
The White House is pushing back against a Fox News report spinning the results of a new study on breast cancer screening.
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer blogged a response to a Fox report suggesting "Critics See Health Care Rationing Behind New Mammography Recommendations."
Pfeiffer quoted from the report, which suggested "some lawmakers on Capitol Hill are blasting new guidelines from a government task force that recommends against routine mammographies for women under 50, questioning whether they are tantamount to health care 'rationing' in the fight against the No. 2 cancer killer in U.S. women."
His response:
There's only one problem: the recommendations of this task force would actually be used to provide access to effective preventive services for free or at low-cost. The USPTF would have no power to deny insurance coverage in any way. The line of attack is actually somewhat ironic, because one of the guiding principles of reform from the very beginning in March has been to invest in significantly increased effective preventive care, something these "critics" never seemed to care much about over the past 8 months.
Pfeiffer goes on to do a Q-and-A on the new study and how it relates to the health care debate. Read the rest here.
Lalo35adm
November 18, 2009 12:11 PM
Hasn't the same "task force" said exactly the opposite in the beginning of the year, that women in their 40s SHOULD be having annual mammograms?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsfox
November 18, 2009 12:25 PM in reply to Lalo35adm
Their last guideline on Breast Cancer screening was in 2002
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm
Look under supporting documents
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
November 18, 2009 12:29 PM
My wife had breast cancer in her 40's (fortunately she survived it). If not for mammograms and ultrasound she would be dead. I spent numerous hours with other women at that time who had survived and had it detected in their 40's. I think this study is BS.
What the Hell is going on with this administration? I’m stunned to see Democrats voting to deny women the right to choose in the health care travesty of a bill and now they are telling them not to have routine life saving tests? Are they trying to wipe out the party. They are worse than the GOP!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
November 18, 2009 1:32 PM in reply to VictorLH
There are always exceptions Victor. What they did was look at the statistics for all women not just your wife, and said, 'we've found that it's usually 50+ before a mammogram needs to be a routine procedure.' That is not to say, 'we've decided to deny mammograms for women under 50.' It's still a choice between the doctor and the patient.
Glad your wife is well. I realize this is likely a touchy subject for you. For me as well; without going into it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
November 18, 2009 12:56 PM
Very happy to hear your wife has a good prognosis.
Regarding, "what the Hell is going on with this administration" I don't think it's quite fair to lay the blame for Stupak on Obama's doorstep: he's already been quite clear that he opposes it and doesn't want the final bill to affect abortion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenzinoh
November 18, 2009 1:23 PM
Let's face facts, critics of HCR see rationing in their bowl of Cheerios in the morning too... doesn't mean it's there.
As to the guidelines, it is not a mandate. It is up to a woman and her doctor to decide the best preventative care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dijamo
November 18, 2009 2:25 PM
Well if the task force says it's optional between doctor and patient before 50, insurance companies won't be required to provide mammograms at age 40 unless someone has special circumstances (strong family history etc). Of course if you're wealthy and have no conditions that make you eligible for screenings before 40 you can pay out of pocket. Despite the fact that catching breast cancer early is critical to maintaing the proved survival rates, in the middle of health care reform debate they decide to move the guidelines back 10 years. What will have changed other than more people have access to preventative care?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 18, 2009 3:45 PM in reply to dijamo
Horsefeathers.
It's currently optional between doctor and patient for women under 40 and insurance companies cover it. Read the House bill. It mandates minimum standards for all health insurance policies - including coverage of mammograms without any age restrictions.
If you hear it on Faux News, the opposite is usually true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dijamo
November 18, 2009 4:13 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
People who assume everything on Fox is a lie are just as foolish as the people who assume everything on Fox is true. And it's an embarrassment that Fox is covering this as a story while TPM is carrying water for the Obama Admin and just pasting their talking points with no critical questioning or analysis whatsoever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 18, 2009 5:03 PM in reply to dijamo
Then how do you explain the fact that some years ago when the guidelines were revised to no longer recommend mammograms for women under 40, insurers DIDN'T stop covering them for women in that group?
This controversy exists only in the fevered minds of people who just invent stuff. Like Faux News. And, apparently, you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dijamo
November 18, 2009 5:38 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I explain it by pointing out you have zero clue what you are talking about.
Also against these new guidelines:
The American Cancer Society
Pretty much any organization dedicated to Women's health
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who was diagnosed with breast cancer due to a routine mammography at age 41.
States passed laws to require mammograms according to those guidelines - the insurance cos were not acting out of the goodness of their hearts. You really think that the insurance lobby won't lobby to have those laws changed to the new guidelines of 50+ barring special circumstances? How gullible is that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jcbeeno
November 18, 2009 2:28 PM
Wow, is anyone at all surprised by this? I still think 40 is the magic number.
Jess
www.privacy.24ex.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?