Medicare spends as much in Mammograms as in Treatment

jenrio

Is it worth it?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/08/us-medicare-mammograms-idUSBRE9070WQ20130108

1Athena1

Thank you, Jenrio -very valuable info, IMO. Worth noting that the money spent on screening is for all types of screening and not just mammograms. Still, it's interesting. It suggests one more bit of evidence of how efforts to detect BC continue to far outperform efforts to erradicate it.

jenrio

Mammograms and most cancer screening methods have inherent limitations.   They carry radiation cost, so generally do not and never will apply to younger populations.    Effort to make them more sensitive tends to contribute little to the big picture of curing cancer, the costs are prohibitive.  I remember another research that says US spent 4billion on upgrading analog mammogram to digital mammogram with no increase in sensitivity.   

The big picture is the CURE for run away growth/metastasis of cancer  in brain, in liver and everywhere.  Not just Her2+, not just ER+/PR+, not just triple negative.  Not just breast cancer, not just carcinoma, not just melanoma, but every other kind too.   The public needs to invest in research that would lead to the CURE, not just mechanically shelling out billions for fancy fluffy shiny old toys.

Screening don't contribute much to the big picture.  When we actually figured out how cancers work and figure out how to cure it, screening would become either very cheap or totally unnecessary.   

cp418

Jenrio --- well said.