nursing
Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA

Joy Melnikow, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine
Associate Director, Center for Healthcare Policy and Research
University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA

Bernadette Melnyk, Ph.D., R.N., C.P.N.P./N.P.P.
Dean and Distinguished Foundation Professor in Nursing
College of Nursing & Healthcare Innovation
Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ

Wanda Nicholson, M.D., M.P.H., M.B.A.
Associate Professor
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD

J. Sanford (Sandy) Schwartz, M.D.
Leon Hess Professor of Medicine, Health Management, and Economics
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and Wharton School, Philadelphia, PA

Timothy Wilt, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor, Department of Medicine, Minneapolis VA Medical Center
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

What do they have in common?  There isn’t a single oncologist among them, at least not as a listed specialty by the USPSTF published roster.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Let the rationing begin … ladies first!

kregg on November 17, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Why do the feds want to cut down so many women in their tax paying prime?

Tommy_G on November 17, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Hey, they have to do something to get American mortality of breast cancer up to the standards of government-run health care systems around the world.

michaelo on November 17, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Just a bunch of boobs running this administration…

right2bright on November 17, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Things you hate to hear: “If you would have caught this last year, your odds would be much better…”

right2bright on November 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Women, give up your boobs for national health care!

Why are you being so selfish when so many don’t have health insurance, ladies?

JoeinTX on November 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM

But…but…I thought the Obama Administration was supposed to care about us more. /s

kingsjester on November 17, 2009 at 11:01 AM

I’m sure that there’s a provision in the 2000 plus pages of ObamaCare where The One will discover a cure for cancer. He’s doing so well cleaning the air and stilling the oceans.

GarandFan on November 17, 2009 at 11:02 AM

lorien1973 called it right, it is boobie Tuesday at HotAir.

WashJeff on November 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM

And so the death panels begin their work.

Wonder if Michelle Obama will forego her screenings. Yeah, right.

NebCon on November 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Just give them a painkiller.

Doughboy on November 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM

You could be risking your life by not detecting breast cancer early? No death panels here..move along..move along.

vcferlita on November 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM

What does Senator Boxer call a ma’ammogram?

WashJeff on November 17, 2009 at 11:04 AM

So the party of “preventative care” and “Health Reform is a women’s issue” has now determined that they can’t afford for it to be either…

Watch as Nancy Pelosi addresses this in the coming days by replying: “Democrats is Congress will not stand for reduced coverage for women. This is exactly what we’re trying to prevent with our health care proposal. This is obviously the result of 8 years of bad policy and I contend that I have been lied to, repeatedly, by this council. However, I have amended HR3920 to include a contribution by manufacturers of mammograms, their operators, maintainers, and cleaners to cover all associated costs for increased breast care for women. With the passage of the House Democrats Bill, women will once-again be able to have breast exams beginning at the age of 48.”

BKeyser on November 17, 2009 at 11:05 AM

When do the HANDS OFF MY BOOBS! t-shirts come out?

When is the report on colonoscopies due out?

Then I can get a bumper sticker – HANDS OFF MY COLON.

reaganaut on November 17, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Meh, even if the screening found something unusual, more than likely the doctor would recommend removing your tonsils or feet instead. This is smart policy from the smartest administration ever.

Bishop on November 17, 2009 at 11:06 AM

I wonder how long the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology and other experts will stick to their guns? I guess the Dems will say they’re being “unAmerican.”

katiejane on November 17, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Yeah ladies, skip the mammogram! And brushing your teeth and looking both ways before crossing the street is way overrated.

Scott P on November 17, 2009 at 11:06 AM

/sarc, of course.

Scott P on November 17, 2009 at 11:07 AM

hmmm…no more choice for a woman’s body, huh???

search4truth on November 17, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Per President Reagan,the words you never want to hear: “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.” Yep. Government-Run Healthcare…about as ethical as the escort service run out of Bawney Fwanks’ house.

kingsjester on November 17, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Mammograms produce false-positive results in about 10 percent of cases, causing anxiety and often prompting women to undergo unnecessary follow-up tests, sometimes-disfiguring biopsies and unneeded treatment, including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

If you get to the surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy stage, you’ve got cancer. What do these people take us for?

unclesmrgol on November 17, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Mammograms produce false-positive results in about 10 percent of cases, causing anxiety and often prompting women to undergo unnecessary follow-up tests

The purpose of follow-up testing is to confirm or deny. To call these unnecessary tests after the fact is sheer lunacy.

ICBM on November 17, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Barry, keep out of my bra!

bloggless on November 17, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Things you hate to hear: “If you would have caught this last year, your odds would be much better…”

right2bright on November 17, 2009 at 11:00 AM

This happened to a good friend of mine. She is a active duty member of the Marine Corps of 20 years and was misdiagnosed for 3 years. They told her it was just a cyst. A month ago she had her left breast and lymphnodes removed. She is going through chemo now. She is a brave and beautiful woman and committed to her recovery. Two weeks ago we had a “head shaving” party and auctioned off 4 different hair styles. We did the “mullett” the “mowhawk” the “high and tight” and “bald”. She raised over $400 to donate to breast cancer research.
Nothing is going to stop this young woman (38 years old) and I am honored to be her friend.

milwife88 on November 17, 2009 at 11:08 AM

Does this surprise anyone? Didn’t think so…

SHARPTOOTH on November 17, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Let the rationing begin … ladies libs first!

kregg on November 17, 2009 at 10:58 AM

FIFY

grapeknutz on November 17, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Perfect timing for this to come out now, maybe more people will see the fallacy of government run health care.

fourdeucer on November 17, 2009 at 11:09 AM

I heard this listening to National Pravda Radio this morning.

NPR tried to balance their discussion with doctors both for and against early screening.

The doctor against early screening implied that women were scared into getting tested early by their doctors – in effect less screening would save money and cut down on unnecessary surgeries (hmmmm … where have we heard that before).

The doctor for early screening was only for it if a woman had a family history of breast cancer, or if she showed other signs of being a candidate for early screening. How the heck does a woman show signs without seeing her doctor and getting tested?

Mark Boabaca on November 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM

I had both contradictory points in mind when I heard about this story yesterday — the cost reduction motive, and the preventive care motive. Ed’s spot on.

Patrick Ishmael on November 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Why does President Obama hate women?

BadgerHawk on November 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM

This recommendation is not new. Several years ago there was a move to advise women on having a mammogram every 2 years instead of yearly. People went nuts. I have tried to convince my doctor that every other year is a good idea. She won’t hear of it, she makes me smash those puppies yearly.

bopbottle on November 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM

This is dangerous. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer nine years ago. She’d been getting regular mammograms after she turned 40, but she then learned she had another medical issue and skipped her next three mammograms. Once the other issue was taken care of, she got another mammogram and learned she had a tumor. Her last visit, three years earlier, had revealed that she might have a problem, but it had gotten exponentially worse since then.

My mother was lucky though. It hadn’t spread to her lymph nodes, and she’s healthy today, but she wouldn’t have caught that tumor on her own and could have died if she’d been forced to wait four more years until she was 50.

Though there’s no proven genetic link, I’ve been told that I should start getting yearly mammograms at 36, as her tumor had likely been growing since then. That’s something I plan on taking seriously if I’m allowed.

Esthier on November 17, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Why does President Obama hate women?

BadgerHawk on November 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Have you met Michelle?

milwife88 on November 17, 2009 at 11:12 AM

“I never met a boob I cared about.”-BHO,2009

Yoop on November 17, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Boobs vs. wade

tomas on November 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM

This reminds me of the time in the 1990s when North Korea was going through droughts/floods/famines and the news meme of the time was “Let’s eat 2 meals a day!” as if that was a good thing.

Stop propogandizing our health care.

BTW ladies, I will be happy to lend a hand in your breast examinations.

rbj on November 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM

This is not an area that Obama needs to put his crack-stained teleprompter. This is an area that is off limits to all, save for a woman and her doctor. If she’s 30, and she and her doctor feel she needs a mammogram. So be it. “Age” is only one tiny factor. Obama needs to stay out of it, and concentrate on selling crack near school yards or whatever he and Ayers did to “earn” a living….

Cinday Blackburn on November 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM

The death panel strikes!

I thought Obama HMO was all about preventive medicine??

evergreen on November 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM

I’m not 40 yet and I already have my MIL telling me to get a mammogram. I said I don’t think I can yet. Cancer runs in my family so when I reach 40 I hope to be able to get them. Cause I didn’t vote for this change.

Brat4life on November 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM

The women in my life will continue to get early mammograms, even if I have to skip some meals to pay for them.
Fcuk 0bama.

OmahaConservative on November 17, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Your Attention Please!
Chocolate Ration is Increased
Eighty Grammes per Week.

I feel like I am living in 1984. The book, not the year. In the governor’s race just passed in New Jersey, Corzine’s biggest knock against Christie is that, somehow or another, Christie had voted to eliminate funding for mammograms. This charge was featured in 90% of Corzines gazillion ads. You got the impression that the only function of NJ state government was to provide free mammograms, and Christie was not up to the challenge.

Now, a few weeks later, Obama’s Death Panels are cutting mammogram screenings for everybody. I was reading that cutting all mammograms for women aged 40 – 50 would result in only 0.7 deaths per 1000 women. It doesn’t sound like much, until you do the math and figure out that that adds up to about 150,000 needlessly dead women nationwide.

If this is what we can expect from Obama’s Death Panels, I want no part of it!

Haiku Guy on November 17, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Not to long ago, Obama was talking about stopping unneccessary testing wasn’t he? Well, here ya’ go. Next will be the “certain treatments are too expensive” when it comes to treating the cancer that was allowed to grow because it wasn’t found sooner.

But, hey, it isn’t rationing or death panels or anything- right?

cibolo on November 17, 2009 at 11:14 AM

They all seem to have had their waffles this morning. A few years ago coffee was bad for you, now we need it; drinking was bad now wine is good. I’m losing all trust in any medical advice. I will get opinions, then use my own common sense and logic to determine a choice. Of course if they cut medicare, all bets are off.

Kissmygrits on November 17, 2009 at 11:14 AM

This administration is totally uncaring and inept. By the way Ed, thank you for keeping us abreast of the situation.

kingsjester on November 17, 2009 at 11:15 AM

How about someone tells Pelosi to stop hogging the mammogram machines with her face.

LibTired on November 17, 2009 at 11:15 AM

So now women are supposed to die early so the savings can be passed onto government rationed Obamacare.

Granny, now women …

tarpon on November 17, 2009 at 11:15 AM

Last night Greta interviewed Olivia Newton-John and they discussed early mammograms and self-examinations being a huge deal in stopping breast cancer early. I was very sad to hear Greta say that Jennifer Griffin on Fox, who usually reports from the Pentagon and was the reporter in Israel that aided greatly in getting the Fox reporter and cameraman out of the hands of Hamas, she is undergoing treatment for breast cancer.

All the throngs of women who marveled at Obama and wished their husbands were more like him; so how is that hope and change working out for you now? Are you feeling the love from The Manchild?

I am 43 and we recently had a scare. This is an insult to women in America and worldwide when it comes to proven science regarding early detection. I also find this terribly offensive to our former First Lady Laura Bush, who we all know chose to be an advocate worldwide for early mammograms and self-examination. She has specifically targeted the women in Middle Eastern countries regarding breast cancer issues.

Somehow this smacks of the survival of the fittest type mentality. I am channeling all the moves made by the Third Reich when it comes to medical practices. What happened in the past six months indeed! What changed? It would appear there really are death panels and they decided not to wait until Universal Death Star Care was passed.

freeus on November 17, 2009 at 11:16 AM

I see a gap cover in Obama’s carrier battlegroup on this one.

Attack sub USS Sarahcuda is gonna put 3 in his side on this one.

Got Facebook?

Sapwolf on November 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM

I posted this elsewhere earlier, but it fits here, too.

They haven’t even passed CommieCare (yet), and already the otherwise unemployable idiot government bureaucrats (independent government-appointed panel my a__ ) are pushing rationing based solely on costs.

I wonder how many women will heed this and put off their test until, say, they are fifty, and then are going to be told one or all of the following:

A) Their previously undetected (imagine that!) cancer is now too advanced to treat

B) They are too old for treatment

C) They are not allowed to pay for treatment out of their own pocket, because that just wouldn’t be faaaaaaaaaaaayer to those who cannot afford it themselves.

Just when are the dumbMasses among us going to wake up to what is really happening to this country?

Given the results of this just released poll, I’d say quite possibly never:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A majority of Americans say taxing the rich to pay for health care for have-nots works for them. A new Associated Press poll finds that of all the approaches Congress is considering to pay for the health care overhaul, the only one that got majority support was a new income tax on upper-income people.

Since the bulk of these “rich” are small business owners, a fact that clearly has escaped these poll responders, the very first people who should be canned are those who were stoopid enough to vote for Obama.

After all, it’s time the government-educated morons among us who voted to essentially wreck this country last November started paying for their profound stupidity.

Dave R. on November 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Mammograms produce false-positive results in about 10 percent of cases, causing anxiety and often prompting women to undergo unnecessary follow-up tests, sometimes-disfiguring biopsies and unneeded treatment, including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

So we’re going to change the yearly screening of mammograms just for those 10% of false positives and throw the other 90% under the Obama bus?

This sounds like gender discrimination.

moonsbreath on November 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM

If they are so worried about cost keep the unnecessary procedures out like abortion, so that women can have mammograms starting at the age of 40. It makes no sense we will pay for abortions that a person has control over to something like cancer which a woman has no control over.
Make these idiots go away.

Brat4life on November 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM

Like I would listen to anything this administration had to say.

txag92 on November 17, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Boob Panels

faraway on November 17, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Brat4life on November 17, 2009 at 11:18 AM

/ Please stop being logical.

OmahaConservative on November 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM

This report also states that self exams are unnecessary. I fail to see the logic in that since it doesn’t cost anyone anything unless a woman finds something. Are they suggesting that more money has been wasted over discoveries by women that turned out to be nothing then lives saved for self exams?

Cindy Munford on November 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM

If this is what they want to do with the popular diseases…

LibTired on November 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM

I have paid into my insurance plan for 19 friggin years and this broad ain’t skipping NOTHING. NADA. This will now empower me to insist on TWO MAMMO’S each year. phuckers.

Ris4victory on November 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM

So, is it now my patriotic duty to conduct free breast examinations?

Well, if somebody’s gotta do it, it might as well be me.

TXUS on November 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM

Menstruating women have denser breast tissue that’s harder to read. I don’t think this is mostly about cost-saving. They’ve just decided that the risk of radiation, small as it is, is not worth the benefits of early detection until about age 50, when tumors are much more likely to be there in the first place, and easier to find when they are. For younger women, there’s still physical examination. Unnecessary radiation is not a good thing. The benefits have to outweigh the risks.

RBMN on November 17, 2009 at 11:22 AM

I’m not 40 yet and I already have my MIL telling me to get a mammogram.

Brat4life on November 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Better get it done now while a) you still have your own doctor; and b) you can get it done without waiting in line or on a list.

Mark Boabaca on November 17, 2009 at 11:22 AM

I’d be really interested to know if Michelle Obama is going to stop having mammograms.

Any bets?

Realist on November 17, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Let hope the “O’bots” see this and bring this o/care to a HALT!These people are so predictable.LOL

ohiobabe on November 17, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Mammograms produce false-positive results in about 10 percent of cases, causing anxiety and often prompting women to undergo unnecessary follow-up tests, sometimes-disfiguring biopsies and unneeded treatment, including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.

This happened to my mom, but she has already had cancer. You don’t know how happy we were that it a false positive, and the mammogram machine didn’t pick it up her self breast exam did and the mammogram confirmed the results. It was nothing. They are not going to just give you radiation and chemotherapy without having cancer. I haven’t heard to many of those cases. They run a lot of test before doing radiation and chemotherapy.

Brat4life on November 17, 2009 at 11:23 AM

OmahaConservative on November 17, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Bless you. I hope all good men react the same way.

This is such a commonsense issue. Pay for the screening instead of paying a much higher cost, in dollars, health, and possibly life, if the cancer goes undetected.

This is what Barry’s Ivy League education has given him: the ability to dictate idiotic health care measures.

I hope Sarah blasts him over this.

NebCon on November 17, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Why do women get charged more for health insurance?

because they cost more to care for. D talking points say that’s ‘discrimination’ and ‘sexist’.

Men don’t get these mammograms and wouldn’t be in the pool of people needing these procedures. . . and cost less to cover. ie. it isn’t ‘discrimination’ as they say.

When I first heard this argument (discrimination that women pay more than men), I knew there was no point in debating anymore because they don’t understand the fundamentals of insurance even though they demonize and want to control it.

ThackerAgency on November 17, 2009 at 11:24 AM

DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL
DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL DEATH PANEL

unseen on November 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Nothing is going to stop this young woman (38 years old) and I am honored to be her friend.

milwife88 on November 17, 2009 at 11:08 AM

This is a wonderful tribute to her. Also a little bittersweet. I watched my aunt die AT 38 in her bed from breast cancer. She had two children, one of which was barely a year old.

Where were these “experts” last month during Breast Cancer Awareness Month? My guess is that the real physicians would have crucified them for their political posturing at the expense of women’s health.

*sigh* rage is building again…

Diane on November 17, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Not only are none of them oncologists, most of the people on that panel are what is called “public health” specialists, or professors. They are not actual medical practitioners seeing patients – they are medical theorists. Exactly the type we can expect to have running out health care system in the future.

Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.

rockmom on November 17, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Will this come up in the Senate Hearings as Dinghy Harry tries to put together a bill?

kingsjester on November 17, 2009 at 11:27 AM

What do they have in common? There isn’t a single oncologist among them, at least not by the USPSTF published roster.

Thanks for the update.

fourdeucer on November 17, 2009 at 11:27 AM

I’d be really interested to know if Michelle Obama is going to stop having mammograms.

Realist on November 17, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Your concern for Michelle Obama’s breasts is noted.

Mark Boabaca on November 17, 2009 at 11:27 AM

Can’t wait to see what Sarah has to say about this.

ctmom on November 17, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Several patient advocacy groups and many breast cancer experts welcomed the new guidelines, saying they represent a growing recognition that more testing, exams and treatment are not always beneficial and, in fact, can harm patients.

Women’s physicians have always been quite aware of this and have always advised their patients accordingly. Once again, this is between a woman and her doctor and everyone else should piss off.

And exactly how many mamograms is the gov. paying for that they have to try to limit their availability? You would think the stupid gov. is already paying for everyone’s healthcare. We’re doing just fine without universal healthcare. Go away government!

Blake on November 17, 2009 at 11:29 AM

“We’re not saying women shouldn’t get screened. Screening does saves lives,” said Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which released the recommendations Monday in a paper being published in Tuesday’s Annals of Internal Medicine.

Screening does saves lives? WTF?

redzap on November 17, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Where are the trolls?

Where’s our buddy Bleeds Blue to tell us this so cool?

Knucklehead on November 17, 2009 at 11:29 AM

I would like to know if any of these so called doctors were part of the Doctors for Obama group that had that little white coat gathering recently in the Rose Garden with the POTUS? Did any of these people contribute to his campaign? Members of the AMA? Hmmmmm?

freeus on November 17, 2009 at 11:30 AM

This report also states that self exams are unnecessary. I fail to see the logic in that since it doesn’t cost anyone anything unless a woman finds something. Are they suggesting that more money has been wasted over discoveries by women that turned out to be nothing then lives saved for self exams?

Cindy Munford on November 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM

I’ve known four women who have had breast cancer, and all four initially found lumps in a self-exam. This is the real crazy part about this report. Self-exams are easy and should be a part of any woman’s self-maintenance.

rockmom on November 17, 2009 at 11:30 AM

*sigh* rage is building again…

Diane on November 17, 2009 at 11:26 AM

I’m so sorry to hear about your aunt. Thank you for your comment. I just sit back and watch her in awe. Her positive outlook on all of this has been remarkable. We have talked about having t-shirts made that say “The Uniboober”. It’ll compliment her “under construction” t-shirt.

milwife88 on November 17, 2009 at 11:30 AM

There needs to be an investigation,

BreastGate!!

canopfor on November 17, 2009 at 11:30 AM

At 40 years old
You’re on the Mammogram List.
Wait time is 10 years…

Haiku Guy on November 17, 2009 at 11:31 AM

You say Task Force, I say “Death Panel.”

Enoxo on November 17, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Okay. I know it gets old. But imagine if the Bush Administration had publicly stated that they thought women should get less frequent mammograms.

hawkdriver on November 17, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Update: Courtesy of an anonymous reader, here are the members of the US Preventive Services Task Force. See if you can figure out the one thing they all have in common:

What do they have in common? There isn’t a single oncologist among them, at least not by the USPSTF published roster.

OK, I didn’t notice that at first. What I did notice that all but one or two of them has “professor” in their title.

Once again, academia sides with big gubmint. No surprise there.

UltimateBob on November 17, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Obama lied, women died.

JammieWearingFool on November 17, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Death panel.

commenter on November 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM

This is insane. They don’t want to pay for the mammograms and then they won’t pay for the experimental drugs when you do get it.

Buy nah Sarah wasn’t right when she mentioned death panels. *RME*

gophergirl on November 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM

What they are rationing mammograms?..
.
.
But health care is a right according to Pres Obamma.
.
.
BTW where is AnninCA or any of our other female trolls, shouldn’t they be defending this?

LincolntheHun on November 17, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Where are the trolls?

Knucklehead on November 17, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Where’s AnninCA?

I think she’s in hiding, after her smackdown yesterday by Ed and several HotAir commenters.

UltimateBob on November 17, 2009 at 11:33 AM

BTW where is AnninCA

LincolntheHun on November 17, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Great minds….

UltimateBob on November 17, 2009 at 11:35 AM

About that panel. They all had mothers, what is wrong with them?

fourdeucer on November 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Jesus. I have had to have mammograms for years (3 tumors, none cancerous). 2004, nothing, everything fine. 2005, tumor the size of a LEMON, atypical hyperplasia. What would it have turned into by 2006?

Thanks, US Preventative Services Task Force, for giving me the option of playing with death!

Sarah2053 on November 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Where’s AnninCA?

I think she’s in hiding, after her smackdown yesterday by Ed and several HotAir commenters.

UltimateBob on November 17, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Kaiser babies and moonbats don’t get up until noon.

Knucklehead on November 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM

This is not a treatment question. Until there’s a diagnosed disease to treat, in an individual, it’s just a statistical question. And the ones who study health statistics are in “Public Health.”

RBMN on November 17, 2009 at 11:39 AM

The panel’s recommendation will lead to more deaths, and lower costs for Medicare and Medicaid. But it’s not a death panel.

hawksruleva on November 17, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Okay. I know it gets old. But imagine if the Bush Administration had publicly stated that they thought women should get less frequent mammograms.

hawkdriver on November 17, 2009 at 11:31 AM

hawkdriver: No sh*t Hawk,and all the Liberal Fembot info-
babettes would be in manufactured outrage if it
was on Bush’s watch!!

In case we don’t communicate again,stay safe in
harms way Hawkdriver!!:)

canopfor on November 17, 2009 at 11:41 AM

A mammogram saved my life a few years back. I had calcification, a small lump, maybe a bit smaller than a marble, that doctors excised within three weeks of finding it. From the xray to my personal physician to the surgeon there was three hours. In the Obamacare monstrosity, I imagine that I’d still be waiting. I had to wait three weeks cuz the initial exam was done in late December and the surgeon was booked. Now, Obama wants to leave women open to breast cancer. Great going, champ!

SilentWatcher on November 17, 2009 at 11:42 AM

The panel’s recommendation will lead to more deaths, and lower costs for Medicare and Medicaid. But it’s not a death panel.

hawksruleva on November 17, 2009 at 11:39 AM

It does display a lot of deathiness, though…

Haiku Guy on November 17, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4