Mammogram Debate

[NautiGirl]

Rumballs, it's actually not the procedure which is expensive. It's the follow up.A mammogram costs between 100- 200 bucks. Not a lot really.

But women under 50 have dense breast tissue which makes it much more difficult to read. Because of that, they are at a significantly increased risk of false positives and false negatives (in a demographic where breast cancer itself is uncommon, and whn it occurs, they are at a higher risk of mortality, regardless of screening, because of the aggressive nature of it). When you have a false positive, that's when it gets expensive--follow up ultrasound or mammogram, specialists, and biopsies--for benign growths.

This is why the recommendation was made inthe US, and why throughout most of the world, women under 50 aren't screened UNLESS they have clear risk factors--there is simply more to lose in the way of unnecessary procedures, than there is likely to gain.

So what issue do you have with my post... other than your opinion of expensive?

I have no issue.

As to your second post, the stakeholders in government are the taxpayers, not shareholders. Since the people paying the taxes are the same ones getting the care, they tend to err on the side of good patient outcomes and emphasis on good care and access over the money. (Like Social Security--people know that they benefit from that program, so while it was controversial when it was introduced, the mindset has changed that people are protective of it, at all costs.)

 

[Rumbulls]

Give Health care back to the consumer.

I think your comments above are right, but when did the consumer own health care? The concept of informed consent was imposed on medicine by the government a few decades ago. Before that it was all "doctor's orders" and "here, Dear, this little shot will calm you down, so we can sever your frontal lobes".

Back when it was still insurance. Back when exclusions were allowed. Back when the consumer chose the coverage. Back when consumers paid for what THEY needed, not what was mandated by states.

The talk that "everyone should be covered for that" is Utopian and unrealistic.

 

[Rumbulls]

Rumballs, it's actually not the procedure which is expensive. It's the follow up.A mammogram costs between 100- 200 bucks. Not a lot really.

But women under 50 have dense breast tissue which makes it much more difficult to read. Because of that, they are at a significantly increased risk of false positives and false negatives (in a demographic where breast cancer itself is uncommon, and whn it occurs, they are at a higher risk of mortality, regardless of screening, because of the aggressive nature of it). When you have a false positive, that's when it gets expensive--follow up ultrasound or mammogram, specialists, and biopsies--for benign growths.

This is why the recommendation was made inthe US, and why throughout most of the world, women under 50 aren't screened UNLESS they have clear risk factors--there is simply more to lose in the way of unnecessary procedures, than there is likely to gain.

So what issue do you have with my post... other than your opinion of expensive?

I have no issue.

As to your second post, the stakeholders in government are the taxpayers, not shareholders. Since the people paying the taxes are the same ones getting the care, they tend to err on the side of good patient outcomes and emphasis on good care and access over the money. (Like Social Security--people know that they benefit from that program, so while it was controversial when it was introduced, the mindset has changed that people are protective of it, at all costs.)

Yeah... and as long as the rats heard the music, they'd follow the piper any where.... I get it.

 

[MoeAlfa]

Give Health care back to the consumer.

I think your comments above are right, but when did the consumer own health care? The concept of informed consent was imposed on medicine by the government a few decades ago. Before that it was all "doctor's orders" and "here, Dear, this little shot will calm you down, so we can sever your frontal lobes".

Back when it was still insurance. Back when exclusions were allowed. Back when the consumer chose the coverage. Back when consumers paid for what THEY needed, not what was mandated by states.

The talk that "everyone should be covered for that" is Utopian and unrealistic.

I've been a physician for almost 25 years and I've never known what the hell I was getting in my coverage, when I even had a choice. They tell you the copay for this and that and the number of days per year of inpatient mental health. Problem is, you don't know which disease you're going to get. Just for fun ask your insurer what conditions they'll cover IVIg for and if they'll pay for enzyme replacement therapy if you have a kid with Gaucher disease.

Dead right on the utopian part. We can't afford it.

 

[NautiGirl]

Rumballs, it's actually not the procedure which is expensive. It's the follow up.A mammogram costs between 100- 200 bucks. Not a lot really.

But women under 50 have dense breast tissue which makes it much more difficult to read. Because of that, they are at a significantly increased risk of false positives and false negatives (in a demographic where breast cancer itself is uncommon, and whn it occurs, they are at a higher risk of mortality, regardless of screening, because of the aggressive nature of it). When you have a false positive, that's when it gets expensive--follow up ultrasound or mammogram, specialists, and biopsies--for benign growths.

This is why the recommendation was made inthe US, and why throughout most of the world, women under 50 aren't screened UNLESS they have clear risk factors--there is simply more to lose in the way of unnecessary procedures, than there is likely to gain.

So what issue do you have with my post... other than your opinion of expensive?

I have no issue.

As to your second post, the stakeholders in government are the taxpayers, not shareholders. Since the people paying the taxes are the same ones getting the care, they tend to err on the side of good patient outcomes and emphasis on good care and access over the money. (Like Social Security--people know that they benefit from that program, so while it was controversial when it was introduced, the mindset has changed that people are protective of it, at all costs.)

Yeah... and as long as the rats heard the music, they'd follow the piper any where.... I get it.

I actually wasn't disagreeing with you.

You believe in private. I believe in public. But we both believe that not everybody can or should have everything, just because it's available.

I've stated clearly that I don't think what Obama has proposed can work.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me.

 

[Rumbulls]

Give Health care back to the consumer.

I think your comments above are right, but when did the consumer own health care? The concept of informed consent was imposed on medicine by the government a few decades ago. Before that it was all "doctor's orders" and "here, Dear, this little shot will calm you down, so we can sever your frontal lobes".

Back when it was still insurance. Back when exclusions were allowed. Back when the consumer chose the coverage. Back when consumers paid for what THEY needed, not what was mandated by states.

The talk that "everyone should be covered for that" is Utopian and unrealistic.

I've been a physician for almost 25 years and I've never known what the hell I was getting in my coverage, when I even had a choice. They tell you the copay for this and that and the number of days per year of inpatient mental health. Problem is, you don't know which disease you're going to get. Just for fun ask your insurer what conditions they'll cover IVIg for and if they'll pay for enzyme replacement therapy if you have a kid with Gaucher disease.

Dead right on the utopian part. We can't afford it.

The whole mindset in washington is fucked on healthcare.

Rumballs, it's actually not the procedure which is expensive. It's the follow up.A mammogram costs between 100- 200 bucks. Not a lot really.

But women under 50 have dense breast tissue which makes it much more difficult to read. Because of that, they are at a significantly increased risk of false positives and false negatives (in a demographic where breast cancer itself is uncommon, and whn it occurs, they are at a higher risk of mortality, regardless of screening, because of the aggressive nature of it). When you have a false positive, that's when it gets expensive--follow up ultrasound or mammogram, specialists, and biopsies--for benign growths.

This is why the recommendation was made inthe US, and why throughout most of the world, women under 50 aren't screened UNLESS they have clear risk factors--there is simply more to lose in the way of unnecessary procedures, than there is likely to gain.

So what issue do you have with my post... other than your opinion of expensive?

I have no issue.

As to your second post, the stakeholders in government are the taxpayers, not shareholders. Since the people paying the taxes are the same ones getting the care, they tend to err on the side of good patient outcomes and emphasis on good care and access over the money. (Like Social Security--people know that they benefit from that program, so while it was controversial when it was introduced, the mindset has changed that people are protective of it, at all costs.)

Yeah... and as long as the rats heard the music, they'd follow the piper any where.... I get it.

I actually wasn't disagreeing with you.

You believe in private. I believe in public. But we both believe that not everybody can or should have everything, just because it's available.

I've stated clearly that I don't think what Obama has proposed can work.

I'm not sure why you're arguing with me.

I wasn't... that was a sarcastic agreement.