Sebelius: Women should get mammograms by age 40

[Hatchling]

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Randolph E. Schmid, Ap Science Writer – 49 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Women should continue getting regular mammograms starting at age 40, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday, moving to douse confusion caused by a task-force recommendation two days earlier.

Sebelius issued her statement following 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.

Medicare, which covers older Americans and some younger ones who are disabled, provides women on Medicare coverage for an annual mammogram at age 40 and older.

Sebelius noted that there has been debate about the age at which routine mammograms should begin, and how often they should be given.


http://tiny.cc/3sS6p

Sorry about the link. I got to the story through my Yahoo page.

[medeak]

1. for at least a baseline

thank you Sebelius. My mom, aunt and two cousins...one cousin is currently dying very young..all breast cancer victims.

[Cerridwen]

2. Here's a cnn link if you'd like. Same article I think.

I had one for the AP, but it had a freakin' pic of mean jean schmidt. :puke:

cnn link

[Hatchling]

4. Thanks!

The more this news gets out there the better.

[David Zephyr]

3. Breast cancer runs in my family. I'm glad to see Sebelius stepping up here.

My mom and my aunt are breast cancer survivors. They both developed it in their 70's. My mom's amazing surgeon told us that breast cancer isn't as lethal in older women as it is with younger women. I don't know whether that is true, but my mom and my aunt are among the lucky ones.

But it does seem to me that when breast cancer strikes younger women, it tends to be more aggressive and more fatal which is why I simply could not understand the earlier pronouncement that women under 50 did not need mammograms.

I'm glad to see Sebelius stepping into this. I wish she'd done it a few days sooner, but she has done so now and that's a good thing.

[Nikki Stone1]

5. +1

.

[Demit]

6. The guidelines are for routine screening mammograms for non-symptomatic women.

Again: *routine* screening for *non-symptomatic* women is what the Preventive Services Task Force is talking about.

There's an very good diary over at Daily Kos that goes into depth about this issue, and the studies the recommended guidelines are based on. The comments are informative too. It is what one commenter called 'an excellent evidence-based discussion.' I agree & recommend it:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/18/805750/-Understanding-the-Mammography-Issue

[enlightenment]

7. Thank you.

Common sense is nice.

[Demit]

8. enlightenment is even better!

;)

[enlightenment]

11. Rather agree . . . doncha know!

;)

[tonysam]

9. It's better to read the actual recommendations

Annals of Internal Medicine


People need to read that before getting all upset over it. I think the recommendations are reasonable and are certainly not a result of some type of conspiracy against women. This issue has been debated in medical circles for years.

[SoCalDem]

10. The slippery slope here, is that insurance companies look for ANY excuse

to NOT cover things.. anything that is not considered necessary, or that has anything "new or controversial" about it, can easily be relegated to a case by case basis, which can add months to a start-to-finish approval or denial of coverage, and many women get cancer with NO family predilection ...someone in the family is always the "first"..

I see this as a crass and callous way to deny a whole lot of 40-64 year old women that baseline mammogram. and think of the money that will be "saved" by insurance companies for all those women who end up diagnosed as Stage 4 at 48..and dead by 50.. that's 14 years of "savings" on any medical care for that woman..