4 ms·

I think you're casting too wide of a net there. Just because you've detected something early doesn't mean you automatically need aggressive interventions like c

by lhorie 5y ago

I think you're casting too wide of a net there. Just because you've detected something early doesn't mean you automatically need aggressive interventions like chemotherapy. The impact might just end up being a line in your medical record for the family physician to keep an eye on during yearly routine exams. Breast cancer awareness programs are a good example of early screening programs not being an exercise in mass hysteria. Some early symptoms for eye conditions only require periodic observation up until it actually becomes a problem. Etc. Perhaps it is true - in the US, anyways - that there's a tendency to overly prescribe more aggressive interventions (read: more expensive ones), but my understanding is that the US model is the exception, not the rule, when looking at the rest of the world.

vharuck 5y ago
>Breast cancer awareness programs are a good example of early screening programs not being an exercise in mass hysteria. This example also shows how screening can be recommended against because that's better for public health. The US Preventive Services Task Force (indirectly decides what Medicaid/Medicare covers) has different recommendations than the American Cancer Society for how often women of certain ages should have mammograms. USPSTF recommends against routine mammograms for women aged 40 to 49 if they don't have other risk factors. ACS recommends biannual mammograms start at age 45. The reason they differ is because of how they weigh the reduction in deaths against the harm of false positives. Routine mammograms will prevent breast cancer death, no doubt about it. But notice neither recommends routine mammograms for all women below 45, even though they accounted for over 10% of breast cancer diagnoses in 2014-2018[0]. The math is tricky when comparing a risk of death against quality of life and economic costs. Public health is a matter of public policy as much as health. [0] https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
throwawayboise 5y ago
"The impact might just end up being a line in your medical record for the family physician to keep an eye on during yearly routine exams." And something to be on the back of your mind as a worry forever. I'd rather not know.

by lhorie 5y ago

vharuck 5y ago

>Breast cancer awareness programs are a good example of early screening programs not being an exercise in mass hysteria. This example also shows how screening can be recommended against because that's better for public health. The US Preventive Services Task Force (indirectly decides what Medicaid/Medicare covers) has different recommendations than the American Cancer Society for how often women of certain ages should have mammograms. USPSTF recommends against routine mammograms for women aged 40 to 49 if they don't have other risk factors. ACS recommends biannual mammograms start at age 45. The reason they differ is because of how they weigh the reduction in deaths against the harm of false positives. Routine mammograms will prevent breast cancer death, no doubt about it. But notice neither recommends routine mammograms for all women below 45, even though they accounted for over 10% of breast cancer diagnoses in 2014-2018[0]. The math is tricky when comparing a risk of death against quality of life and economic costs. Public health is a matter of public policy as much as health. [0] https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html

throwawayboise 5y ago

"The impact might just end up being a line in your medical record for the family physician to keep an eye on during yearly routine exams." And something to be on the back of your mind as a worry forever. I'd rather not know.