A few years ago, the standard was first (baseline) at 40 and then every two to three years until 50, then every year. Then, the standard was at 40, every year.
And, they are now talking about false-positives? I had a false positive at 34 and that mammogram became my baseline. I went every couple of years after that and argued that mine be covered by my carrier. Only one wasn't and I came out of pocket about $350 for that one. But, I'd rather be safe than sorry!
Now, I go every year and will continue to do so regardless of these proposed new recommendations. The new standard is based upon 1.6MM women/year receiving false positives and then undergoing additional testing costing up to $6K????? Who is gathering this information? I cannot imagine a biopsy and ultrasound after a mammogram costing that much!
This proposal in the midst of a potential government run health plan! :blink: Every body is different. Some women have been diagnosed in their 20's and some in their 70's. I say err on the side of caution!
Hmph!
LynnieLynnieSoWal InsiderSoBuc8,151 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Insider
LynnieSoWal InsiderSoBuc8,151 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Insider3,298 views
Replies
42
jpbhenjpbhenBeach FanaticSeagrove/Cincinnati518 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic
jpbhenBeach FanaticSeagrove/Cincinnati518 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanaticding ding ding ding ding!!!!!!! my bullsh---tometer is going off. this seems to be just in time for the new government-run healthcare folks to say that they don't need to cover quite so many mammograms.
i was diagnosed on my 35th birthday, biopsied, excised, carved up, and "nuked". would have been long dead under these new - stupid - rules. idiots.
i was diagnosed on my 35th birthday, biopsied, excised, carved up, and "nuked". would have been long dead under these new - stupid - rules. idiots.
ding ding ding ding ding!!!!!!! my bullsh---tometer is going off. this seems to be just in time for the new government-run healthcare folks to say that they don't need to cover quite so many mammograms.
i was diagnosed on my 35th birthday, biopsied, excised, carved up, and "nuked". would have been long dead under these new - stupid - rules. idiots.
Beach Angel, I am glad you're cancer free! We ALL have been touched by this either ourselves, family member or friend.
This article is from the CDC. I am just completely distressed that 'they' want to change the standard to first mammography at age 50 and then every two years after that.
There will be a backlash from this! And, it definitely smells fishy!
CDC - Breast Cancer Statistics
scooterbug44scooterbug44SoWal ExpertSowal16,706 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Expert
scooterbug44SoWal ExpertSowal16,706 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Expertding ding ding ding ding!!!!!!! my bullsh---tometer is going off. this seems to be just in time for the new government-run healthcare folks to say that they don't need to cover quite so many mammograms.
i was diagnosed on my 35th birthday, biopsied, excised, carved up, and "nuked". would have been long dead under these new - stupid - rules. idiots.
And it's not just you!
Dunno about the stats on false positives, but given the number of my close friends who had breast cancer or needed biopsies/lumpectomies for something not found through exams they can take this new "advice" and shove it! :angry:
MangoMangoSoWal InsiderNew York/ Santa Rosa Beach9,699 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Insider
MangoSoWal InsiderNew York/ Santa Rosa Beach9,699 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal InsiderHere's an article from the New York Times about it. I was looking for one they ran a couple of weeks ago that discussed the same issues, ie, starting at 50 for mammos, etc. One thing that stood out to me, and also is in this article, is that woman can have cancers that are so slow growing they will never effect them? Last time I heard, cancer of any kind, any where, was not good. To me that's like being a little pregnant. They also quoted the dangers of radiation. Well, in case y'all didn't know, you get more radiation from an airplane trip from NY to San Francisco than you do from a chest x-ray.
I'm betting that they have been seeing the cost rising as well, because in addition to a mammo, it has become standard practice to do an ultrasound, especially if there is dense breast tissue.
Ironically, I had my mammo on the schedule right after I saw the article, and I inquired about this with the Dr. who reviewed the films. He had not heard anything about these findings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html
I'm betting that they have been seeing the cost rising as well, because in addition to a mammo, it has become standard practice to do an ultrasound, especially if there is dense breast tissue.
Ironically, I had my mammo on the schedule right after I saw the article, and I inquired about this with the Dr. who reviewed the films. He had not heard anything about these findings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html
scooterbug44scooterbug44SoWal ExpertSowal16,706 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Expert
scooterbug44SoWal ExpertSowal16,706 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal ExpertHere's an article from the New York Times about it. I was looking for one they ran a couple of weeks ago that discussed the same issues, ie, starting at 50 for mammos, etc. One thing that stood out to me, and also is in this article, is that woman can have cancers that are so slow growing they will never effect them? Last time I heard, cancer of any kind, any where, was not good. To me that's like being a little pregnant. They also quoted the dangers of radiation. Well, in case y'all didn't know, you get more radiation from an airplane trip from NY to San Francisco than you do from a chest x-ray.
I'm betting that they have been seeing the cost rising as well, because in addition to a mammo, it has become standard practice to do an ultrasound, especially if there is dense breast tissue.
Ironically, I had my mammo on the schedule right after I saw the article, and I inquired about this with the Dr. who reviewed the films. He had not heard anything about these findings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/health/17cancer.html
Mama Scooterbug had to get an ultrasound because of a weird spot - the culprint: the technician's THUMB has skooshed her boob weird!
This whole thing sucks! It's hard enough getting women proper medical care!
I'd like to see who this task force whose Co-Chair is a Dr. from AZ State is 'in bed with.'
My cousin was diagnosed at 33! Double mastectomy at 43! Slow growing? Yes! But, dangerous, regardless. She is a local spokesperson for the American Cancer Society today and I'll go with their guidelines.
My cousin was diagnosed at 33! Double mastectomy at 43! Slow growing? Yes! But, dangerous, regardless. She is a local spokesperson for the American Cancer Society today and I'll go with their guidelines.
scooterbug44scooterbug44SoWal ExpertSowal16,706 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Expert
scooterbug44SoWal ExpertSowal16,706 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal ExpertSebelius: U.S. mammogram policy unchanged - Cancer- msnbc.com
WASHINGTON - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says federal policy on who should get breast cancer screening has not changed.
Sebelius issued a statement Wednesday to ease confusion over a government panel's recommendation on Monday that said most women don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50. That recommendation was a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position that women should get screening mammograms starting at age 40.
The task force does "not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government," Sebelius said.
WASHINGTON - Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says federal policy on who should get breast cancer screening has not changed.
Sebelius issued a statement Wednesday to ease confusion over a government panel's recommendation on Monday that said most women don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50. That recommendation was a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position that women should get screening mammograms starting at age 40.
The task force does "not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government," Sebelius said.
Edited
SantiagoSantiagoBeach Fanaticseagrove beach635 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic
Get ready for a hell of a lot more health care rationing when the annointed one gets his f'd up health care bill passed. It amazes me how many seemingly intelligent people are duped by this charlatan.
PaulaPaulaBeach FanaticMichigan but someday in SoWal as well3,747 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic
PaulaBeach FanaticMichigan but someday in SoWal as well3,747 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach FanaticI have 3 friends who were diagnosed with breast cancer through mammograms before the age of 50. All 3 still alive and well and now cancer free thanks to the screening in their 40s. So, these new recommendations sure scare me.
TeresaTeresaSoWal GuideSouth Walton, FL30,983 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal Guide
TeresaSoWal GuideSouth Walton, FL30,983 postsJoined View profileMessageSoWal GuideI think these recommendations from the panel of primary care clinicians/MDs are very short sighted, especially given the fact that their mission is to evaluate and advise on the effectiveness of clinical preventive medicine. here are the highlights as given on CNN:
Dr Gupta explains:
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
yes, old mammogram technology did cause high anxiety and unnecessary biopsies and lumpectomies (I can attest). however, the newer digital technology has been a whole new story - its so much easier, better imaging and no more unnecessary scares, at least for me over the last 3-4 years.
This recommendation does not change a thing for now but could in the future (I certainly hope the mammogram remains one of several important tools in detecting breast cancer for women of any age - and I look to advanced technologies to make detection far more effective, easier, and perhaps less expensive in the long run.
no matter what happens however, it won't change anything for my friends with little or no health insurance who will get no mammogram regardless of their age.
STORY HIGHLIGHTSThank you Scooty for pointing out that these are recommendations from a panel of MDs who are saying that routine mammograms may not be necessary for all women between 40-50. Its hard to sort through the panels and what their roles are in the US health care system (what health care system? the current disease based medical system or the current some have it and some don't health insurance system?). but from everything I've seen and heard on the report, it is clear that these recommendations change nothing, at least for now. though it could change how insurance companies cover mammograms in the future. I think there will be a lot more discussion before any of that happens. especially since American Cancer Society and other experts do not agree with these recommendations.
- U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has updated mammography guidelines
- New recommendation: No routine screenings for women 40 -49; instead talk to doc
- For women ages 50 to 74, mammography screenings every two years
- American Cancer Society, other experts don't agree with new guidelines
Dr Gupta explains:
Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
yes, old mammogram technology did cause high anxiety and unnecessary biopsies and lumpectomies (I can attest). however, the newer digital technology has been a whole new story - its so much easier, better imaging and no more unnecessary scares, at least for me over the last 3-4 years.
This recommendation does not change a thing for now but could in the future (I certainly hope the mammogram remains one of several important tools in detecting breast cancer for women of any age - and I look to advanced technologies to make detection far more effective, easier, and perhaps less expensive in the long run.
no matter what happens however, it won't change anything for my friends with little or no health insurance who will get no mammogram regardless of their age.
Edited
Beach RunnerBeach Runnerbeats on hoodNear the ATL and in SoWal as often as possible15,269 postsJoined View profileMessagebeats on hood
Beach Runnerbeats on hoodNear the ATL and in SoWal as often as possible15,269 postsJoined View profileMessagebeats on hoodThis whole thing really TICKS ME OFF. It appears that the cost versus benefit ratio is so high that some number-crunching folks decided those who could benefit aren't worth it.:pissed:Hello, health care rationing! BTW are they also cracking down on PSA tests, too? And btw are men required to have their balls smashed to be tested like women's breasts are subjected to in a mammo? ARGH! Another issue I'm ticked about.
So, insurance pays for Viagra, etc., to make a man's ***** hard, yet I promise you that insurance will now stop paying for yearly mammos. And don't get me started on infertility treatments -- none of my insurance companies would pay for that, yet they'll pay for meds for sexual pleasure for males. Not fair.:pissed:
So, insurance pays for Viagra, etc., to make a man's ***** hard, yet I promise you that insurance will now stop paying for yearly mammos. And don't get me started on infertility treatments -- none of my insurance companies would pay for that, yet they'll pay for meds for sexual pleasure for males. Not fair.:pissed:
It's a Federally Funded Panel!
Fishy!
Fishy!
jpbhenjpbhenBeach FanaticSeagrove/Cincinnati518 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic
jpbhenBeach FanaticSeagrove/Cincinnati518 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanaticno matter what happens however, it won't change anything for my friends with little or no health insurance who will get no mammogram regardless of their age.[/quote]
it would be roughly $30/month to have a mammogram, self-funded, each year. so - $15/month to do it every two years. some things are worth it.
it would be roughly $30/month to have a mammogram, self-funded, each year. so - $15/month to do it every two years. some things are worth it.
no matter what happens however, it won't change anything for my friends with little or no health insurance who will get no mammogram regardless of their age.
it would be roughly $30/month to have a mammogram, self-funded, each year. so - $15/month to do it every two years. some things are worth it.[/quote]
Yes, $30/mo. is exactly what you would pay out of pocket with no ins. carrier negotiation. I'd pay that.....and, have. Strange that this has come up just before the health bill goes before Senate. Nominal costs no matter how you look at it.
SantiagoSantiagoBeach Fanaticseagrove beach635 postsJoined View profileMessageBeach Fanatic
This whole thing really TICKS ME OFF. It appears that the cost versus benefit ratio is so high that some number-crunching folks decided those who could benefit aren't worth it.:pissed:Hello, health care rationing! BTW are they also cracking down on PSA tests, too? And btw are men required to have their balls smashed to be tested like women's breasts are subjected to in a mammo? ARGH! Another issue I'm ticked about.
So, insurance pays for Viagra, etc., to make a man's ***** hard, yet I promise you that insurance will now stop paying for yearly mammos. And don't get me started on infertility treatments -- none of my insurance companies would pay for that, yet they'll pay for meds for sexual pleasure for males. Not fair.:pissed:
I beg your pardon Beach Runner but I thought Viagra was for the woman's sexual pleasure.
Beach RunnerBeach Runnerbeats on hoodNear the ATL and in SoWal as often as possible15,269 postsJoined View profileMessagebeats on hood
Beach Runnerbeats on hoodNear the ATL and in SoWal as often as possible15,269 postsJoined View profileMessagebeats on hoodI beg your pardon Beach Runner but I thought Viagra was for the woman's sexual pleasure.:floor:Hopefully both participants.
I just got a mammogram and have learned that I have to go in for additional testing. The mammogram picked something up that my physician did not - nor have I. I am certain it's nothing, but would rather be cautious than what is being suggested by the new standards. I can also promise that this extra testing will not be $6K as the federally funded panel has reported.....erroneously, in my opinion. I will share the costs here. So far the mammogram was $283 with a negotiated rate of $183, paid at 100% since it is preventive/wellness.
Yes, I am nervous, but also very strong.
Yes, I am nervous, but also very strong.
Beach RunnerBeach Runnerbeats on hoodNear the ATL and in SoWal as often as possible15,269 postsJoined View profileMessagebeats on hood
Beach Runnerbeats on hoodNear the ATL and in SoWal as often as possible15,269 postsJoined View profileMessagebeats on hoodI just got a mammogram and have learned that I have to go in for additional testing. The mammogram picked something up that my physician did not - nor have I. I am certain it's nothing, but would rather be cautious than what is being suggested by the new standards. I can also promise that this extra testing will not be $6K as the federally funded panel has reported.....erroneously, in my opinion. I will share the costs here. So far the mammogram was $283 with a negotiated rate of $183, paid at 100% since it is preventive/wellness.Go to Breast Care Specialists Breast Care Specialists at Pill Hill in ATL. It takes hours for each appointment, but it's worth it because they give you results before you leave so you don't have to be scared every time the phone rings for a call telling you that you're gonna die. They are all females, so they get it.
Yes, I am nervous, but also very strong.
You are so tiny -- I'll bet that you have dense tissue. I had that happen once -- the smashing caused the tissue to fold and gave a funky result.
Praying that U B OTAY.
Love,
BR
Go to Breast Care Specialists Breast Care Specialists at Pill Hill in ATL. It takes hours for each appointment, but it's worth it because they give you results before you leave so you don't have to be scared every time the phone rings for a call telling you that you're gonna die. They are all females, so they get it.
You are so tiny -- I'll bet that you have dense tissue. I had that happen once -- the smashing caused the tissue to fold and gave a funky result.
Praying that U B OTAY.
Love,
BR
:wub: Thank you, BR. I will mention them to my dr. tomorrow. I usually do everything at Piedmont, but will certainly go where I can receive the absolute best care and technology. They are so aggressive with breast health, I have no doubt that my dr. will get me in tomorrow (I just received the letter yesterday from the radiologist group). I really just want to plan my Christmas Dinner Party, but will squeeze this in~~~~~~~~~ ;-)
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.