Timing stinks?
It’s disappointing that The Seattle Times slammed the careful work by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force because it was politically convenient [“Mammogram debate,” Opinion, editorial, Nov. 22].
On the question on when to begin screening, the task force commissioned an outside institute to research the question. It was verified by 15 outside scientists before the task force considered it. Many other countries begin routine screening at age 50, and their death rate is not much different from the U.S.
The data on how frequent women should have mammograms is more clear-cut: every other year gives the same benefit as every year.
If we cannot make objective decisions on what works and what does not, how can we possibly hope for a better health-care system?
Lastly, The Times said the “timing of the report stinks.” Should political considerations hold up important recommendations?
— Kim Riddell, Edmonds
Forgetting the payer, a key player in the health-care system
The Times’ editorial about mammograms persists in the delusion that there are only two parties to a medical decision: the patient and the doctor.
But the newspaper forgot one key player, the payer.
Since the rest of us are paying for this, we have a stake in the decision. As a payer, I’d like to know that the treatment I help pay for is medically necessary and cost effective.
The current situation, where the patient and the doctor decide what to do, and a third party — uncomplaining — pays for it all, is not sustainable. Neither of them has any incentive to reduce costs.
It’s a large part of why health costs are so high in this country. If we want to bring health-care costs under control, then we’re going to have to make tough decisions.
Saying that the patient and doctor should do whatever they want is avoiding the necessary action.
— Alan Davidoff, Bellvue
I am a breast-cancer survivor
I would not be on the planet if it were not for self-examination and mammograms [“Breast-cancer flap gets political,” News, Nov. 19].
Many of my friends would also not be here for the same reasons.
I attended three breast-cancer support groups, two where the majority of women were 30 years or younger. They all were dealing with breast cancer.
I am in shock that a panel of federal, independent so-called experts advises what is important in women’s breast-care health. I am wondering if any of these experts are women. Are these experts connected to big money in anyway?
Though I would not wish this on anyone, I wonder how these experts would feel if their daughter or young wife died of breast cancer because they knew nothing of self-breast examination, or were not covered by insurance to get a mammogram because of their age.
— Shanti Schenker-Skye, Seattle