Insurance companies cooking up ways to standardize cancer care:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/is-world-outpacing-us-on-health-care/2012/05/13/gIQAAQyQOU_story.html

Interestingly, many of the countries discussed in this article are countries to which Americans travel to get affordable, quality health care.  Seems as though universal health care in places like Thailand has not compromised the quality of health care.

kayb:  That's what the whole "death panel" thing was all about...just doctors being given the right to discuss end of life care with their patients and encourage a living will at a time when the patient is able to make a logical decision.  That translated by the GOP into "pull the plug on grandma"...shameful!  Even more amazing is the number of people around the country who actually bought into the scam!

KittyKitty:  Good article, thanks for sharing, but I couldn't help but note that the one thing not addressed is the impact that diet and supplementation can have on limiting the recurrence of cancers.

 Patients are given all this expensive and debilitating drug therapy, but never coached on how to change their diets and lifestyles to accomodate their disease and prevent return or spread.  This would be the most cost effective method of all...if only it could become part of the "standard of care".  Many of us on the alternative threads have taken these matters into our own hands as we are well aware that the conventional methods are at best seriously lacking in this regard.  Until someone sees the light in this area, many just keep doing the same things they always did and expect different results. 

Here's the deal:  over the past 6 months, every time I turn around there is a new article about the fact that our system cannot afford to offer $250,000 in treatments for something as basic as Stage 1 cancer, which is now epidemic.  Obamacare, single payer, individual insurance--the bottom line is, something has to be figured out before some of us right here have our lives shortened by standards of care that are determined by cost instead of Hippocratic oath.  Personally, I'm scared to death, I feel like I got in under the wire.  Thank goodness for my treatment: MRIs, radiation, chemo and lymphedema sleeves and all.  I was spoiled, and I know it.  I got Cadillac care, because for now my insurance rocks (translation, coughs up cash to my hospital).  This is why the University of Chicago has a SPORE research center on African American women who, because of their shameful poverty in this supposedly first-world country, die of breat cancer at a rate of 30% higher than women like myself. 

Things keep going the way they are, I can't imagine the consequences.

Please visit the Komen risk assessment web interface.  When assessing high to low risk for breast cancer, diet, exercise and supplements as they are understood today are no match for dense breasts, BRCA genes, and a host of other things which present moderate to high risks.  Standard treatments will remain necessary, sadly, they are becoming more necessary for more and more women under 40 (like me).

Furthermore, even the Block Center here in IL is careful to report more study is needed on the effectiveness of integrative treatment during active cancer treatment.  Many studies indicate that naturopathic interventions can counteract the effectiveness of mainstream drugs.  They are a long way off from replacing standard treatment with supplements, despite the research on DIM being under away.

Kaara, I think you are so right, and I desperately want the research to help us find a less toxic cure.  I'm hopeful with the DIM trials, but so much more work needs to be done.  Until that happens, we don't know what can keep us from getting BC in the first place.  I have a hunch about mine:  dense breasts, no kids, and stress.  Stress being what I consider the biggest contributor.  But again, it's a hunch.  The studies just aren't definitive yet.

I was very shaken up when I read that some of the supplements I used during chemo can actually protect good AND bad cells.  Haunting.

It's interesting, Kaara, it was Marisa Weiss of bc.org that made a public statement about the possible dangers of anti-oxidant therapy:  http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-09/health/breast.cancer.antioxidants_1_antioxidant-vitamins-breast-cancer-cancer-cells?_s=PM:HEALTH

Turns out the story is a little more complicated than I suggested:  "Chemotherapy and radiation both work by creating free radicals within cancer cells; these free radicals damage the cancer cells and may ultimately kill them. Antioxidants, however, sop up free radicals; in theory, this can prevent them from doing their job within cancer cells."  Antioxidants can kill the cells fighting cancer.

My experience with Tamoxifen is unclear at this point.  I will be going in for a pelvic ultrasound, as it appears I am getting cysts and fibroids (trying to track down my last pelvic ultrasound, but as far as I was told it was clean and clear, so pretty sure it's Tamox).  However, at my age at diagnosis: 39 I really didn't feel like saying no to standard treatment was an option for me.  An 8% risk reduction from hormonals made good clear sense to me in light of the risks.  Talk to me in a month when I get to the bottom of the pelvic, seriously keeping my fingers crossed.

If there's one thing I've learned on this journey, you don't get something for nothing.  Treatments strong enough to kill cancer have other effects (I believe that to be true of some naturopathic interventions as well.)

Well, on the costs, etc., here's my two cents:

We have a lifestyle here in the US that is too sedentary and we eat poorly.  Not everyone, mind you, and I am quite aware that women who exercise, eat well, and are thin can get cancer as well; however, there seems to be a pretty big agreement that we as a society need to make dramatic lifestyle changes.  Sitting has been called the new smoking, and we as a society, even if we do exercise once a day, tend to spend most of our lives sitting.  I know I'm guilty of sitting long hours  at my computer. Things like standing desks, bicyle desks, more plant based diet - all could help lower the number of people with heart disease, even cancer. If we can lower the number of illnesses that result from sedentary life and poor diet, in other words, thereby, lowering the overall cost of health,  we as a society should be able to pay for those people who still will develop cancer or other serious illness.  That is why I recommend the book The End of Illness. 

Alexandria, FWIW:  my experience with breast cancer is the profile is type A, healthy, smart, athletic, driven women.  Not a one of them I know led the life you describe.  Perhaps my experience is a lark, but I'm sure there have been studies on the demographics of bc patients.  Not having kids and dense breasts seems to be as big a risk as weight.  Weirdly enough, being overweight in pre-menopausal women seems to be protective. Again, the Komen risk calculator is a world of insight.

Like I said, FWIW.  Of course obesity is a huge, epidemic issue.  Its relationship to breast cancer appears complicated.  I'm very eager to understand and learn more.

And it's a good point:  if we got the "easy" stuff off the table, then we could turn our focus to the hard stuff.  Now, where to start on that, who knows.  My job's more stressful than ever, my colleagues struggling with their weight and health more than ever.