Great news ladies! Women under 50 not at risk anymore!

[Shawnee123]

And while you're at it, let's cut down on pap smears as well, k?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/20...cer/index.html

[Juniper]

I'm pretty sure it's the heart and arteries that's gonna get me. I guess you never can tell, though.

[Shawnee123]

I plan to be hit by a train when I turn 100.

[wolf]

My friend, the breast cancer surgeon, was talking about this yesterday. She said she had been researching the members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and that while they are doctors, they aren't cancer doctors ... family medicine, pediatrics, specialists in medical informatics and medical economics, but interestingly, not cancer.

Just looking over the list, not a lot of them appear to be in active practice, either ... researchers, university posts, that kind of thing.

[xoxoxoBruce]

All they've done is crunch numbers to determine the bang for the buck. Men will tell you when it comes to tits, money is not the prime consideration. Women will tell you when it comes to their lives, money is not the prime consideration.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

And while you're at it, let's cut down on pap smears as well, k?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/20...cer/index.html

If you got a look at the the stoners working in the lab testing the paps you wouldn't bother anyway.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by wolf

My friend, the breast cancer surgeon, was talking about this yesterday. She said she had been researching the members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and that while they are doctors, they aren't cancer doctors ... family medicine, pediatrics, specialists in medical informatics and medical economics, but interestingly, not cancer.

Just looking over the list, not a lot of them appear to be in active practice, either ... researchers, university posts, that kind of thing.

And that is the problem with most government panels which try to recommend how the government should manage your healthcare.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And that is the problem with most government panels which try to recommend how the government should manage your healthcare.

It is not the role of the Preventive Serivces Task Force studies to determine or even recommend how the government should manager your healthcare.

The role is to conduct government funded, but independent research on the "effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services" or to suggest best practices....to expand the knowledge base for practitioners and patients.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

It is not the role of the Preventive Serivces Task Force studies to determine or even recommend how the government should manager your healthcare.

The role is to conduct research on the "effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services"....to expand the knowledge base for practitioners and patients.

As per our discussion yesterday, the facts prove out that this is not what happens.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As per our discussion yesterday, the facts prove out that this is not what happens.

Absolutely, you were wrong yesterday.

This latest study, which was funded and began under the Bush administration, did not make policy recommendations for government-administered health programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP....that was not, nor has it ever been, the intent of PSTF research.

It offers a perspective for physicians and patients to consider when making choices.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by wolf

My friend, the breast cancer surgeon, was talking about this yesterday. She said she had been researching the members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and that while they are doctors, they aren't cancer doctors ... family medicine, pediatrics, specialists in medical informatics and medical economics, but interestingly, not cancer.

Just looking over the list, not a lot of them appear to be in active practice, either ... researchers, university posts, that kind of thing.

So what is her current view of the new statements? Does she agree with the "preventative" measures as they are now?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Absolutely, you were wrong yesterday.

This latest study, which was funded and began under the Bush administration, did not make policy recommendations for government-administered health programs like Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP....that was not, nor has it ever been, the intent of PSTF research.

It offers a perspective for physicians and patients.

No, I am in this business and this is not what happens in the end. I deal with it every day.

Care is dictated by Medicare by paying or not paying for procedures in specific locations, costs, who can get care and who cannot get care is controlled by Medicare and Medicaid.

Intent is specifically different.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No, I am in this business and this is not what happens in the end. I deal with it every day.

Care is dictated by Medicare by paying or not paying for procedures in specific locations, costs, who can get care and who cannot get care is controlled by Medicare and Medicaid.

Intent is specifically different.

If you are in the business, please cite any PSTF research findings in the last 20 years that have been incorporated into policy recommendations or guidelines for Medicare...or even into private insurance guidelines for treatment and/or coverage....or adopted by any medical association as a new standard protocol.

[TheMercenary]

It is not about studies it is about people who have been in the business and can tell us how it works from the inside.

This is a perfect example from a former senior official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This is exactly what I am talking about and what I have observed.

Further, Medicare and Medicaid will pay $15,000 for a patient of theirs to have a surgery done in a major hospital down the street but will not pay $8000 for the same procedure in a surgery center. It happens every day in the US.

President Barack Obama deflects criticism that his health-care plan will bring on government rationing of medical care by arguing that insurance companies ration care. Everyone knows private payers limit access to some health care. But government does it in far more byzantine and arbitrary ways.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...052451436.html

[TheMercenary]

Washington State Panels

OLYMPIA, Wash. — When it's judging the value of medical treatments it pays for, Washington state imposes a tough standard, the kind that might save tens of billions of dollars a year if it were applied nationally.

A panel of medical professionals compares the effectiveness and safety of new treatments and tests with standard alternatives, typically choosing the least costly if there's no real difference. The panel's decisions don't apply to private health plans, but they're binding on 750,000 residents: state employees; people insured by Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor; and those who are receiving workers' compensation.

The program is unique in the United States, and experts sometimes cite it as a possible model for the federal government. Studies suggest that using this approach would help eliminate inappropriate and wasteful care.

Critics, however, say it interferes with patient-physician decision-making and is a dangerous step down the road to what they consider rationed care, and it appears highly unlikely to gain support in Washington, D.C.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/69564.html