Save the ta ta-tas? The American Cancer Society says wait until age 45

Checking our boobies may have to wait until age 45.

It’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and new guidelines released by the American Cancer Society (ACS) will stir debate and reinvigorate criticism of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law.

The guidelines recommend annual mammograms starting at age 45 instead of 40, and mammograms every other year after age 55. Shockingly, one recommendation is a significant departure from previous guidelines: physical breast exams, either self administered or physician provided, are no longer recommended.

In 2009, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) caused an uproar when the panel introduced recommendations -such as waiting until age 50 to start  biennial mammograms — vastly different from current practice.

The new ACS  guidelines are not as relaxed as the  2009 recommendations. Both the ACS and the USPSTF guidelines address average risk women, and both groups suggest starting at age 40, we should have a conversation with our doctors to determine the appropriate time for screening.

The USPSTF reviews evidence and assigns each recommendation a letter grade (A,B,C, or D). This 16 member panel is compromised of physicians and nurses from academic settings with expertise in every field except cancer. Its members are appointed by the Director of AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality). AHRQ is under  the Department of Health and Human Services.

Obamacare is becoming reality, and these changes are not surprising. Since the 2009 guidelines were released, there has been a significant decrease in mammography screening among insured women in the US.

Now that the ACS is on board, what can we expect in the future?

Obamacare critics warned of health care rationing, “one size fits all ” health care, and  bureaucratic involvement in  medical decisions. A 2012 Forbes article informed readers, “ObamaCare empowers the government U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to determine which preventive health services are medically appropriate.”

The Forbes piece titled “Is President Obama’s Prostate Gland More Important Than Yours?” explains how the doctor-patient relationship is at risk.

“. . .the USPSTF guidelines will undermine this doctor-patient relationship because of their enhanced role under ObamaCare.

“ObamaCare links insurance coverage of preventive medical services to their USPSTF rating. Medicare must cover all “A” or “B” services, such as cholesterol testing or colonoscopies. . . . But under ObamaCare, Medicare payment decisions will become increasingly controlled by the new Independent Payment Advisory Board, explicitly created to reduce Medicare spending. Given Medicare’s skyrocketing costs, it’s only a matter of time before the government stops paying for services that its own scientific panel has given a “D” rating.”

“Similarly, private health insurance companies must cover for ‘free’ all USPSTF “A” or “B” rated services, while abiding by government price controls. To reduce costs, many private insurers will likely drop coverage for “C” and “D” rated services. Hence under ObamaCare, the USPSTF guidelines will likely become the de facto standards for both government and private health insurance coverage.”

Obamacare was designed by men with no compassion for average Americans. People like Jonathan Gruber, who bragged about the “lack of transparency” to pass Obamacare  and “the stupidity of the American voter”, and Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who wrote a disturbing piece about dying at age 75, want government bureaucrats to be in charge of health care.

The USPSTF recommendations  and now the ACS guidelines signify a shift to delayed screening, and this could mean delayed diagnosis. Both groups can console us with talk of flexibility and patient-doctor collaboration, but will insurance cover early screening if these powerful groups do not recommend it? Probably not.

This issue is personal. I was a  healthy, active young woman with no family history of breast cancer. At age 40, I was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. One year later, I discovered a mass in my right breast during a self-exam. I had a routine mammogram six months prior to this discovery. A follow-up mammogram showed no abnormalities, but a breast ultrasound revealed a 2cm mass. At the age of 41, I was diagnosed with triple negative cancer, an aggressive type of breast cancer. If these new guidelines had been in place during that time, my situation would be different today.

Mammography did not detect my cancer, but that is not the case for everyone. Just ask your OB/GYN. My personal breast exam worried me enough to seek further testing.

Two years ago, the ACS discussed a study about more  young women (age 25-39) being diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer. Breastcancer.org stated, “During the past 30 years, more women ages 25 to 39 were diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer — from 1.53 cases per 100,000 women in 1976 to 2.90 cases per 100,000 in 2009.

Despite younger women being affected by breast cancer, why are we delaying screening? Are these new guidelines evidence of loyalists, enamored with socialized medicine, doing the administration’s bidding?

This goes beyond cancer screening, and I believe new guidelines are the wind gust before the storm.

Dr. Emanuel, who has the bedside manner of a rattlesnake, explained in his article he will refuse cancer screening at 75, and he suggests a life diminished by disease is a burden to others. Elderly people with chronic disease may lead productive lives, but he doesn’t see it that way. Dr. Death has every right to his opinion, but his involvement in shaping a law that impacts every American should concern us all.  Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro writes:

“But it’s not enough for Emanuel to feel that way. We all must feel that way, and we must construct policy around that belief.”

As Shapiro mentioned, there is an effort to change how Americans view life, death, and health care. If we swallow this small pill of delayed screening, we can count on more in-depth discussions about end-of-life care and Death with Dignity laws. 

I want the government out of my life, and I place equal blame on both parties. Jonathan Gruber helped design Romneycare too. Democrats passed Obamacare, but most Republicans haven’t been too excited to repeal it.

As a cancer survivor, will I be left out of future decisions regarding my care? Why are some people willing to forfeit control of their own health care to support bad legislation? Is socialized medicine worth losing the personal doctor-patient relationship in order to turn over  decisions to bureaucrats?

Unqualified political appointees will be in charge of your health care.

If these people will be involved in our health care, we have every right to know who they are.   We should ask questions of those within the ACS responsible for the new guidelines. We should research the members of the USPSTF and the AHRQ director to examine their qualifications to weigh in on cancer screenings. Learning more about men like Jonathan Gruber and Ezekiel Emanuel might help us understand the Obama administration’s healthcare vision.

Ultimately, we should support bipartisan legislation designed to insure all Americans, preserve patient control, and respect the patient-doctor relationship.