Lakelady’s Lounge Rotating Header Image

November, 2009:

Strange Timing

I’ve had a few more thoughts about the recommendations of the USPSTF recommendations since my last post. Suspicious thoughts. One’s I thought I’d share.

One of the centerpieces of the current health care reform debate is the idea that there’s a need to be more efficient and effective in our use of health care resources. That there is a need to assess what works and what doesn’t in order to minimize costs. And to have a more universal approach to treatments. (What we have now varies widely depending on where you live). Sounds like practical advice for the most part. But out of this idea came the idiotic notion that there would be “death panels” deciding who gets care and who doesn’t at the end of life. This idea has thankfully largely been debunked.

Now we have a panel that seems to have done this effectiveness analysis on another level. They looked at the data regarding routine mammograms as a tool for detecting breast cancer (not as a diagnostic tool) vs the risk from radiation. Apparently they believe that statistically it’s a wash and therefor not worth the risk.

Considering only raw numbers and statistics I can possibly see how they’ve come to this conclusion. What strikes me is there’s an interesting and rather obvious parallel here. Looking at health this way is exactly what insurance companies do. Raw numbers, bottom line, statistics – that’s how they make their decisions.

So we have here a government panel looking a lot like an insurance company. And we have a great deal of outrage generated by the advice of this panel. I then begin to question motives in the timing of the release of these recommendations – coming right when the health care reform debate is peaking. Is this a ploy to manufacture outrage against health care reform? Is it to provide ammunition for those who want to say “see, you don’t want big bad government interfering with medicine”? I don’t know about you but it seems awfully strange timing to me.


Share

Gendercide?

Through the busyness of my day today I caught wind of the latest report by a group of doctors called the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF). I’m all for improving health care by encouraging better preventive care. Good, well rounded preventative care will keep us all healthier. But the decisions of this group are indeed quite puzzling. Beyond puzzling. They’ve gotten me so incensed that I’m firing off this hastily written post. In case you haven’t heard yet this panel has reversed an earlier recommendation, by the same group (but with different members), and now don’t think women between the ages of 40-49 should routinely get mammograms to screen for breast cancer. The key word here is “routinely”. The don’t flat out say no one in this age group should get them, just that the risk vs benefits should be a conversation between the woman and her doctor and a decision made from that point. Shouldn’t ALL of us be having thoughtful conversations with out medical providers about a whole host of risk vs benefit situations? Isn’t that a sound place to begin taking better care of ourselves? That conversation isn’t the problem. What I see as a huge potential problem is now women and their doctors may face additional battles when it comes to paying for these mammograms. And coming at a time when the country is hashing out the details of health care reform makes me all that more suspicious of the motivation behind these recommendations. If you can’t see the potential problems with insurance companies and these recommendations then you’re rather blind to how insurance companies are working these days. Oh, they might not make changes right away – they’ll wait until the news of these recommendations has left the media news cycle before they do that.

Aside from the issue of mammograms I find another recommendation of the panel even more startling and disturbing. Unbelievably they don’t think doctors should be teaching their patients about regular self breast exams. Apparently they’re worried about the poor widdle women having anxiety if they find something. Excuse me?!?! Anxiety? You’ve got to be kidding me! How about educating women that breast cancer is quite survivable especially when detected early. Or teaching them that just because you’ve discovered a lump it doesn’t even mean you have cancer for goodness sakes. That would go a very long way to reducing anxiety. And I’d sure as hell rather be anxious than dead. Hell, why not teach patients how to deal with anxiety. And I’m not talking about prescribing another little “fix me” pill. I’m talking about proven stress reduction techniques. How about treating women as the intelligent adults we are?

This recommendation is so outrageous I’d almost go as far as to think that this borders on gendercide. I know, that’s taking it a bit too far considering the statistics but come on, why in the world should doctors be encouraged to have their female patients know LESS about their bodies? Unless perhaps if you know less about your body you’re less apt to ask intelligent questions of your doctor and more inclined to buy something from big daddy pharma to fix your problems.

Guess what? I don’t give a frak what this panel says about breast exams I intend to continue to be well acquainted with the look and feel of my breasts. Hell I may even continue to enlist the help of others in keeping track of any changes. I encourage every woman reading this to do the same and every man to encourage every woman they know to do the same too – and to teach your children about the importance of being well acquainted with their own bodies. And you, my not so esteemed panel of “experts”, ought to be downright ashamed of discouraging self knowledge. How the hell is that “preventative” medicine? How do you explain violating your oath of “do no harm”?

The next thing I’m curious about is what they’ll have to say about testicular cancer.


Share

Auditioning follows

I’ve been playing around with twitter this evening and reading a variety of articles about what lists are, how to use them, what lists are best/worst, why lists are good bad etc. Just as a lot of tweeters have been doing this weekend I’m sure. While going over people from someone’s list I came up with an interesting idea that I don’t think I’ve seen mentioned yet – using a private list to audition who you want to follow.

It’s simple really, as much as we hate to admit it, we have a limited capacity for digesting what’s in our twitter stream. I’ve never been one to automatically followback everyone who follows me. The way I use twitter that strategy just never made sense. I try to pick and choose who I think will be a valuable addition to the information flowing across my screen. Up until now I’ve done this by looking at a tweeters page, which provides an instant snapshot of their tweets. Are they repeating ideas of others already in my stream? Do they primarily tweet original thoughts or do they mostly post links? (both can be valuable IMHO) Do they post a high volume of tweets? Do they tweet a lot about products they’re selling (my teeth are plenty white, thank you) However a single snapshot might not be an accurate picture of how they tweet. I know that my tweets can vary in both frequency and patterns over time. I can only assume that at least some others do the same.

So here’s my reasoning behind using lists to “audition follows”. As I come across someone new that I think might prove intriguing I’ll put them in a private “new follows” list. I can then check this list over a period of time and see if what and how they’re posting really is what I want to devote some of my time to. By keeping it private I’m not broadcasting to the world my intentions and thus it avoids potential embarrassment and needless explanations if someone is not followed. I know I’m a small fry in the twitter pond and at this point who cares who I am or am not following, but the point is still valid. Private lists definitely have their place and I think this is one of them.

What do you think? Would you make use of this system? Can you offer additional suggestions for improvement?

Share