Take your prostate exams ....... (Ration Time!!!)

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by N3k9Ni

 

I think (bottom line) is that the information needs to get out and we treat people without influence by outside agencies regardless of their affiliation.

Cheers to you good sir for posting that, and I hope your brother continues to do well.

You are quite right. I hope you understand that my intention was not to "stir the pot", but to expand the discussion.

Thank you for your concern about my brother.

Cheers to you.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by Phage

 

Even so, how does this equate to "rationing health care"? This doctor was offering his opinion on the benefits/risks of said test. Not saying it should "rationed".

The doctor was recommending that the tests be not performed based on the cost of such tests.
Ergo; rationing.

reply to post by beezzer

The doctor was recommending that the tests be not performed based on the cost of such tests.
Ergo; rationing.

What are you talking about, "cost of such tests, ergo rationing"? The doctor never mentions the tests not be performed due to a financial cost. He states the tests can cause physical harm, mostly from false-positives and cancer treatments in healthy men due to these false-positives.

He at no time states the test should be "rationed", and his position has no bearing whatsoever on the ACA and the right-wing myth that health care will be "rationed"..

10. What are the benefits of screening?

The main goal of a cancer screening test is to reduce the number of deaths from the disease. The Task Force found that the reduction in prostate cancer deaths from PSA screening is at most very small. A large U.S. study showed no benefit from screening. A large European study that found the highest reported benefit suggests that no more than 1 man in 1,000 avoids death from prostate cancer because of screening. Other studies found no benefit at all.

11. What are the harms of screening?

The Task Force found that PSA screening has important potential harms. The PSA screening test often suggests that prostate cancer may be present when there is no cancer. This is called a “false-positive” result. Such results cause worry and anxiety and can result in follow-up tests and procedures, such as biopsies, that aren't needed. Biopsies can cause harms such as fever, infection, bleeding, urinary problems, and pain. A small number of men will be hospitalized because of these complications.

Because there is so much uncertainty about which cancers need to be treated, almost all men with prostate cancer found by the PSA test now get treatment with surgery, radiation, or hormone therapy. Many of these men do not need treatment because their cancer would not have grown or caused health problems even without treatment. This is called “overtreatment.”

The Task Force found that the treatment of cancers found by the PSA test has important, often lasting harms:

• Erectile dysfunction (impotence) from surgery, radiation therapy, or hormone therapy;
  
• Urinary incontinence (leakage of urine) from radiation therapy or surgery;
  
• Problems with bowel control from radiation therapy; and
  
• Death and serious complications from surgery.

To learn more about the known harms, see the USPSTF's fact sheet (PDF File, 293 KB).

The Task Force states physicians should not recommend PSA screening for prostate cancer because the science shows that the very small possibility of a benefit does not outweigh the known risk of harms.

Before recommending this test, physicians should first ensure that you understand the very small possibility of avoiding death from prostate cancer as a result of PSA screening and the much larger risk of harm that accompanies diagnosis and unnecessary treatment. The test should be done if, and only if, as an informed patient you choose to be screened.

How you went from the above to claiming the doctor was talking about rationing health care is beyond me. Clearly this will have no impact on that. The whole "health care will be rationed" is a bogus argument anyhow.

Sounds to me like what this group is saying is that the test provides too many false-positives which leads to treatment for cancers that don't exist, and don't recommend you use a PSA test to screen for it. The Mayo clinic also has a "fact sheet" up on the PSA test and state that the PSA levels can be high with no cancer present.

While high PSA levels can be a sign of prostate cancer, a number of conditions other than prostate cancer also can cause PSA levels to rise. These other conditions could cause what's known as a "false-positive" — meaning a result that falsely indicates you might have prostate cancer when you don't. Conditions that could lead to an elevated PSA level in men who don't have prostate cancer include:

-Benign prostate enlargement (benign prostatic hyperplasia)
-A prostate infection (prostatitis)
-Other less common conditions

False-positives are common. Only about 1 in 4 men who have a positive PSA test turns out to have prostate cancer

This is all beside the point, the argument isn't about the risk/reward of the PSA test, but your contention that this is about rationing health care. This panel seems to have made this conclusion based on medical science, not any political or financial scenario.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer
A government panel stating that tests need not be done, after last years panel stating that breast cancer screening should not be done, my own father surviving prostate cancer due to early screening,

be as shrill as you like.

Don't get the tests done yourself. It's your right.


I think this is a government agency providing justification for government rationing of medical tests that could save lives.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

I agree with you that there is nothing implying rationing.

PSA screening is effective in the early diagnosis of some types of prostate cancer. It also produces a lot of false positives (and some false negatives it turns out). It is that high number of false positives which is the problem, they lead to psychological distress and further diagnostics which carry risks of their own.

While there are some men who at high risk of prostate cancer, there are many who are not. What it gets down to is that maybe PSA screening shouldn't be a routine test (any more than a CT scan should be). The expense isn't an issue, its the ramifications of false positives.

reply to post by beezzer

I think this is a government agency providing justification for government rationing of medical tests that could save lives.

The government does not provide health care. How can they ration testing?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by beezzer

 

I think this is a government agency providing justification for government rationing of medical tests that could save lives.

The government does not provide health care. How can they ration testing?

Under medicaid/medicare it most certainly does.

reply to post by beezzer

True. Not there yet so it slipped my mind.
But if you look at it that way there are a number of things which are already "rationed".

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by beezzer

 

True. Not there yet so it slipped my mind.
But if you look at it that way there are a number of things which are already "rationed".

edit on 8/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Agreed. And include the VA into the mix as well. It's just that rationing is only going to get worse (caveat this is speculation, but on a conspiracy site) and create a new "norm" for the rest of the medical community to follow.

The VA has recently began using the blood test for prostate cancer... I didn't even know about that type of test until my last appointment with my primary care physician a couple of weeks ago when he told me that my prostate test looked good...

It is only a matter of time before we have a camera that is capable of using the visible spectrum of light in order to examine the body's organs and inheritances.

reply to post by beezzer


Good work, Beezzer. You have brought forth proof of rationing - not only that, prostate exams are important and can prevent death. Do we want a government that supports death?

I think this is rather early on in the rationing process, so we won't be seeing the glaringly obvious destructive aspects of it yet.

Originally posted by darkbake
reply to post by beezzer

 

Good work, Beezzer. You have brought forth proof of rationing - not only that, prostate exams are important and can prevent death. Do we want a government that supports death?

I think this is rather early on in the rationing process, so we won't be seeing the glaringly obvious destructive aspects of it yet.

edit on 1-8-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

That's actually my thought in this. It won't be an out-and-out rationing, but it'll be a "reduction" based on "studies".

Hell, for all intents and purposes the screenings were a bunch of crap anyways. Just another way to separate us from our money. They are just setting it back to the way it should have been anyways.

Originally posted by Skewed
Hell, for all intents and purposes the screenings were a bunch of crap anyways. Just another way to separate us from our money. They are just setting it back to the way it should have been anyways.

Screening saved my fathers life, so I'm afraid I am unable to adopt your attitude on the subject.

reply to post by beezzer


And I am sure it has saved more than your fathers too. But, they made more money than the lives they saved in the process, plus the fear based reasoning they advertised behind it. The day I turned 40 my mailbox was full of this stuff reminding me that I must go get checked, like turning 40 was the key to having prostate problems.

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by beezzer

 

And I am sure it has saved more than your fathers too. But, they made more money than the lives they saved in the process, plus the fear based reasoning they advertised behind it. The day I turned 40 my mailbox was full of this stuff reminding me that I must go get checked, like turning 40 was the key to having prostate problems.

I wouldn't put a price on a life.

I spoke to my doc and he said that if you have a genetic disposition to the cancer then a non-invasive PSA test done once a year is good to monitor. I started at 43. If you aren't predisposed then a check every 5 years would probably suffice (but see your doctor if you're having issues)

reply to post by beezzer


That is kind of what I am getting at. The advertisements or PSAs never mention predispositions, they just apply the blanket over everyone and make it seem like everyone is predisposed to having problems. I know my family history, and the problems that get passed on, does that mean every single person should also be screened for the health issues that get passed along in my family tree?

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by beezzer

 

That is kind of what I am getting at. The advertisements or PSAs never mention predispositions, they just apply the blanket over everyone and make it seem like everyone is predisposed to having problems. I know my family history, and the problems that get passed on, does that mean every single person should also be screened for the health issues that get passed along in my family tree?

Depends on what health issues you have.

No-one makes you or forces you to do this. Talk with doctors. Some are actually interested in life and not pharma bucks.

Beezzer and I rarely agree on anything, but he is so right on this issue.
We're talking about male health, life and death.
Being tested is your own choice as is your choice for treatment for prostate cancer ie. cryo, lazer,radiation,complete removel of the prostate or IRE as I chose. the least likely choice is ignore it.
A PSA test is a simple blood test there is no damage done and no side effects. And it is a choice to take one.
Even if there is a posssiblity of a false reading, there is still a rectel exam.
Anyone who wants to jump into having a biopsy, more power to ya. Even after your first biopsy your gonna want a second opinion before you take a hard look at treatment options.
Eliminating a PSA test is only for the benefit of Dr.s not the patient because then the first step would be a biopsy and those are more expensive and more painful. It's your own choice and your the one that has to live with it not the Dr.