1 out of 5 tradeoff

Triciaski

The report says:

"Statistical models showed that screening every other year [after age 50] would detect 81% of the cancers identified by annual mammography" and goes on to say, "Getting 81% of the benefit with 50% of the exams may be reasonable..."

How so? What if those statements were reworded: Statistical models showed that screening every other year would miss 19% of the cancers identified by annual mammography. Is it a reasonable tradeoff for nearly 1 out 5 women to miss the benefit of yearly mammograms for a cost saving of 50%?

Imagine the outcry if that statement were made about something that affected children? For example: Only 20% of children will get polio if that vaccine is no longer administered routinely. Getting 80% benefit with 0% of the vaccine might be reasonable. CAN YOU IMAGINE? (Please note this is not a statistic. I just made it up as an extreme example.)

We all know we're people, not statistics. These recommendations call our attention to how cost cutting measures can be rationalized using statistical tradeoffs. Some of them (although not this one) make sense on paper but leave most of us here wondering where we would be today if those standards of care were in place when we were diagnosed with breast cancer. 

I probably wouldn't know I had breast cancer yet, because I would just about now be scheduling my biannual mammogram. My Grade 3 tumor was visualized at 1.2 cm on my yearly mammogram, but it was not detected the year before. Who knows how much it would have grown and what stage I would be if I'd had to wait until this year for the diagnosis?

Tricia 

LittleC

I agree.  Words can be twisted to make it sound better for their purpose.

No matter the wording, I agree with you, it is not acceptable.