Mammogram madness costs major money
Filed under: Saving Money, Health
The latest guidelines from the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force now say that women don't need mammograms every year and don't need the first one until 50. Citing millions who have had "false positives," they report that the benefit is not worth the risk. For some of us, this isn't surprising. I have long questioned whether a yearly mammogram is really necessary. After all, you are shooting radiation into sensitive breast tissue every year in a machine that flattens your breast like an automatic garage door opener. But for many women, that is only the beginning. Almost every woman I know, including me, has had a false positive with a mammogram that is a nightmare of anxiety.
It starts with a phone call to let you know that there is something "suspicious" on the films from the mammogram. After a few frantic calls to women friends, you schedule an ultrasound for further evaluation. Supposedly, an ultrasound shows more detail which makes me wonder why they don't do that in the first place and skip the radiation.
If more "suspicious" spots show up on the ultrasound, you are given a choice to "watch" it or do a biopsy. I don't have any statistics which option most people pick but I can tell you when I went through this that I received a clear message that a biopsy is the only way to be "sure" that the spots are not "sinister."
It was explained to me that a biopsy is a very minor procedure where a few "snips" of tissue are taken. Like an idiot, I went in to have it done. It was not explained to me that it was painful and my entire breast would end up one big bruise. And when I called four weeks later to tell them that my breast was bright red and throbbing and I was running a fever, I was told it was impossible to get an infection so late after the procedure. Well, it was not impossible and it took two courses of antibiotics to clear it up.
Certainly I'm glad that no cancer was found but I went through an awful lot just to prove that I am healthy. Unfortunately, I have seen this a lot. I have seen double mastectomies in 85-year-old women. I've seen women in their 90s get chemo, just to "make sure there is a cure." Of course they could have done nothing and probably would have died of something else.
All I know is that I can go to the doctor perfectly healthy and leave with a handful of scripts for expensive tests: mammogram, colonoscopy, bone, scan, and blood work. Over 40 million women a year have mammograms costing medicare and insurance companies millions of dollars. About 8% of the screens show a "false positive" like I experienced. This further testing can cost from $2000-5000 dollars more.
It really makes me wonder if all this healthcare screening is cost effective.
Barbara Bartlein, RN, MSW, is the People Pro. For her FREE e-mail newsletter, visit: The People Pro
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-28-2009 @ 11:43AM
RecoveringDemoholic said...
It is about time a motivational speaker and non-practicing RN spoke up on this matter, rather than an oncologist or survivor. My only criticism of this article is that the author omitted discussing the benefits of delayed self-examinations.
I can think of dozens of toys and gatronomic treats I could have afforded over the years, except for the extra fees in my health insurance policies.
I can't wait to forward this link to three of my female friends, who are ranting and raving against Obama Health Care, just because they think early detection saved their lives. Silly bitches. Don't they realize the angst created for so many cancer free women, not to mention the pain of the occasionally botched biopsy.
I am sure my now deceased sister selfishly would have argued that these practices bought her an extra ten to fifteen years. Of course, she would not be considering how it impacted her older brothers. Sitting with her through the many cycles of chemotherapy. Fretting over remission approximately every five years. Dealing with wheelchairs and bedpans in our older rather than younger years when it would be so much easier. Who cares about those years of conversation and hugs, extra trips to the beach, outings to the mountains, Christmases and Easters and Birthdays.
Reply
11-28-2009 @ 12:17PM
John said...
I guess it's always a waste of money - unless you are one of the 200,000 women who are diagnosed with breast cancer. Or perhaps one of the 40,000 who will die this year from this disease. Early detection gives a woman - or a man - a 96% survival rate.
Only in a rationed system would these kind of statistics be ignored. The HHS announcement is the first concrete harbinger of the rationed care approach this administration will impose if they get their way.
Reply
11-28-2009 @ 1:44PM
DrPrice said...
There are pros and cons to most things, including screening exams. In the end, patients should be given real facts and be able to make a decision that is appropriate for them.
Part of the challenge that is highlighted above is the price of all the testing. But the problem is even more complex as pricing varies so much. Even at the same center- see the story A clinic with 2 doors (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33863680).
To control costs patients need to make sure they don't get charge too much for services. Sites like www.healthcarebluebook.com can really help.
Reply
11-30-2009 @ 5:07PM
MikeL said...
Per CDC 1 in 69 women 40-49 will be diagnosed with breast cancer. If they get it in their early 40's, they may be dead before it's time for their first test.
If not, and the cancer is discovered in the first test after age 50, we can save even more money by having some panel decide that treatment is not warranted due the the advanced state of the disease
Reply
11-29-2009 @ 6:39PM
Gharkness said...
Yep, this is what I call the ostrich method of health care. Just stick your head in the sand and it won't happen to you.
Reply