WEESeeYou Fear-Mongers: Quit Using Women’s Health Issues As Tools To Gain Profit And Derail Health Care Reform!
WHY THE CONFUSION??? FEAR MONGERING!
From the Wikipedia:
Fear mongering (or scaremongering) is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.[citation
At first it was the Stupak amendment regarding abortion, and now its mammograms, and cervical pap smears.
Question: Aren’t insurance companies already telling doctors and hospitals what they will/will not cover for their patients?
I think the outrage about the new Task Force recommendations is about scare tactics and attempts to derail health care. *I urge you to not only LOOK at who stands to lose monetarily from the new recommendations, but who gains from receiving truthful information about their health, about their very lives…
Here is a summary of the new recommendations for breast cancer screenings from the U.S. Preventative Task Force:
The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.
Grade: C recommendation
The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years.
Grade: B recommendation.
The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older.
Grade: I Statement.
The USPSTF recommends against teaching breast self-examination (BSE).
Grade: D recommendation.
The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination (CBE) beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older.
Grade: I Statement.
The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer.
Grade: I Statement.
For more information, read here. The task force was comprised of bi-partisan staff, and the results were based on scientific evidence.
PDF of the clinical of the clinical guidelines can be found here. I urge you to read it to get informed and use your own good common sense and judgement.
*Hat tip Sepia*
Here’s a video from Sunday’s Meet The Press interview with Dr. Nancy Snyderman and Nancy Brinker, Ambassador of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, discussing the new breast cancer screening recommendations:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
*Hat tip Sepia* But here’s the real scoop on Nancy Brinker and her connections -
An excerpt from the 9/16/02 article, The Marketing of Breast Cancer by Mary Ann Swissler on Ms. Brinker:
“…So most people would be shocked to find that the Komen Foundation helped block a meaningful Patients Bill of Rights for the women it has purported to serve since the group began in 1982.
Despite proclaiming herself before a 2001 Congressional panel as a “patient advocate for the past 20 years,” demanding access to the best possible medical care for all breast cancer patients, Federal Election Commission records show the Komen Foundation and its allies lobbied against the consumer-friendly version of the Patients Bill of Rights in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Brinker then trumpeted old friend George W. Bush in August 2001 for backing a “strong” Patients’ Bill of Rights, while most patient advocates felt betrayed.”
SNIP
“Not surprisingly, the Komen Foundation has owned $162,843 in Brinker International stock during 2000, the only year for which records are available. The Foundation also owns stock in several pharmaceutical companies and in General Electric, one of the largest makers of mammogram machines in the world.”
Read on if you can stomach it!
Mammogram Coverage Won’t Change, Companies Say
By Liz Szabo, USA TODAY
November 22, 2009
Insurance companies contacted by USA TODAY say they will continue paying for annual mammograms amid widespread fears that new breast cancer screening guidelines from a federal task force could lead women to lose coverage for those tests.
The guidelines – suggesting that most women under 50 don’t need routine mammograms and that women over 50 need them only every other year – were issued Monday night by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Q&A: Experts answer questions about the new guidelines
CANCER FORUM: Share your mammogram experiences
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebeliustried to ease women’s fears by affirming her support for mammography and noting that government policy won’t change. Medicare is required by law to cover one mammogram for women from 35 to 39 and annual screenings after that. Sebelius can change that coverage after consulting with the head of the National Cancer Institute.
Although task-force experts are government-appointed, “they do not set federal policy and they don’t determine what services are covered by the federal government,” Sebelius said in a statement.
“I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage,” she said.
Leaders of the American College of Radiology and the Society of Breast Imaging issued statements Monday that the new recommendations looked like an effort to cut costs.
At least so far, however, insurance plans have not proposed changing their coverage, says Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents 1,300 companies covering 200 million Americans.
Some of the companies that told USA TODAY that they will continue paying for mammograms for women in their 40s include Kaiser Permanente, Aetna, Cigna, Geisinger Health Plan, Group Health Cooperative and WellPoint, which operates Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans in 14 states.
Together, these plans cover more than 73 million people.
A spokeswoman for Kaiser Permanente, Farra Levin, says, “We believe that focusing on prevention and early detection is critical in improving women’s health and saving lives.”
That doesn’t mean that companies are totally ignoring the task force’s advice. Source.
WEESeeYou’s Sepia calls a spade a spade:
“The Komen Foundation’s financial connections to the pharmaceutical industry and anti-Patients’ Bill of Rights lobbyists is astounding! I really encourage folks to read that article. In light of the recent new breast cancer screening recs, it makes you think about WHO and WHY some folks are so outraged. Another excerpt from the article. Emphasis mine:
Batt finds Brinker “eerily reminiscent” of an earlier so-called cancer activist, Mary Lasker. “Her husband, the advertising executive Albert Lasker, created the famous cigarette ad, ‘Reach for a Lucky Instead of a Sweet.’ In the 1940s through the 1960s, Lasker used her business and social connections to transform the American Cancer Society from a small, local charity into the world’s richest, most powerful health charity. The ACS became a voice for policies that have made cancer research and early detection into lucrative business ventures with little connection to the welfare of patients or to breast cancer prevention. The Komen Foundation is a reincarnation of the ACS, but specific to breast cancer.”
**See what I’m saying? These new recs = less screening. Less screening = less $$$ for companies – like General Electric – who make breast cancer screening equipment!”
So if coverage won’t change fro mammograms, why all the outrage and confusion? Again, I think the outrage about the new Task Force recommednation is really about derailing health care reform.
As to Ms. Nancy Brinker, Ambassador of the Komen Foundation, she is fronting for profit. Shame on you, Ms. Brinker!
Reminder to ACS aka Komen Foundation, WEESeeYou!
Now, who do you believe is looking out for you and your family’s best interest?









View Comments
November 22nd, 2009
Is it just my computer or is the format of this site all jacked up???
November 22nd, 2009
Nice piece by the way. WEE SEE YOU Koman Foundation Breast Cancer Hustler Beckies!!!!
November 23rd, 2009
Go get'em Shanti!
Expose their ass! These sobs care nothing for human life, it's about making a profit while people are dying. GDMF!
November 23rd, 2009
Very eye-opening stuff. I will have to continue doing some research on this.
Fantastic info Shanti!
November 23rd, 2009
Great job of connecting the dots.
November 23rd, 2009
Thanks, MsKitty. What is your understanding of thetask force study?
WEE appreciate your insights.
November 23rd, 2009
Great to have the eyes open, Pbomb. After you do some further research, please come back and drop any insights. Thanks.
November 23rd, 2009
LOL! “Hustler Beckies” I'm borrowing that. Carolinagirl, can you share any insights or understanding that you have regarding the task force findings and how you think it relates to your well being? Thanks for taking the time to respond.
November 23rd, 2009
Well, the first recommendation from the task force:
The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.
Is pretty self explanatory. The panel came to the conclusion that testing at the age of 40 isn't necessary depending on your medical history. However, they are leaving it up to the individual to chose whether or not they will take this advice. Sometimes when you've heard the same thing over and over and over, it's kind of difficult to hear that what you've been told ad nauseum is false. Some people don't take that pretty well which is what we see now with Becky #1 and Becky #2 on MTP lashing out and Elizabeth Hasselbitch lashing out and fearmongering on The View (I really can't stand that skank heifer).
I guess the main issue would be whether or not the insurance companies will change their policies according to these findings versus keeping them the same and leaving it up to the customer (providing discounts or other incentives for those who choose to wait until age 50). That would be something that I would keep an eye on…
I don't have a history of any type of cancer (much less breast cancer) in my family other than my aunt on my dad's side who died from brain cancer, so I probably would wait until I turned 50. Hell, I didn't go to medical school so I figure a task force full of doctors should know a whole hell of a lot more than me, but I need to do more research on who exactly was on this panel to make sure there are no conflicts of interest.
November 23rd, 2009
Thanks for sharing, carolinagirl. Repetition has its merits, but in the case of fear mongering, it is damaging. Somehow, I doubt the insurance companies will change their policy.
I'd be interested in seeing how this plays out as well, especially If the public option remains in the health care bill, and it passes.
I do have a family history of breast cancer. My twin sister died of cancer at 33 years of age, yet I didn't start getting mammograms until I was 45. Everyone was telling me I needed to get them.
It was all fear-based, and I absoulutely refused to get mammograms based on fear. I decided that I would do self-breast exams, and that's when I discovered the benign breast tumors. Now I get one annually.
Here's a link with further information on the task force:
http://www.wellsphere.com/healthcare-industry-p...
November 24th, 2009
To be fair, Dr. Snyderman wasn't going along with the outrage. She defended the Task Force panel and throwing digs at Nancy Brinker. I was surprised by that. Don't even get me started on Hasselbeck. And to see Whoopi applauding her fear mongering bullshit. UGH!
As far as the testing guidelines, this isn't the first time medical experts have said that women should wait until 50 to get a mammogram, so why the outrage now? From what I've read, the experts are concerned about overuse of mammogram screenings. Check out this article by Naomi Freundlich:
Do Yearly Mammograms Save Women's Lives?
Excerpt: “There is a larger concern here that goes beyond mammography. As evidence has grown that the benefits of some screening tests have been oversold and that there are significant risks involved in widespread use of the techniques, the response from the cancer establishment has been to forcefully dismiss the findings. Could it be that entrenched interests — in screening, surgery, chemotherapy and other treatments associated with diagnosing more and more cancers — are impeding scientific evidence? Will we see this same dismissal of comparative effectiveness data when it comes to prostate cancer screening and treatment, cholesterol-lowering drugs, diabetes treatments or other high-cost, high-profit health interventions?”
CG, to answer your question about insurance companies, here's what the author of the article says: “For now, it is unlikely that women will lose insurance coverage for mammography screening anytime soon. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that the new guidelines will not change how the agency covers mammograms for Medicare patients. And the Wall Street Journal reports that Susan Pisano, spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plan, an industry trade group, “anticipates mammogram coverage will continue even for those who fall outside the new guidelines' target age range. What may change, she says, are insurers' aggressive outreach efforts to get women to get their screening, such as the reminder postcards they used to receive about getting their annual mammogram.”
Still, I think that's something we should watch. The insurance industry — Can't Truss It.
November 24th, 2009
Another thing that needs to be cleared up is the info on the Task Force. It is NOT an arm of the government like the Rethugs want you to believe. There are NOT trying to ration healthcare, either.
In reality, the mission of the Preventative Services task force is to provide evidence-based recommendations and treatment guidelines for clinicians — they are not charged with rationing care. Appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services, they are an independent group of 16 experts who specialize in prevention and primary care. True to their mission, the task force members were quite thorough in their research. According to the New York Times “in order to formulate its guidelines, the task force used new data from mammography studies in England and Sweden and also commissioned six groups to make statistical models to analyze the aggregate data.”
These six independent groups — located at academic medical centers — were comprised of researchers from CISNET, the National Cancer Institute-funded Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. Each group used their own model to examine 20 screening strategies with different starting and stopping ages and intervals. Modeling estimates the lifetime impact (outcomes including benefits and harms) of breast cancer screening mammography.
Their findings were remarkably consistent. In the Times article, Donald A. Berry, a statistician at the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and head of one of the modeling groups says, “The models were the only way to answer questions like how much extra benefit do women get if they are screened every year.”
‘We said, essentially with one voice, very little,” Dr. Berry said. “So little as to make the harms of additional screening come screaming to the top.”
Read More: Do Yearly Mammograms Save Women's Lives?
November 24th, 2009
“The[y] are NOT trying to ration healthcare, either.
Rationing isn't generally the intent of any large-scale intrusion of government into the health care system.
It's just the natural result.
November 24th, 2009
Thanks for restating the purpose of the task force. Folks who are interested in understanding what is really going on, NEED to take the time to read the information that WEE provided.
November 24th, 2009
“Thanks for restating the purpose of the task force. “
The concepts I spoke of have been true long before the task force or W.E.E. came into being. One has only to observe (or be treated in) the Canadian or UK systems to see rationing by service delivery time in action. And the declining quality of care due to the exodus of qualified personnel. France and Italy, not so much, because they still have a two-tiered system. One can always find an 'American' hospital to fix you up there.
November 24th, 2009
Yet again, did you even read her comment? It wasn't even directed towards you. She was responding to someone else.
I think i am going to turn on my pie filter.
November 26th, 2009
The mainstream media has opposed the revised mammogram guidelines with appeals to emotion rather than evidence based medicine. Kathleen Sebelius, for example, appeared on national television advising women to ignore the recommendations of her own Department's task force panel. All of these opposing views avoid discussing the real problem with screening mammography. For More…
http://jeffreydach.com/2009/11/17/mammogram-gui...
Jeffrey Dach MD
November 26th, 2009
Hello and welcome, Dr. Dach. WEE appreciate your dropping in and leaving us some of that wisdom!
0
I'm a semi-retired RN and certainly can relate to the information on your site. I've had two breast biopsies and I can't begin to tell you how anxiety ridden they were for me. I started taking bioidentical hormones this summer.
Can youplease share a bit more about BIH and their relationship to breast cancer if any, with our community?
Thank you for providing us with a link to further explore this subject!