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.