American and Canadian Researchers: Trust Us, Inexpensive Cancer Screenings Are Bad for You

The timing of two new studies seems awfully convenient for those pushing for government-run health care. Or does it?

Sketchy study #1: Canadian researchers are questioning the usefulness of clinical breast exams in conjunction with mammograms, saying yes, they increase early detection, but the rate of “false-positives” increases, too. It’s a “steep price” to pay. They say that in a theoretical group of 10,000 women, performing both tests only detects cancer in 4 more women than the mammogram alone, and that it results in 219 false-positive results.

I get that from a surface-only, cost-benefit analysis, those numbers aren’t good. But we’re talking about lives here. This is being put out by, again I remind you, Canadian researchers and if they are looking at this as a way to cut costs, we should remind them that the cost of a clinical breast exam in and of itself is quite low. (I’ll be blunt: “Clinical breast exam” describes a medical professional checking breasts for unusual lumps, etc. with his or her hands. There’s no equipment involved.) Plus, women are not advised to begin getting mammograms until they are 30 or 40, but clinical breast exams often begin for teenage women. Does the study account for all the women who would otherwise not be examined for decades?

What’s really laughable is that the researchers’ conclusion: “Women should be informed of the risks and benefits of having a clinical breast examination in addition to mammography for breast screening.” The risks? “Ma’am, I feel something that is a bit off. Let’s perform a test to check it out.” I’ll trade undue anxiety for assurance any day.

For how long has the medical field tried to impress upon patients that early detection is the best thing you can do for your body and your lifespan? The cost of a mammogram that comes back negative is much cheaper than the kind of treatment involved–not to mention loss of life–with late detection.

Sketchy study #2: U.S. researchers are calling prostate screenings a double-edged sword, according to Reuters: “Routine screening for prostate cancer has resulted in more than 1 million U.S. men being diagnosed with tumors who might otherwise have suffered no ill effects from them.” Now I’m all for the discovery of a better kind of detection that is more accurate, but to suggest that a screening itself is a BAD thing when prostate cancer is the second most common cancer for men?

Both studies appear in the same issue of the Journal of National Cancer Institute. They interest me for a few reasons beyond what I’ve already outlined–but are leaving me with nothing but questions: What does this mean for the health care reform debate? If the government inserts itself as an even bigger player in American health care, will they use these studies to justify skipping relatively inexpensive and standard screenings? Plus, America has the best survival rates for cancer worldwide today. If our medical researchers think simple screenings and exams are a waste of time and money, how will that impact America’s cancer patients’ life spans?

It’s no secret that Americans spend much more on health care than people in other countries; liberals love to cite this when decrying the need for health care reform. I’ve written about that before. I included a rebuttal from Megan McArdle then, and I’ll include it again now (emphasis is my own):

1) We pay more for our medical services. But though the pharma industry is important, the real action is in wages. Our medical personnel cost vastly more than their counterparts abroad in almost every category.

2) We consume more services. Americans get shiny new facilities–my British colleagues once derisively commented that American hospitals are “like hotels”. American hospitals don’t have open wards for almost anyone. They staff at very high levels. Doctors conduct an inordinate amount of tests. We use an expensive machine rather than watchful waiting. And often, those expensive machines catch conditions that never would have turned into anything, which we then treat. Natasha Richardson probably would have lived if she’d had an accident here, because doctors would have done a cat scan, and there would have been a Medevac helicopter available. That’s tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars to save a single life.

The cost of American health care is high, but not so high as the lives lost to, as McArdle says, “watchful waiting.” I don’t suspect these studies will preclude smart medical professionals from doing the right thing. I fear that when the government gets involved, it’ll be a different story.

Popularity: 28% [?]

Related posts:

1. Let’s Ask Silvio Berlusconi About American Health Care Reform
2. “…a bill that the American public clearly does not like, and doesn’t support.”
3. Government Intervention Drives Up Health Care Costs

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 31st, 2009 at 6:39 pm and is filed under Politics and Capitol Hill. The entry is tagged under breast cancer, health care, prostate cancer, stupid studies. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.