More rationing of healthcare for women.

Well, at least this one came from a panel of gynecologists. The mammogram panel didn't even include any oncologists. Their theory is that cervical cancer develops slowly. They don't dispute that women under 21 may very well have HPV, the virus that causes the abnormal cervical cells and leads to cancer, they just figure it will still be growing after age 21. I guess the idea is "we know you may develop cancer, but we'll catch up to you later when it's full-blown". It does sound like odd advice. The only part of what they said that makes any sense is that women who get treatment early might have problems with pre-term labor. But what problems will they have if they don't get treatment? Does waiting for cancer to develop prevent this pre-term labor possibility? Seems unlikely, but I am just a logical person, not a medical professional. It also seems that they are choosing women to pick on over these things and maybe it's because women submit themselves to the embarrassing exams that lead to detection of these illnesses whereas men try never to discuss the possibilities of prostate problems with doctors, nor do they show up at the doctors much unless their wives tell them to. So there's not as much money to be saved on testing men in that respect.

I believe this is politically driven. It is also totally wrong. Cervical cancer does not "grow slowly" it can be very aggressive at times and spread quickly. It is a campaign of misinformation that has Obama's stamp all over it. It is the beginning of our so called "health care reform" that congress and Obama is forcing on an unwilling nation. Just like when the current administration states that doctors, nurses and other health care professionals support the health care reform. It is a lie - pure and simple. I am in health care and I have asked. Not one single person supports this bill, not one. You would think that eventually I would run up on at least one person who supported it.

I think what's going on is they're trying to save money on insurance at the expense of women's lives. Speaking from personal experience, if I hadn't had a pap because I 'didn't need one yearly', they would have not found the uterine cancer I had. Fact is, I would not be here today if not for an annual pap. If I had been forced by the insurance company to skip even one yearly, it would have developed rapidly. One thing they are NOT taking into account is that not every cancer is the same type. There are many types, and some of them move wayyy quicker than others in their progression. When my one aunt was in her 30's she was diagnosed with cancer too, if she had not had her 'yearlies' it would have gone undetected too, and she would probably not be here today either. Early detection IS the key to survival, and it's unbelieveable that they are even thinking that way. To me, this whole thing seems to be about the insurance companies saving money, and not about potentially saving lives. On a side note here, again, personally speaking...once we've had cancer and gone through all the treatments, then the insurance compainies can claim that we're 'uninsurable' and a bad risk. Once you've passed 5? years, cancer free, then they deem you insurable again, and at a price no human working a regular job can afford. I have now been uninsured for the past 10 years because of this very thing. They never took into account all those years I paid insurance and never even visited a dr and was 100% healthy! I know many folks that are in the exact same position as I am in. That's why I believe that this whole deal is because of trying to cut down on the insurance companies costs, and at the risk of lives. It all seems to boil down to money for the insurance co.

Lil, you started out your post with, "Well we all heard the mammogram BS. Now they have come out with a new one..." It should be noted that "they" - meaning the groups that made the two separate recommendations - aren't the same and aren't even connected to each other. The findings about PAP tests aren't really all that new nor are they a radical change from previous recommendations. Below is an excerpt from an article on this topic which you can read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/health/20pap.html Arriving on the heels of hotly disputed guidelines calling for less use of mammography, the new recommendations might seem like part of a larger plan to slash cancer screening for women. But the timing was coincidental, said Dr. Cheryl B. Iglesia, the chairwoman of a panel in the obstetricians’ group that developed the Pap smear guidelines. The group updates its advice regularly based on new medical information, and Dr. Iglesia said the latest recommendations had been in the works for several years, “long before the Obama health plan came into existence.” She called the timing crazy, uncanny and “an unfortunate perfect storm,” adding, “There’s no political agenda with regard to these recommendations.” Dr. Iglesia said the argument for changing Pap screening was more compelling than that for cutting back on mammography — which the obstetricians’ group has staunchly opposed — because there is more potential for harm from the overuse of Pap tests. The reason is that young women are especially prone to develop abnormalities in the cervix that appear to be precancerous, but that will go away if left alone. But when Pap tests find the growths, doctors often remove them, with procedures that can injure the cervix and lead to problems later when a woman becomes pregnant, including premature birth and an increased risk of needing a Caesarean. (End of excerpt) Of course, nothing is going to keep opponents to health care reform from using this politically. I guess insurance companies aren't going to use these new "guidelines" in order to save money but the government is, right? I mean, haven't the insurance companies done everything in their power all these years to prove profits aren't as important as the lives of their customers...NOT!!! Also, I've heard some of the same kinds of recommendations for men regarding prostate cancer screenings so it's not EXACTLY a plot against just women. Annie

Yes, but there are two sides to the argument. On the one hand for some people it is useful, but for other's it is actually unnecessary. So ideally your doctor should have recommended the frequency based on your condition and your chances of getting on of these cancers. But, with doctors being driven by hospital profitability, they simply recommend everyone to go for the scan or smear. This led the insurance companies to make a hue and cry as they were loosing out on their money and so these new guidelines are in. I think it is best left to an individual to decide what kind of frequency he or she wants for his/her medicational needs. Unfortunately excessive greed of a few individuals makes this whole system fail!! Cheers! Ram

What's the biggest benefit from less testing? Saving money. I hate that this sounds terribly conspiracy theorist of me, but these statements are timed quite nicely with the passage of public health care. The government is preparing to instill a huge health care policy (assuming it gets passed the Senate), and so guess who's going to be shelling out more money so that people can maintain good health? It could be coincidence, but I think it's awfully strange that they're waiting until now to do this. Wasn't the purpose of the health care plan to help those who need it so that "poor widdle citizens" won't die because they don't have health care? So, where does that put the female citizens if health care policies refuse to cover annual mammograms a PAP smears? We know lives are saved due to annual testing and early screening. Sometimes waiting one year for a test could have meant the difference between fast-growing cancer and something that could've been radiated into remission. This is an effort to save money for health care providers, pure and simple.