Health Care Reform is a Deficit Reducer

AND . . . . are they including those mammograms that look suspicious and women come back for a second look by mammo or sono? And then they find out that everything is fine? (Whew!).

Are those first mammo's "false positives"?

Because I've had them - and appreciate going back for further testing to rule out CANCER.

I've also had what might be called "false positives" with my yearly pap/pelvic exams. And go back for further testing of uterine tissue. Just to make sure it isn't CANCER.

I'm a hospice nurse dealing with mostly patients who have cancer . . . . being more careful about diagnosis is a good idea to me.

Maybe the issue should be instead of limiting tests - how about lowering the costs of the tests?

I've started calling around to find the lowest cost for lab tests, mammos, gyne appts, etc., taking into account the expertise too.

Maybe if the market had more leeway . . . .costs would go down.

But getting more bureaucracy and some "idgit" person in Washington D.C. to make decisions about MY health care decisions than is already in existence is maddening.

steph (my grandma always said "idgit")

Effectiveness research and screening based on risk factors makes more sense.


Steph, My initial point was driven by a source that you provided.....

This is OT, but a very promising screening tool for breast cancer that is on the horizon is thermal imaging - carries no risk from exposure to ionizing radiation like x-rays.

For all the noise made about the recent mammogram recommendation change did anyone notice Sen Reids comment. He came out and said in so many words that reimbursements for the procedure should not change from current practice under reform. (Effectiveness research may find that genetic testing for BRCA and HEr would be a better strategy for identifying women at risk of developing breast cancer between age 40-50 which cold then tailor mammogram practices...)