Too much preventive medicine

It is often argued, primarily by liberals, that more spending on preventive medicine would save money in the long run.

However, according to a NY Times article, the American Cancer Society admits that there is too much screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer, which is leading to unnecessary medical expense for screenings and treatment of stuff which didn’t need to be treated.

Comments

[Eric Stratton, Rush Chairman]

I smell a rat here. The ACS, like most non-profit organizations these days, is hopelessly left-wing, multi-culti, and politically correct. They're lining up behind Obamacare and rationing because they think doing so will be advantageous for them financially and politically. The other possibility is that Rahm Emmanuel or someone else from the administration has been leaning on them, possibly threatening them with a cutoff of federal funds if they don't toe the line. This isn't happening in a vacuum, trust me.

[outlaw josey wales]

So, based only on your blurb, there is too much of a certain small subset of preventive medicine, not too much preventive medicine per se.

Do conservatives argue that we should have less preventive medicine?

[Marla Singer]

Apparently mammograms are ineffective and may increase your risk of getting breast cancer.

[John Standos]

Isn't it odd how the two most "popular" cancers are gendered? Would there be as much focus on these two cancers if they were unisex?

[Black Death]

The issue is indeed complex. However, prostate cancer deaths in the US have declined 30% since PSA screening was introduced, and breast cancer death rates have been declining about 2% annualy since 1990.

[gc]

In Finland we have screenings for breast cancer, but not for prostate cancer, because "that`s just too expensive". Expect that to happen in your country too. Men`s lives are cheap.

[dearieme]

Read Gerd Gigerenzer's "Risk" and then see what you think about screening for Breast and Prostate cancer.

[Mr. Dictionary]

preventative medicine is the practice of using methods to preventing a disease (healthy eating, exercise, etc) not performing unnecessary tests to detect a disease.

Think of it this way: a preventative measure would have been to Google the phase "preventative medicine" before you wrote this ridiculous post, thus stopping you from making a connections that does not exist.

See how that works?

[SteveBrooklineMA]

It's hard for me to see the down side of PSA testing. It's just a blood test, and costs about $100. How can not knowing your PSA level possibly be better than knowing? Isn't more information always better? There may be a problem with over-treatment, but that is not a problem with PSA testing in itself. What is needed is better use of the information that PSA testing provides.

[JohnM]

preventitive medicine isn't just about screening. it's also about behavioral change to reduce the likelihood of getting a particular disease i.e. reduce smoking rates, eat more fiber.

[mike]

"In Finland we have screenings for breast cancer, but not for prostate cancer, because "that`s just too expensive". Expect that to happen in your country too. Men`s lives are cheap."

I would just like to point out that NO ONE IS PROPOSING SOCIALIST HEALTH CARE FOR THE UNITED STATES!!!!!11

They just admit that it's their goal, and that the public option will inevitably lead to it.

[sfer]

The problem with screening is that there can be false positives or they can find small cancers that will never be a problem. Given that side effects of prostate cancer surgery include incontinence and impotence, and that US doctors have a pro-intervention bias, I am not rushing to be screened for prostate cancer.

[Black Death]

Here are the problems with PSA:

1. The upper limit of the reference range is not well established. It is usually stated as 4 ng/ml, but that's only sort of true. It rises with age. A value of 3.9 ng/mol is too high at age 52 but might be OK at age 72. The rate of increase is probably more important.

2. Conditions such as prostatitis and benign enlargement elevate PSA. Only a biopsy can confirm or exclude cancer.

3. Not all prostate cancers cause elevated PSA, although most do.

4. Therapy is not clear. Options include prostatectomy, external beam radiation, radioactive implants or watchful waiting. Each form of therapy has its advocates. All (except watchful waiting) may cause serious complications, such as impotence or incontinence. No form of therapy is clearly superior to another.

5. Many urologists perform twelve biopsies so that they will have a high likelihood of finding a cancer as well as being able to measure its extent. This is not dangerous but is no fun for the patient. Costs may be $2000 or more.

6. "Watchful waiting" involves having PSA levels done two or three times per year plus annual prostate biopsies. This may be a viable option for patients with small foci of low-grade tumors. But nobody knows exactly where to draw the line on "small" or "low-grade." The longer the patient's life expectency, the greater is the tendency to treat, but hard data here are lacking too.

7. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the USA.

8. Those who do not advocate prostate cancer screening (PSA plus digital rectal exam) need to explain why prostate cancer death rates have fallen 30% in the US since PSA screening was introduced. Prostate cancer death rates in the US are near the bottom of the pack for North America and Europe and are falling faster than in any of those countries.

[ironrailsironweights.wordpress.com]

"preventitive medicine isn't just about screening. it's also about behavioral change to reduce the likelihood of getting a particular disease i.e. reduce smoking rates, eat more fiber"

One of the most vital things men can do to keep themselves healthy and lengthen their lifespans is to keep their waists under 40 inches.