Mammograms

The United States Preventive Services Task Force announced today that they've changed their minds.  In a reversal of their recommendation a few years ago, they're now suggesting that most women should start regular breast cancer screening at age 50, not 40.  The task force has concluded that undergoing mammorgrams may yeild too many "false positives" and therefore cause too much anxiety.  A test can trigger unnecessary further tests, like biopsies, that can create extreme anxiety, according to the task force.

The report goes on to say that the modest benefit of mammograms — reducing the breast cancer death rate by 15 percent — must be weighed against the harms.

Wait, back up. 

I'm not supposed to find out if I have breast cancer (the leading cause of cancer deaths in women) because it might give me some ANXIETY to get a false positive? I'd rather have the false positive than be in that 15% of women that a mammogram could have helped.

Wisely, the American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology both said they were staying with their guidelines advising annual mammograms starting at age 40.

But that doesn't mean that insurance companies will continue to cover mammograms in women under 50. In fact, I heard on NPR today that insurance companies would likely start charging out of pocket costs for mammorgrams under 50 as a result of this task force data.

That, to me, is horrible.

Just last year I went for my annual pap and was told I "didn't need one this year".  It took a lot of questions on my part to figure out that if you have a negative HPV test, the insurance companies will now only pay for Pap tests once every three years.

As someone with cervical and ovarian cancer ALL OVER my family tree, it terrifies me to think I won't be tested.

And now we've moved on to mammograms.

Sigh

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd also like to talk about Abortion Protestors

I've been getting a lot of email and phone calls asking for my opinion on the pro-life demonstrators that have taken up residents on Pittsburgh city streets.  I'm a big protector of the First Ammendment, but as a parent, I find the use of graphic signs utterly disgusting. I have no ability to turn away from these protester's signs as I'm driving down the street. I've been lucky enough not to have my children with me when I've encountered these individuals but it makes me absolutely livid just to think about it.  I can't even imagine having to explain those horrifying signs to my kids, who are definitely at an age to ask about them and be scared, disturbed, etc. at the sight of them.

It seems it's not going to change any time soon, though, as A federal appeals court has recently struck down an ordinance that created two types of buffer zones around medical facilities after a Christian legal group challenged the law on behalf of a nurse who protests abortions.  The Pittsburgh law had banned protesters from standing within 15 feet of entrances but also makes them stand 8 feet from clients in a 100-foot buffer around entrances.  http://www.startribune.com/business/68596902.html

I wish there was some law that did not allow protesters to carry signs with graphics on them in places where people are just driving by. I understand it gets their point across, but try explaining that to a 4-year-old and then tell me if it's ok.