Insurance companies don't want to pay for mammograms for women ages 40-49.
Neither does the federal government--we have to reduce the national debt, right?
Never mind that 100,000 women who could get regular mammograms during that decade of their lives "would eventually die from breast cancer as a result of waiting until 50," according to computer models of the US Preventive Services Task Force, as reported by Dr. Daniel B. Kopans in last Friday's Wall Street Journal.
In spite of these statistics, the Task Force in 2009 changed its recommendation to screening only at age 50 and older.
Fortunately, the Obama administration did not support the Task Force's recommendation, and when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010, insurance coverage for mammograms for women in their 40s was mandated.
You can find more details in Dr. Kopans' article. Here's a link that leads to the WSJ but there's a pay wall between you and "Mammograms Save Lives." If you have access to a school or college, you can get the article through ProQuest Newsstand.
Both the American Cancer Society and the US Preventive Services Task Force are currently reviewing their guidelines on this issue, according to Dr. Kopans. Insurance companies base their coverage decisions on these guidelines.
It behooves all of us who care about this issue to call, write, email and otherwise lobby to make sure the screening guidelines return to coverage for women ages 40-49.
Thank you to my husband, John Arthur, for telling me about the article by Dr. Kopans.
Thank you to my husband, John Arthur, for telling me about the article by Dr. Kopans.
Below is the letter to the editor I sent today to the Wall Street Journal:
To the editors:
As a woman whose breast cancer was detected by ultrasound screening recommended after a mammogram, I want to thank Dr. Daniel Kopans and the WSJ for his opinion piece "Mammograms Save Lives" (May 23, 2014).
Actually, the article has more facts than opinion but its message is loud and clear: "Criticism of breast-cancer screenings is more about rationing than rationality."
My mammogram in March was "normal" but because of dense breast tissue, a follow-up ultrasound was recommended. It clearly showed the mass, which after biopsy was confirmed as stage 1 cancer. If an ultrasound had not been recommended, my cancer would not have been detected until a year later.
I have learned that 40% of women have dense breast tissue, which makes not only a mammogram but follow-up screening critical. Many times I've been informed about the density of my tissue, but only once in the past has follow-up screening been suggested (in that case, an MRI which my health insurance did not want to pay for).
I am so grateful that mammograms for women 40-and-older and follow-up screening in about 10% of mammograms are paid for by health insurance.
I will begin working to make sure the US Preventive Services Task Force restores its screening guidelines to cover women ages 40-49. I have a blog on breast cancer (http://doingthecancerdance.blogspot.com/) and can use media such as Twitter and YouTube.
I am currently 65 years old but care deeply about the 100,000 women whose lives could be saved by screening at 40 but "would eventually die from breast cancer as a result of waiting until 50" (according to the Task Force's own computer models.
My daughters could be among those whose lives would be lost by a lack of insurance-covered screening.
Anne Eggebroten
Santa Monica CA
"The important thing is that when you come to understand something you act on it, no matter how small that act is." --Sr. Helen Prejean
No comments:
Post a Comment