Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do these groups issue recommendations in the first place?
Being that it is a case by case basis, even for preventative care, as you say. Further, that the insurance companies pay no attention to these recommendations when writing policies.
Why would they issue a recommendation in the first place?
Because the general population needs guidance in overall health issues. They are not medical experts.
Why do these groups issue recommendations in the first place?
Being that it is a case by case basis, even for preventative care, as you say. Further, that the insurance companies pay no attention to these recommendations when writing policies.
Why would they issue a recommendation in the first place?
To provide guidelines to doctors so that they can provide optimal care for patients. Here's the thing, it's optimal for the average Joe to be given a prostate examination, right? But if it's optimal to do that every five years isn't it optimal to do it every year, every six months, every three months, every week? Clearly, there needs to be an evaluation for how often such screenings are optimal for the average patient. That's what these recommendations are for. How average you are, or how average I am, well that's between ourselves and our doctors, isn't it?
That is complete BS. Insurance companies establish their guidelines for payment based on physician recommendations, especially from groups like these. When they say "it isn't necessary" private insurance says "we aren't paying for it". I don't blame them.
Who I do blame are the physicians who put out these recommendations, not based exclusivily on their medical opinions, but also on their political ideologies and how those medical opinions effect their ability to push their agenda.
That is a conflict of interest in itself. This doctor, the panel for the group she serves on, and that panels open admission of advocating for healthcare reform should be clear enough for most people.
This doctor should spend a little more time being a doctor and a little less time serving on panels which have expressed interest in lobbying congress. Her decision not to do so, makes me and I suspect many other objective thinkers doubt her motivations.
A few months ago, before I had ever heard of these mammogram recommendations (which I realize are not really the subject of this thread), I told a friend that I felt breast cancer had become very politicized. Not in a right vs left way, but in other ways. Rather than physicians informing the patients of what they (the physicians) feel is the best treatment for a particular patient, the dr is now supposed to give the pt all the options and let her choose! (It's almost always a woman who is the patient, and the mammogram recs focus exclusively on women, for those of you salivating at your keyboards to inform me that men, too get breast cancer!) These new recs seem to follow along in that line.
Re: cervical cancer and pap smears, these recs seem to be more scientifically based, and are not much different from the current recs.
Do all women need Pap tests?
It is important for all women to have Pap tests, along with pelvic exams, as part of their routine health care. You need a Pap test if you are:
21 years or older
under 21 years old and have been sexually active for 3 years or more
There is no age limit for the Pap test. Even women who have gone through menopause (when a woman's periods stop) need regular Pap tests. Women ages 65 to 70 can talk to their doctor about stopping after at least 3 normal Pap tests and no abnormal results in the last 10 years.
[Return to Top]
How often do I need to get a Pap test?
It depends on your age and health history. Talk with your doctor about what is best for you. Most women can follow these guidelines:
If you are younger than 30 years old, you should get a Pap test every year.
If you are age 30 or older and have had 3 normal Pap tests for 3 years in a row, talk to your doctor about spacing out Pap tests to every 2 or 3 years.
If you are ages 65 to 70 and have had at least 3 normal Pap tests and no abnormal Pap tests in the last 10 years, ask your doctor if you can stop having Pap tests.
You should have a Pap test every year no matter how old you are if:
You have a weakened immune system because of organ transplant, chemotherapy, or steroid use
Your mother was exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES) while pregnant
You are HIV-positive
Women who are living with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, are at a higher risk of cervical cancer and other cervical diseases. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that all HIV positive women get an initial Pap test, and get re-tested 6 months later. If both Pap tests are normal, then these women can get yearly Pap tests in the future.
Mods please note: this is a govt. website, not a copyright site.
First, I turned 50 recently and my Dr told me I could have a baseline colonoscopy,not because she thought I needed one or because I had reason to be concerned but because "the insurance company will pay for it". I did it, and both her and the Dr who did the procedure were pleased but surprised that a woman my age would undergo such an invasive procedure for no good reason. Most people don't and many never have one their entire lives.
Second, my dental insurance pays for 2 cleanings a year, which is apparently good enough for most people. Because I have challenging teeth I go in for a cleaning 3 times a year. It's my choice, and I pay for it. I see nothing wrong with that.
The point of the stories are that it doesn't matter who recommends what, or even who pays for what, people are only going to do what they want to do anyway.
To provide guidelines to doctors so that they can provide optimal care for patients. Here's the thing, it's optimal for the average Joe to be given a prostate examination, right? But if it's optimal to do that every five years isn't it optimal to do it every year, every six months, every three months, every week? Clearly, there needs to be an evaluation for how often such screenings are optimal for the average patient. That's what these recommendations are for. How average you are, or how average I am, well that's between ourselves and our doctors, isn't it?
Its between us, our doctors, and our insurance company since they foot the bill.
Hell, I would go to the doctor once a month just for a check up if it was up to me. As you say, that would be "optimal", but I am well aware that somebody has to pay for that, and the cost I pay to my insurer in premiums doesn't include this level of optimal care. I don't blame the insurer, there just needs to be some standard.
So, the insurer sets a standard which they feel is adequate and properly reflected in the premiums I pay. Since the insurer isn't in the business of making those judgements, they rely partly on external sources and internal doctors to develop proper intervals for preventative care.
Thus my point... by pushing back the intervals of recommended preventative care by organizations like the one in the OP, they have infact taken steps which will potentially impact others level of insurered preventative medicine.
Add to that the fact that this organization has a political motivation and its clear to see how their political motivation, in this case healthcare reform, impacts those who don't intend on utilizing the government program.
Look, since the begining of this healthcare debate, those of us who oppose it have voiced our concerns.
-That we will have to pay more in taxes to cover the cost of a subsidized government health insurance. According to the CBO that came true.
-That we would be forced to enter the rolls of a sub-standard government program as employers turn to the less expensive, less inclusive government program. Polls show this will happen.
-That if we kept our private insurance, that it would be affected by implementation of the government program... and not just with a price reduction. This article supports this situation.
The whole time this debate has been going on, we have been called uncompassionate, selfish, doom and gloom, and dramatic. Our concerns were dismissed, our fears thrown out.
So here we are. Instance after instance of our concerns coming to light, and suddenly the response is "naw, that isn't the case".
You all can play that game if you want. Continuing to push for the healthcare reform agenda as if the opinions of all of those footing the bill should be dismissed. You can continue to act as though its some stereotypical selfish motivation.
Or...
We can just come to terms that the implementation of the government program is impacting private insurance providers and insured. We can come to grips that the program infact can't be self supportive, and we can move the discussion forward.
Why can't government and the entitlement people just leave us and our wallets alone? Why is that so difficult to comprehend? Leave us alone.
The point of the stories are that it doesn't matter who recommends what, or even who pays for what, people are only going to do what they want to do anyway.
How can you say it doesn't matter?
To women who have insurance, and feel that the recommendation is motivated by political reasons... it matters very much.
How about this. How about the recommendation for dental cleaning is changed to just once per year, because politically its better for X cause. You aren't going to be upset that you now have to pay for 2 visits?
To women who have insurance, and feel that the recommendation is motivated by political reasons... it matters very much.
How about this. How about the recommendation for dental cleaning is changed to just once per year, because politically its better for X cause. You aren't going to be upset that you now have to pay for 2 visits?
SInce there are no "politial reasons" involved in any of this I don't know how to respond.
If my insurance company only paid for one cleaning I would pay for the other two. If I didn't have the money I wouldn't, kind of like how I don't currently pay to have them cleaned 4 times a year. I weigh the pros and cons and make a decision, like I do with everything in life.
Because someone has to pay for what the government will give away.
We are slowly approaching 50% of Americans do not pay Federal Income Tax (some get back more than they put in).
The government's revenue stream from taxes will shrink. To make that same amount of revenue..those that pay taxes will have to pay more.
It's nothing more than simple math.
I understand what is going on.
My question was more of "Why can't you people just leave me alone" as in, those that support the continued pilaging of my wallet.
I am not astounded by government continuing to rob me blind... afterall, our fore fathers knew a government would do this if allowed.
My issue is more with these people that think that they have a RIGHT, through government, to put the tax burden on half the population. I am absolutley astounded that anybody feels this way and can continue to show their face. I would be embarrassed if I had such a self righteous entitlement mentality. I would be ashamed of my EXPECTATION of others involuntary contributions.
I suppose if you make it a tax, then you don't have to feel guilty... it was the government that did it and there will always be taxes.
Eitherway... my comment was directed at all of the people on this forum who continually advocate for this increase in government control and heavy progressive taxation.
So, my question remains... why won't you just leave me alone?
SInce there are no "politial reasons" involved in any of this I don't know how to respond.
If my insurance company only paid for one cleaning I would pay for the other two. If I didn't have the money I wouldn't, kind of like how I don't currently pay to have them cleaned 4 times a year. I weigh the pros and cons and make a decision, like I do with everything in life.
Read the other pages of the thread and then get back to me.
The organization that made the new recommendations are nothing more than a lobbying group in D.C. who advocate in support of healthcare reform.
It was political. All of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
