An editorial “Breast guidelines and health politics” highlights (1) “The bottom line in deciding what to do should be this: Women’s lives should not be placed at risk.” It states (2) “If insurance companies decide they can save money by adopting the new guidelines, detection testing for breast cancer will change.” (3) “Women in their 40s don’t want to be told, by insurers or by government, when they can get an affordable mammogram and when they must pay for it on their own.” (4) “It’s an unpleasant necessity that insurance representatives must weigh in on the private medical decisions that patient and doctor make.” (5) “The administration is running from its task force recommendations as quickly as possible because it recognizes how well the proposals illustrate the consequences of government intrusion into health care.”
WATCHDOG: Hey what? Compare (1) for its inconsistency with (2), (3), (4), and (5). Although difficult to decipher, it would appear that the New Era is recognizing that costs need to be a consideration for what insurance companies (and ultimately their policy holders) will be willing to cover. Pardon our language, but this is ‘rationing.’
At a time when health care costs exceeds 15% of the Gross National Product (as compared to less than 10% in other developed nations), we cannot afford to do every conceivable preventive measure. Rather we need to prioritize. Thus note the condescension and downright silliness of “Women’s lives should not be placed at risk.”
The New Era editors are not the only ones to be faulted. An article in the Sunday News from the Los Angeles Times headed “Many cancer tests don’t stand up to close scrutiny” addresses the situation as though the only consideration is the possible damage to health from false positives without even mentioning the crowding out of more important treatments because of the resulting lack of funds.
