War on Men?

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...dly_taste_of_obamacare_5TjSUk3lRqS6IFnrPqFkGP

The US Preventive Services Task Force ruled last week that screening for prostate cancer is a waste of money.

Get ready for many more such outrages: This is the agency that will determine which preventive services ObamaCare will require health plans to cover free of charge

The task force claims that screening all adult men with the PSA (protein-specific antigen) test doesn’t prevent death from the disease. It argues that “the number of men who avoid dying of prostate cancer because of screening after 10 to 14 years is, at best, very small.”

Adding to the “costs” of the test are “false positives” — they tell people they have cancer when they don’t about 10 percent of the time. The task force thinks this problem makes the cost of screening higher than the tiny benefit screening generates for society.

It’s worth analyzing the road to this conclusion, because it tells us a lot about how ObamaCare rations medicine.

First, the task force measures the effect of testing on the death rate from any disease (all-cause mortality). That’s a bogus benchmark, because, as John Maynard Keynes famously noted, in the long run we all die. In fact, death rates from prostate cancer have dropped 57 percent among men ages 49 to 64 and 80 percent among adult men over 75. National Cancer Institute data show that prostate cancers are being detected and treated earlier and that life expectancy is rising as a result.

The task force claims there is no evidence that screening directly reduces prostate cancer. But how, then, did death rates decline, if screening doesn’t work?

It does, of course. As prostate-cancer expert William Catalano notes, PSA screening is why the horror of not diagnosing this cancer until it has metastasized (advanced and spread) has all but disappeared.

The task force states that because the PSA test is imprecise, it will always lead to overdiagnosis. But false positives are a risk of all screening, and the error rate for prostate-cancer screening is no higher than screening for other illnesses or cancers.

Catalano also points out that it’s regular testing — not the test being used — that has likely contributed to raising the odds against the disease.

More at link...
 
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...dly_taste_of_obamacare_5TjSUk3lRqS6IFnrPqFkGP

The US Preventive Services Task Force ruled last week that screening for prostate cancer is a waste of money.

Get ready for many more such outrages: This is the agency that will determine which preventive services ObamaCare will require health plans to cover free of charge

The task force claims that screening all adult men with the PSA (protein-specific antigen) test doesn’t prevent death from the disease. It argues that “the number of men who avoid dying of prostate cancer because of screening after 10 to 14 years is, at best, very small.”

Adding to the “costs” of the test are “false positives” — they tell people they have cancer when they don’t about 10 percent of the time. The task force thinks this problem makes the cost of screening higher than the tiny benefit screening generates for society.

It’s worth analyzing the road to this conclusion, because it tells us a lot about how ObamaCare rations medicine.

First, the task force measures the effect of testing on the death rate from any disease (all-cause mortality). That’s a bogus benchmark, because, as John Maynard Keynes famously noted, in the long run we all die. In fact, death rates from prostate cancer have dropped 57 percent among men ages 49 to 64 and 80 percent among adult men over 75. National Cancer Institute data show that prostate cancers are being detected and treated earlier and that life expectancy is rising as a result.

The task force claims there is no evidence that screening directly reduces prostate cancer. But how, then, did death rates decline, if screening doesn’t work?

It does, of course. As prostate-cancer expert William Catalano notes, PSA screening is why the horror of not diagnosing this cancer until it has metastasized (advanced and spread) has all but disappeared.

The task force states that because the PSA test is imprecise, it will always lead to overdiagnosis. But false positives are a risk of all screening, and the error rate for prostate-cancer screening is no higher than screening for other illnesses or cancers.

Catalano also points out that it’s regular testing — not the test being used — that has likely contributed to raising the odds against the disease.

More at link...
Damo this is probably the dumbest comment you've posted. The only debatable part being "probably".
 
do you have any reasonable conclusion as to the veracity of your statement? or is it preferable to sticking your head in the sand?
Yea. I do. That's a two part answer.

#1. The insinuation that this is somehow a "war or mens reproductive health" is absurd. The US Preventative Task Force didn't determine prostate screening as a waste of money. It determined that PSA analysis was ineffective for prostate cancer screening and that the traditonal prostate exam (bend over and spread your cheeks) was the more effective exam. How in the world is this denying men access to prostate cancer screening? That's a complete strawman and that's why Damo's statement guised as a question is dumb.

#2. It demonstrates extremely well that the ACA's reporting requirements are doing what they are intended to do. Determine which modalities are affective and which are not and therefore a waste of money.

So let me ask you this. If the PSA test is ineffective for screening for prostate cancer why should insurance subscribers spend many milliions annually on this test?
 
Yea. I do. That's a two part answer.

#1. The insinuation that this is somehow a "war or mens reproductive health" is absurd. The US Preventative Task Force didn't determine prostate screening as a waste of money. It determined that PSA analysis was ineffective for prostate cancer screening and that the traditonal prostate exam (bend over and spread your cheeks) was the more effective exam. How in the world is this denying men access to prostate cancer screening? That's a complete strawman and that's why Damo's statement guised as a question is dumb.

#2. It demonstrates extremely well that the ACA's reporting requirements are doing what they are intended to do. Determine which modalities are affective and which are not and therefore a waste of money.

So let me ask you this. If the PSA test is ineffective for screening for prostate cancer why should insurance subscribers spend many milliions annually on this test?

that's a good question. one that should/could be answered by determining WHO or WHAT is the US preventative task force....are they private doctors? gov doctors? insurance execs???
 
that's a good question. one that should/could be answered by determining WHO or WHAT is the US preventative task force....are they private doctors? gov doctors? insurance execs???
They're an independent commision composed of primary care physicians. They are only an advisory committee. Whether they are in private or public practice I do not know. For many licensed physicians that's a grey area as they tend to do both. However, they are independent of both Government and the Insurance industry.
 
They're an independent commision composed of primary care physicians. They are only an advisory committee. Whether they are in private or public practice I do not know. For many licensed physicians that's a grey area as they tend to do both. However, they are independent of both Government and the Insurance industry.

This same commission said about three years ago that mammograms were a waste of time before the age of 50. Nothing changed with insurance, as far as I know. Women still continued to get them and nobody was denied coverage.
 
They're an independent commision composed of primary care physicians. They are only an advisory committee. Whether they are in private or public practice I do not know. For many licensed physicians that's a grey area as they tend to do both. However, they are independent of both Government and the Insurance industry.
i'd like to say this is sufficient, but knowing how the TX state medical board is put together and called 'independent'.......I have too difficult a time processing that objectively.
 
Damocles, why did you post it, and why did you title the thread "war on men?"
 
Damocles, why did you post it, and why did you title the thread "war on men?"

Because nobody was talking about it, and I toned down the title from the original article deciding to use light irony I turned around an election point presented by the left. In this case it is the men who are getting (less of) it from the government... literally. Lean "Forward"... You need to pay for a life saving test that they deem unworthy.
 
this is definitely a war on men. if there is a war on women, then this proves there is a war on men.


So the "War on Men" consists of an independent advisory panel originally create in the 1980s making non-binding recommendations about preventive health care services that should be covered by insurance based upon its review of the academic literature? The same panel that recommended a change to initial mammograms a few years ago?

Interesting.
 
Because nobody was talking about it, and I toned down the title from the original article deciding to use light irony I turned around an election point presented by the left. In this case it is the men who are getting (less of) it from the government... literally. Lean "Forward"... You need to pay for a life saving test that they deem unworthy.

Im enjoying watching you back out of this one.
 
Back
Top