Poor (Women) being turned away from free cancer screenings

[Kadie]

Poor being turned away from free cancer screenings
By VALERIE BAUMAN, Associated Press Writer

Saturday, December 12, 2009


(12-12) 14:48 PST Albany, N.Y. (AP) --

As the economy falters and more people go without health insurance, low-income women in at least 20 states are being turned away or put on long waiting lists for free cancer screenings, according to the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network.

In the unofficial survey of programs for July 2008 through April 2009, the organization found that state budget strains are forcing some programs to reject people who would otherwise qualify for free mammograms and Pap smears. Just how many are turned away isn't known; in some cases, the women are screened through other programs or referred to different providers.

"I cried and I panicked," said Erin LaBarge, 47. This would have been her third straight year receiving a free mammogram through the screening program in St. Lawrence County. But the Norwood, N.Y., resident was told she couldn't get her free mammogram this year because there isn't enough money and she's not old enough.

New York used to screen women of all ages, but this year the budget crunch has forced them to focus on those considered at highest risk and exclude women under 50.

"It's a scary thought. It really is," said LaBarge, who fears she's at a higher risk because her grandmother died of breast cancer.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/12/12/national/a105247S01.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0ZWUrCFNZ

[rd_kent]

1. As I read this story, it seems that ALL women are being turned away, not just poor ones.

Is that right? Just women under 50, not only poor women.

[Chemisse]

3. I thought that too from the headline

But I think it means that all the women to get the free services are poor women, and that the funding has cut back.

[salvorhardin]

4. In New York State that is true

In NYS, the decision was made to restrict free screenings to women 50 and older. This in accordance with the new U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines, althought the article implies NYS is doing because of budgetary problems. Nothing is stopping women who still want mammograms from getting them, but they'll have to pay. Of course, this effectively makes early breast cancer screening impossible for women under 50 who can not afford it. On the other hand, the new guidelines were implemented in part because regular mammograms for women under 50 were shown to do more harm than good.

I don't know about other states.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

12. I've seen articles that say that mammograms may be causing cancer.

Heard it on my radio FM 2 weeks ago also.

Pretty sad all the way around.

[sandnsea]

8. If one has the money, one can get a mammogram

Regardless of age. Correct?

[rd_kent]

9. I would guess so?

[sandnsea]

10. Well then it's the poor ones being turned away

Right?

[rd_kent]

11. Are they screening the applicants on some criteria other than age?

I'm not seeing what you are.

I understand the correlation you are trying to make, but I don't think poor women are being targeted specifically here. Budget cuts have forced them to limit the free screening to those over 50, the highest at-risk group.

[sandnsea]

14. The program is for women who can't afford mammograms

Consequently, the ones being turned away -- are poor.

[anigbrowl]

18. The headline is confusing because it implies non-poor women are still getting free mammograms

'free' being the significant word here. Your analysis is correct, but the headline is tautological.

[liberalhistorian]

17. No, only the women who didn't have money or insurance to pay

for them and who relied on state funding.

[Odin2005]

2. Disgusting!

:puke:

[rd_kent]

6. What is disgusting?

[liberalhistorian]

16. Oh, gee, I don't know-maybe the fact

that the moral worth of a person's life is determined by the size of their wallet? That people who could otherwise be saved might not be because of a lack of money? That money-uber-alles drives health care and providers in this country?

[rd_kent]

21. Oh, was it you that posted "disgusting" and to whom I was asking that?

[liberalhistorian]

24. Oh, excuse me, your highness. I didn't

realize that you make the rules here and that no one else could address you without your permission.

And funny how you'd focus on that instead of the fact that women who can't afford mammograms and pap smears cannot even get such screening in many cases now, thereby causing needless deaths in the future. But I realize that that is less important than the right people addressing you.

[rd_kent]

26. Whats funny is that I asked a poster to clarify their statement and YOU answered.

What are you, some kind of all-knowing DU god that can answer for everyone? If so, why not just answer for me too. While your at it you can just have a conversation with yourself.

[liberalhistorian]

28. No, I thought that YOU are the all-knowing

DU God. At least, in your own mind. Not in anyone else's, that's for sure.

And I see that you still haven't addressed the REAL issue, which is that poor and uninsured women are being denied access to mammograms and pap smears, tests that could save their lives. Do I need to break out the crickets sound effect or what?

[rd_kent]

30. You are delusional.

YOU are the one that responded to a question that was NOT directed at you. YOU are the one that made it a personal attack when I asked if YOU were the one I was asking the question. YOU are the one that cannot see that I already shared my opinion elsewhere in this thread. YOU are the one that seems to want to pick a fight with me for some reason. This is all about YOU. YOU have no concern for anyone or anything other than YOURSELF.

[liberalhistorian]

31. Really? I'm sure my husband, my son,

my mother and my two stepparents with dementia would beg to differ. But whatever. Think what you want, I don't give a shit.

[rd_kent]

32. If you don;t give a shit, why the fuck did you respond to a post that was not directed to you?

You, you, you......thats all you care about.

[liberalhistorian]

33. I think you misunderstand. What I don't give a shit

about is what you think of me.

[rd_kent]

34. Your actions say differently.

If you didn't care, you would not respond to my posts. You can start now.....

[Odin2005]

27. That women under 50 are being turned away.

My cousin was diagnosed with breast cancer a few years ago, she was 38 at the time.. She was lucky because it was caught early.

[liberalhistorian]

29. I know, it's truly frustrating. Out of the forty women I graduated high

school with, three of them had breast cancer before their 40th birthdays; one was thirty-seven. And the cancers would never have been discovered had they, and not their doctors, insisted on a mammogram. Since they were under forty, their cancers would likely not have been disocvered without those mammograms until it would have been too late to save them.

[Rage for Order]

13. A glimpse into the future of public healthcare

Fewer services for more people in the name of budget constraints

From article linked in the OP:

The issue of when women should get mammograms erupted into controversy last month when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that the exams not be given routinely until women are 50, and then every two years.

That broke with the Cancer Society's long-standing position that women should begin getting mammograms at the age of 40 and annually thereafter; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends mammograms every one to two years for women in their 40s and every year after age 50.

The American Cancer Society opposes the federal task force recommendations.

The ACS says women should begin getting annual screenings at age 40. The federal government's task force disagrees and says women should wait until they are 50, and then they should only receive screenings every other year. Guess who won that fight, unfortunately for women.

[Union Yes]

5. Only in a Christian nation... F'n sad.

[rd_kent]

7. What christian nation?

Because this is not a christian nation....

[dflprincess]

15. We hear a lot about free mammogram screenings, but I've never heard what happens

if something shows up on the mammogram. Follow for even something that turns out to be benign can cost a few thousand dollars. Do these programs provide for that as well?

[NoUsername]

20. I have often wondered the same thing.

And if the free screening shows cancer, is the treatment paid for? My guess is no.

Also, if the screening shows something and the patient decides to rework her budget in order to acquire heath insurance coverage, will they be denied treatment because it will now be considered a pre-existing condition?

I have often wondered who gets the free screenings. After all, if they can't afford a mammogram, they sure as hell can't afford the care necessary if something should show up on the screening. NOT that I think that is right, mind you. I'm in favor of single-payer which would give everyone 100% coverage for all their health care needs (with the exception to the "100% coverage" being very minor co-pays on visits and meds which would be waived for those in lower income brackets). Oh, and the coverage should include dental and eye glasses, two areas that are often ignored when talking about health care.

So, who gets these screening and what happens if something shows up on them? Anyone?

[NMMNG]

19. Amurka has the best health care in the world

If you've got the money for it. Otherwise you can go die in the streets.

[SoCalDem]

22. In America, if you are poor, you don't deserve health care

It's just that simple:(

[Nikki Stone1]

23. Age 50....hmmm... where have we heard that before.....

http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/testing/new_research/20091116.jsp

Don't tell me it's not rationing care.

[arcadian]

25. Yeah, if they are poor and have cancer they won't be able to pay for subsequent treatment.

Looks like the screenings are a hook to get women(well off women) in the door.