E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMost women can go as long as five years between cervical cancer screenings as long as they make sure to get both a Pap smear and an HPV test when they do get examined, a government panel said Wednesday.
The interval between cervical cancer screenings can safely be extended for women between the ages of 30 and 65, according to the new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Women ages 21 to 30 should still get a Pap smear every three years, the interval currently recommended. But those younger than 21 and older than 65 can skip the screen altogether, the experts concluded.
The panel is urging a extended intervals in screenings in an attempt to cut back on the number of women who end up being treated for lesions that might resolve on their own.
The downside could be a very small potential increase in the number of women who might die of cervical cancer, experts said.
“It’s a trade-off,” said Dr. Michael LeFevre, co-vice chair of the task force and a professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
While screening more often might turn up more cancers and pre-cancerous lesions, it would also lead to far more unpleasant and painful therapies for women who might ultimately not have needed them, LeFevre said.
When a lesion is found, generally a colposcopy is ordered, said Dr. Alan Waxman, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of New Mexico.
And the often painful test can amount to a lot of unnecessary suffering given that many lesions frequently disappear on their own. For women who’ve never experienced a colposcopy, Waxman offered this description: “It’s like a Pap test on steroids.”
Beyond this, lesions may end up being excised in an uncomfortable procedure that can impact future fertility, the task force found. Studies have shown that some treatments for precancerous lesions can result in adverse pregnancy outcomes, including pre-term delivery, an infant that is underweight at birth, or even stillbirth or death shortly after delivery.
Until experts can find a way to cut back on colposcopies and excisions for precancerous lesions, it makes sense to screen less often because this will give some lesions time to resolve on their own, Waxman said.
He predicted that the new recommendations will take time to be accepted into practice.
“I anticipate there will be some apprehension among ob-gyns about it,” Waxman said. “It’s something new. And there’s always a concern if you screen less often you’re going to miss disease.”
Dr. Thomas Randall is one of those who isn’t yet convinced that the proposed changes are the best solution.
One thing missing from the new recommendations are studies that look at how women feel about treatment issues, said Randall, director of gynecologic oncology at Pennsylvania Hospital.
“I applaud the panel’s effort to minimize the emotional and physical burden of treatment on patients,” Randall said. “But I think we need to think very carefully about what patients’ preferences actually are.”
Beyond this, Randall said, it might make more sense to look at ways to decrease the number of colposcopies and excisions rather than cutting back on screening.
“Limiting screening seems a little paternalistic,” he explained. “Maybe we should be looking more at treatment patterns than at screening patterns in order to decrease the burden of treatment.”
The new recommendations were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Related stories:
Leave a Comment:
When will the pugbags pass a law outlawing those tests. Planned Parenthood provides those tests, and yet the pugbags claim it's about abortion. Frigging control freaks.
Because obviously if you have HPV you are a sluttyslutslutslut.
But let's not delve into those inaccurate science-based findings, because science isn't compatible with their preconceptions.
Wake up!! Its the Dems that are behind this, ever since the national healthcare as passed studies have been coming out saying women dont need this and this.. After all costs need to be cut somewhere..
Sally and CJ where on earth do you come up with the idea that republicans are against testing or HPV vaccinations? I am a republican and I am very pro-screening and pro-HPV vaccination. My husband, mother, father, brother, aunts, uncles, cousins and best friends are all republican and are pro-screening and pro-HPV. In fact, my best friend would not be here today if it wasn't for aggressive screening for HPV - she has had it and the resulting carcinoma in situ twice. No, we don't call her a sluttyslutslut CJ - she got it the first time from her first husband of 6 years and got it the second time from her second husband of 8 years. Guess that bursts your pathetically ignorant, hypocritical, and narrow minded stereotype about republicans...
It's time the government stopped playing doctor. I was upset, when I heard, my nine year old grand daughter may be required to be inoculated with HPV vaccine. I also, am applaud, by our government's attempt, to keep women from having a yearly pap test, denying sex education and to pay for birth control. Or is it really, insurance companies, lining the pockets of politicians, in order to prevent paying for a yearly exam? Why are women the targets of medical treatments being with held?
Viagra is covered by Medicare and so are PSA tests, to monitor prostate cancer. I do not want to see the PSA blood tests stopped because it is an important part of men's health care. BUT so is a yearly PAP test.
I would love to see United Health Care for all. No more denying anyone medical care, no matter their age, wealth or contribution to society. Prisoners receive health care, why shouldn't a person working two or three jobs, just to keep off Welfare? These people pay taxes, they should have affordable health care, just like those who do not contribute to society. I am not against the poor or disable, receiving quality health care, even though many of them have never paid a dime into the programs. Americans take care of their own. That is a good thing! When we realize providing health care, food and education for everyone, we will see a better America. We will see a better society and people living a better quality of life. And for those of you who wonder, How will Americans pay for these benefits? How much do you think a bomb costs? A stealth jet? To keep a drug user in jail?
As a retired home care hospice nurse, I have gone from mansions to slums in one day. One thing I learned, there are a lot of decent people in this world, no matter their race, religion, ethnic back ground or wealth. As I said, everyone deserves quality health care. Yeah, I know, you think I am a "Socialist." I think, I am following the Ten Commandments and I am not religious person, I am a spiritual one.
I wish people would stop worrying about their wallets and worry about mankind. We would have a much better world and humanity may have a chance to make it a few more centuries.
Sam, I think we've been told we need this and that so that they did make money in the first place! Now it's probably going back to how it should be. People should see doctors less imo. Especially if they are taking car of their own health.
SallyAnn and CJ:
What don't you get?! These are studies coming out as this is what Odumbo and his comrades want you to believe. Because they know damn well, under the cesspool of government provided health care, their is no way the preventative tests that are being done now will be able to be done.
Why don't you find out what preventative testing and screening is like where this is socialist health care, like England and Canada. Their care is crap! Women die needlessly of breast cancer in the UK because the government program does not cover some of the state-of-the-art technology and medicines. And if your over a certain age, forget it - they won't invest the money in you.
dolores:
So you know how your uterus is doing just by how you "take care" of yourself? Give me a break.
More cost cutting to come thanks to government health care. Enjoy it folks you will get a healthy serving in seconds tomorrow and every day after that.
WOW! What a shock! Government takes over and all of a sudden tests are no longer needed. Just amazing the scientific advancements that can be made with just a few votes in Congress. I feel safe now! I just thank the Gods that my government is looking out for me.
Those damn repubs! Who do they think they are thinking that I should pay to take care of myself. Why the dems are much better! Heck I no longer need to take care of anything. No tests and I'm just plain healthy. What more could one ask for?
er, judy...you're applaud? maybe you meant appalled?
at any rate, all girls should get the hpv vaccine-it's a vaccine that would prevent her getting certain cancers.
and no, paps aren't required yearly. especially if you've gone yearly for some time and have never had an issue. if you're at high risk, go more often. if you're not, what's the point? if there's no family history, no risk, no irregular tests, i can see going less often.
What's wrong with screenings every year, and then instead of colposcopies, keeping an eye on any lesions (much as in breast cancer screenings when there are calcifications, keeping an eye on it by continuing screenings until the calcifications are decided to be benign, or if there is a real danger of cancer, then treatments can be taken)? Why do away with screenings for a five year period when there may be lesions that become cancerous? Why not keep an eye on them instead of eliminating them? It's easy for a "panel" to decide it's okay for there to be a few more deaths, but I wonder if their women, their mothers, daughters, sisters and wives, continue to get their's done annually. Some things can just be done sensibly and costs contained, instead of this "all or nothing" approach.
Welcome to Health-care rationing Washinton DC style...I'm sure the Liberals will be more than happy to defend this "policy" to the "few" women who will die of cancer because they will not have access to this test until it is too late for treatment...of course it will be cheaper and help offset the cost of condoms for college students
These panels are being loaded with bobble heads with little or limited experience in the matter. The government is using propaganda to limit health care.
This has got to be the biggest pile of steamy sh*t I've read in a while. Really? These tests are so unnecessary that my own personal insurance 100% covers them as preventative measures and if I don't do them they can discontinue my coverage? I find it funny that a two second cervix scraping and culture costs that much, but whatever. Have fun with your socialized medicine, viagra, constant prostate cancer testing etc. Guess it's ladies first in the grand scheme of government funded healthcare savings.
And, as someone who has had many colposcopies, they really aren't bad. They put some vinegar on your cervix and biopsy where it bubbles. It's not a pap smear on steroids, it's a necessary screening test because a pap smear is a catch all test. That's the point. You do wide band testing and then go to the next step in the event of positive or inconclusive results.
Pap smears are important for finding lesions once they have grown, but they are not as effective as hoped. After speaking with a gyn board, they are now recommending ultrasounds as the best way of finding lesions before they become too large. This has nothing to do with politics or health insurance. Gyn specialists have been studying the success rate of paps every 2 years and are still finding too many lesions that were not caught by these paps. A lot these lesions are only seen in a pap when it has grown large and could have been caught earlier with an ultrasound. So once again is this NOT POLITICS, this is studies on most effective ways to find cervical cancer and HPV lesions.
Right, it's not about politics. It's about women having unnecessary, uncomfortable, and possibly harmful procedures done when they could have avoided them.
Coleslaw1 -- Looking at the current crop of republican candidates as well as a good number of rep. legislators, it seems to me that republicans, as a whole, are totally anti-women and would like to set us back 100 years. Having said that, pap-smears definitely don't tell all but this recommendation is once again a slap in the face of women's health. We should look at how many lives these tests have saved and may save over the long run, not whether or not the early detection of lesions is a possible bi-product of these tests. As far as unnecessary, uncomfortable and possibly harmful procedures are concerned, it seems the medical profession needs to be taken to task for that. I remember one idiot doctor one time suggesting that I have a hysterectomy. The reasons for the procedure was not at all clear to me, and I immediately switched doctors. I've had several different doctors since and no one ever suggested I needed this procedure. I figure, one half of all doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class, so it behooves the patient to look out for herself and go for a second and even third opinion. Regardless of the attitude of the doctor, MD does NOT stand for medical deity and they make mistakes and can be wrong. The same counts for this type of research.
B.S. Did anyone else notice that there were no WOMEN mentioned as part of this "panel." Heart disease was studied for years with regards to men. NEWSFLASH...men and women are different. I will still be getting a pap smear every year. Do whatever you want, but I don't believe these people anymore. Sadly, it probably has to do with money and how it will be paid for. Sick to death of this.
Terrible idea. Prevention is both the most effective and least expensive method of healthcare.
My inkling is that this was done mainly with a financial eye and it will probably just lead to more expensive procedures for those patients who do develop cervical adenomas/squamous cell carcinomas.
Since most lesions regress on their own...why not maintain the every three year screening with more frequent screening if a lesion is discovered? The lesions are generally slow to develop and so are a good candidate for "keeping an eye on." Believe it or not, they do this with many brain tumors as long as they aren't aggressive.
Also, find a less uncomfortable method to biopsy the lesions.
I don't like it one bit.
Tim wrote "My inkling is that this was done mainly with a financial eye and it will probably just lead to more expensive procedures"
There is more data available on the preventative nature of current examinations. Doctors prefer to bill for expensive tests and surgery. Health insurance providers prefer profits. Health insurance subscribers prefers lower costs. Most patients, particularly women, enjoy the attention and healing touch from a high-status, high-income man in a white coat.
Though, there should be a way for patients that want more examinations and needless surgeries to pay for them outside of a health insurance plan.
You're so right, Vincent! I subject myself to unnecessary medical exams and procedures because I just can't get enough of being poked and prodded by "a high-status, high-income man in a white coat."
It is such a shame that us women aren't competent enough to make informed, non-sexually charged decisions about our health needs. Good thing we have men like you to guide us through the complications of having a uterus!
This is disgusting. I have two amazing friends who had cervical cancer developing before the age of 21. If they had to wait for some arbitrary date, who knows if they would still be here?!
A colposcopy isn't painful, I had to have one done while pregnant and that's when everything is extremely sensitive. They aren't bad. My suggestion is that a male doctor, who could never have experienced one, isn't in a place to give opinions on comfort levels.
Perhaps doctors just need to be re-educated about treatment options and safety instead of just saying "no screening for you, 5 years!"
I had one of those colposcopies mentioned in the article. Mine was so painful (and yielded a diagnosis of "nothing there") that I am terrified of going in to have another pap smear, and THOSE don't generally hurt. I'm not alone in this, either--fear of painful and humiliating procedures is the reason a lot of people don't go to the doctor, right after the affordability issue.
I guess you just got lucky with yours. I wasn't.
Yeah I am with cj on that one, jlc, lol. Mine was horrid and I have a HUGE pain threshold normally but I also had a twisted and cyst covered ovary. I nearly passed out. I dont think its something that you can say "does or does not" hurt. Just like every pregnancy is different, so are womens bodies...
But I can say that five years is too long. My friend died in that time frame. She was forty. They found mine and I had a hysterectomy at thirty, ten years ago. Thank goodness I was a young mom! How many women, with that enacted, would they let die before they reversed this asinine decision? Thats like mammograms only every so many years after a certain age. Young women, far younger than the normal age range can get breast cancer too, and die with it, long before 35. Finding out, once its cancer, is finding out how far you have to rush and catch it. Find it when its in its beginning stages? I would rather risk a false alarm then try to contain a four alarm fire!
THEN its more expensive to them than diagnostic testing, research chemo and try not to pass out from the cost of some of them. Cost of a diagnostic mammo is around 300...I had a friend who had to wait on his chemo until he paid up front (?!?) and one round was in the tens of thousands. Cutting diagnostic testing is not the way to cut overhead, stopping it from getting to cancer is where you save the money. They just truly NEVER get things right in the government do they?
When I was 34 I discovered I had cervical cancer because my doctor believed I should have one yearly. He tried treatments that did not work. He fought the insurance companies because he felt the best option was a partial hysterectomy and the insurance company would not approve the procedure. After continuing the battle, the insurance finally approved. I was a mother of four and was at a high risk for future pregnanies. It was very successful without any further treatments such as chemo or radiation. I thank god everyday for the caring doctor that delivered all four of my children and cared enough to fight for my health. So did the biopsy hurt? It was pretty uncomfortable, but at least I am alive to post this.
I do not understand the fight against women's healthcare. This should be between a women and her doctor. ALL women need to stand together and fight this battle. If not for ourselves, then for our daughters.
I guess I was lucky. It was uncomfortable but not terrible. Maybe it didn't seem so bad because I'd been prepped for the worst. My very good friend had to undergo LEEP to remove cancerous cells off her cervix, and had warned how painful everything could be. She got HPV from her first partner so was fighting cervical cancer at just 19. Good thing these "guidelines" weren't in place then!
For those of you saying that colposopies are painful, have your doctor tell you when they are going to do the "clip" or scrape and cough at that exact moment. You won't feel it.
My doctor told me to take some tylenol before each procedure. I always had inconclusive paps before I got pregnant, so I was getting a colposcopy every other year, so maybe I got used to it, but it wasn't terrible. Honestly, the cervix check when pregnant was way, way, WAY, worse to me.
GO EVERY YEAR! These are ALL MEN STATING THESE THINGS. Probably the same "panel" that decided Planned Parenthood only gives abortions. Good grief. What year is this? STOP trying to legislate MORALITY. Women we are in a war right now. A war of freedom. This last couple of months has proved this. Planned Parenthood, Roe v. Wade (again), healthcare screenings, what is next? They will decide we shouldn't be able to vote if we DO NOT have children. I wouldn't be surprised.
I keep hearing that women are in a war right now. What war are you talking about. Nobody has ever, ever said you can't get screened, you can't have birth control, or any other procedure you may want or need. Birth control is cheap enough that you can buy it. As of now insurance pays for annual screening and there are free screening days several days a year in lots of places. What is this war and who started that phrase?
chavezc6 wrote "I do not understand the fight against women's healthcare. "
Women use the bulk of health care services while not paying more for them. But if customers are willing to pay more, there should be a market for the "Extra OB/GYN check-ups" plan that charges more. Also, paying out of pocket for any service should be made easier.
I do believe that I am capable of deciding whether I want to have an 'unpleasant' procedure versus risk developing cervical cancer later, if my doctor weighs the pros and cons with me based upon my risk of disease, desire to retain fertility, etc.... I'm a smart gal. I can handle it.
As a woman who has only had one sexual partner and only will have the one who will not cheat on me, getting a yearly test when I've already had it come up negative for me seems pretty much like a waste of time for something I'm very uncomfortable with. It should be between me and my doctor how often. Not my insurance. People really need to just get wise about their own health and not rely solely on what every doctor believes. Doctors also need to realize that they can trust some of their patients.
ObamaCare at its best. You have been warned before what it will be, it is coming to light now.
Let patients have the decision factor, Dr's should educate if necessary and recommend, but the patient should have the final say.
Bill -- This has nothing to do with "Obamacare". You do realize this doesn't go into full effect until 2014??? Typical right-wing male who hasn't a clue about women's health care.
This is the insurance companies dictating what they want to pay for, and trying to unravel as much Well Care as they can before 2014.
If they want to do this to women, we better be hearing the same about prostrate exams!
This has nothing to do with ObamaCare. This is merely another "opinion" regarding the frequency of pap smears. For those of us who know, there are many opinions regarding the frequency of pap smears and it can be quite confusing. That is why a woman should follow the recommendation of her doctor. I hate getting pap smears every year, but my doctor insists -- she, too, is female, and knows what she is doing --so I listen to her. Still, I wonder how many female doctors are on this panel.
This is a decision between a woman and her doctor. End of story.
Get a clue kathy. The people making these decisions are the internists, pediatricians, family physicians, gynecologists/obstetricians, nurses, and health behavior specialists. NOT the insurance company.
Agree 100% Kat! The relationship between patient and doctor is more important than any panel decision. Government panels can shove it...keep listening to your doctor and you'll stay healthy.
Oh yes it is about Obamacare! Read the first lines of this article that say a government panel has declared that pap screens should be 5 years apart. These are the same government panels that will be dictating policy decisions in Obamacare and setting the health coverage guidelines for anyone getting medical care under Obamacare. Their decisions will result in Obamacare only paying for a pap smear every five years, and if you want one sooner than that you will not have insurance coverage for it. Then private insurers will jump on the same bandwagon, like they already do now with many coverage decisions, and reduce their coverage to only pay for a pap smear every five years.
You have some fool like Dr. ALAN Waxman (a man) say that the way to prevent unnecessary followup procedures on precancerous lesions is to stop looking for precancerous lesions. I would like someone to find me any other medical situation where it was determined that the best way to stop performing unnecessary medical procedures was to stick your head in the sand and just not look. My best friend went from a clean pap smear to full on carcinoma in situ in 14 months the first time, then in 6 months the second time. If she had waited five years like this government panel and Dr. Waxman recommends, she would be dead and would have died in a very very painful and entirely preventable way. The inmates (or rather government bureaucrats) are running the asylum.
Sorry, but I disagree that this has anything to do with Obamacare. This is nothing more than an opinion from this panel, and another one will come out again next year --- recommending the exact opposite. I've been around long enough to have gone through a few of these so-called recommendations, and I ignore all of them and follow the recommendation of the my (female) doctor. I remember when I gave birth to my first son in the 1980's. That's when the MEN on a healthcare panel for the insurance companies insisited that women need not stay in the hospital more than one night after giving birth. We called them "drive-by-births."
Only thing, it back-fired because the women and babies were not given adequate care, so the ERs were filled with sick women and sick babies! So in the end, the costs sky-rocketed due to the number of women and babies that had to be hospitalized because of the "drive-by-births."
This male doctor can recommend all he wants -- I'm sure he's only thinking of the welfare of the mother and child just like the men on the insurance panels were back in the 80's, right?
This is exactly why we need more women in Congress and government!! I am totally sick of men telling women how much care they don't need when the problem is exclusively female!
kat wrote "I am totally sick of men telling women how much care they don't need when the problem is exclusively female!"
As a man, I'm sick of women expecting men to pay the bulk of health insurance premiums to cover checkups that are determined to have negligible preventative value. Health problems that are exclusively female. There should be a health plan i.e. Preferred Care Plan + OB/GYN XTRA PACKAGE to bill women for the health services they want.
Really! And what historical practical application do you have that confirms that? Stop insulting our intelligence!
So how should we interpret this?
1. Women have been scammed for decades into believing they need unnecessary tests and the unencessary treatments that often follow those tests, and researchers are finally seeing the light... or
2. Someone wants to scam women into forgoing tests so they can hit them with higher priced cancer treatments later on... or
3. Insurance companies want an excuse to stop paying for routine tests, and women who wish to be cautious will have to shell out their own money despite having insurance...or
4. All of the above?
JCA, that's exactly who's behind this --- INSURANCE companies! Notice, they don't make the same recommendation for prostate care!
Hate to burst your bubble, Kat, but a good portion of insurance companies are moving towards significant coverage of pre-screening tests and visits so as to mitigate future costs. As I stated up-thread, my own insurance requires I get yearly pap smears etc, or they will discontinue my coverage.
kat wrote "Notice, they don't make the same recommendation for prostate care!"
Prostate cancer screening and treatment is also regulated for efficiency. Do men get a checkup every year or every three years?
Notice that society at large, particularly women, have zero interest in any male-specific issues. Cervical cancer rates are approximately the same as testicular cancer rates. I'd like to see women wear brown ribbons and march for Prostate Cancer.
I have been on the recieving end of all the procedures mentioned in this article. They are making both the Colposcopy and excision procedures out to be WAY worse than they actually are. I went 8 years with normal paps and then BAM I got an abnormal one. Then 6 months later on recheck I was one step away from a diagnosis of cancer. I do not agree with fewer screenings for this reason. If I'd have skipped that one screening and gone back even 3 years later, I might not be here today. I could see the monitoring of lesions to see if they will clear or get worse. In my case I clearly got worse. I can also tell you those months of monitoring would be hell. You'd constantly be worried if you were getting better or worse because there are no noticible symptoms until you have very advanced cervical cancer. I hate these recomendations because that very "slight" chance for an increase of missed cancers would have been me and could be someone else. When it happens to you it isn't so slight.
Sarah, you hit the nail on the head. I'm currently awaiting the results of my (somewhat uncomfortable but NOT painful) colpo. I love the way the article notes the very "slight" chance for an increase of missed cancers. Do a quick web search and anyone can see that although it's more common for the lesions to heal on their own or take longer than 5 years to develop into cancer, many lesions progress faster than that. This happens to thousands of women every year! It's not like coming across a polar bear in the desert. These findings are a joke.
I'm praying for a good outcome for you songbird77. My lesion went from being "Mildly abnomormal" to one step below invasive cancer in 6 months. Imagine if I'd waited 5 years to go in? Totally insane. I with another poster who said that we are smart enough to decide if we want to deal with the "uncomfortable" screenings. People tend to forget they have a say in their own health care and can tell their dr. no if they don't want a procedure. But things like this will make it more expensive for those who want the screening more frequently because their insurance will only pay for it every 3-5 yrs. I just know because "Most" won't have my experience there will be se some that will have to deal with far worse than I have because they weren't screened mor frequently.
I guess they have totally forgotten the other reasons for a papsmear. Don't we want our young women under 21 being tested for STDs?
Unfortunately, this statement: Beyond this, Randall said, it might make more sense to look at ways to decrease the number of colposcopies and excisions rather than cutting back on screening.
Was hidden at the end of the article.
It would totallly make more sense. The problem is the pannel is recomending fewer screenings.
So the only downside is a few more women dying. REALLY?
What is the downside of higher insurance rates that are unaffordable for an even larger group of people? These payments are crushing. If the preventative exams have no actual value, let people with extra cash pay for exams at the rate they want.
The medical insurance companies will take this and run with it, refusing to pay for the tests. My wife wouldn't be alive with unprofessional advice like this. Generalizing all women's conditions will cost lives.
Relax, macman01, it AIN'T gonna happen! We are going to get more women involved in government and women's healthcare, and put a stop to this foolishness!
I despise having the PAP done every year, but do so because 1) my maternal aunt had cervical cancer at a fairly early age of around 30. 2) My mother also took DES while she was pregnant with me. Even though DES has not been found to be connected with cervical cancer, it is the peace of mind I get from the test and the AMA recommends an annual screening for women whose mothers took DES while pregnant.
It has been shown that a lot of men don't die of prostate cancer because it is a slow-growing cancer and they usually die of something else. Cervical cancer is not at all the same. It is ludicrous for this "government panel" to recommend decreasing the frequency of PAP smears.
DES daughters do have a higher risk of cervical cancer. Here is the info from the CDC cdc.gov/des/consumers/aboutindex.html
This part of the article really bothers me. Can someone please explain the age breakdown listed in the article because it looks like certain age groups of women are considered more valuable than others.
and there was not a female specialist among these "experts" that decided a female health issue of risk vs cost on the panel advising the government.
as for the breakdown, it's simple, women of child-bearing age up to the age of medicare enrollment.
I think it has to do with perserving fertility. As explained in the articles, the treatments can cause fertility problems. The earlier you catch the problem, the better the out come and the better the chance the younger women can go on to have kids. It is also a case that the younger women tend to have more partners and are at greater risk of catching HPV than the older women. What this doesn't tell you is that you can have hpv in your system for 10 years and not have any problems and suddenly get a lesion. So you could catch it in your 20's and have problems after 30. My personal opinion is that 3 years is still to infrequent.
Preserving fertility is a *horrible* reason to change this recommendation. As long as a woman's ovaries work well, she can have her biological child, even if a surrogate is needed. This is NO reason to risk people's lives unnecessarily.
Graybiker64 wrote "and there was not a female specialist among these "experts" that decided a female health issue of risk"
So? Is there some sort of golden perspective or 6th sense a woman provides to a cost-benefit analysis? Personally, I want these cost reductions of useless exams so that health insurance premiums don't increase 10% / year. How would you feel about being priced out of health insurance?
looks like BIG INSURANCE companies and their puppet republicans can notch up another profit win vs lives of women.
the decrease between the number of women who end up being treated for lesions that might resolve on their own and an increase of the number of women who will DIE from of cervical cancer is a trade off???????? are you freaking kidding me?????????????
This is why women must take their health into their own hands and really continue getting the routine Pap smear. Yes insurance is covering less and if you do NOT have health insurance the test will probably run you about 200.00, but that is a small price to pay considering cervical cancer is so prevalent and CAN be caught in the very early stages, which is detected by (you guessed it) pap smears. Forget what the experts are touting. I am sure if any of them ever had a family member or friend suffer from cervical cancer this would never have been on MSN.
I agree that the $200 is a small price, but it becomes big if you have to choose between eating that month and having the test done. I try to spread the word for women to go to their county health dept and get screened. Most of them have a sliding fee based on income and for some it will be a free test. There are also non profit women's clinics out there that can help too.
sarah wrote "I agree that the $200 is a small price, but it becomes big if you have to choose between eating that month and having the test done. "
$200 (Assuming your price) / 36 months = $5.55/month. Save up!
Health insurance is not about providing free services. It's about distributing the cost over time and a group of people. If you are paying for health insurance, you notice the cost increases every year, right?
this IS about obamacare and if you can't see that then you have truly lost all ability to think on your on. less pap smears, less mammograms, less prostrate exams. less people diagnosed with alzheimer and less kids diagnosed with autism due to new guidelines. all will be covered but all will have less coverage
This is from the University of Missouri, Right. More women's health to be taken out of the woman's hands...don't need it, insurance don't pay for it. Read the other article...yearly exams for the man's prostate.
Shame.
University of Missouri? Right. Just another right to be taken from women. Not necessary, insurance will not pay for them. Planned Parenthood provides this procedure, oops, per Mitt gotta get rid of Planned Parenthood.
Did you notice in another article today, yearly exams for prostate cancer should be done. More exams for men and less for women.
Yep, this going on per the plan.
Why is it that only women's healthcare seems to be on the chopping block? First, it's a reduction in mammogram frequency, and now this. A five year interval between Paps is stupidity. If this guideline had been in place 11 years ago, I could be dead. I had been going yearly without fail for paps, and ended up having carcinoma in situ of the cervix. There was no warning, no previous "iffy" pap results, no infidelity in my 5 years of marriage. Just boom- early cancer. The only way my lesion would have resolved would have been a more advanced cancer or death. I will be getting a pap yearly regardless of if this is accepted as normal practice.
MY experince is very similar Beth. I had 8 years of clear paps and had also been with my husband for 5 yrs prior to my diagnosis of CIS. These recomendations make me ill.
Beth Briscoe wrote "Why is it that only women's healthcare seems to be on the chopping block?"
1. Most health articles are about women
2. Women cost a lot.
3. Reduction in men's health care is not interesting to anyone
Have you heard of a Prostate Cancer Awareness month and Walkathon for Prostate Cancer ? Have you ever contributed a dollar to a men's health charity, such as prostate cancer, even when it is presented at the Safeway grocery store at the checkout credit card machine?
Another reason is that the health care industry expanded by providing more services for women, but not for men. Ask the men around you if they have ever been screened for testicular cancer in their lifetimes. Your answer will be "NEVER." Do you realize that testicular and cervical cancer rates are approximately the same?
That is the stupidest thing I have ever read. Abnormal or atypical cells can mutiply exponentially and turn into cancer in less than a year, even without previous bad pap smears! THIS test should be done every year, just like mamograms. I am speaking from first hand experience both as a patient and as a former lab employee.
For some reason, my ob/gyn disagreed with the panel recommending less frequent mammograms, but is okay with reducing pap smears. I'll have to ask why, but it smells fishy to me. I agee with FEDUP1967 and Beth Briscoe. Women are getting a raw deal here.
ob/gyn's are able to charge more for mammograms than a pap smear.
But the radiologist is the one charging the fee for the mammogram, not the ob/gyn. They just give the referral to the radiologist.
My wife died at 49 after a normal smear. Maybe the "experts" could come and explain this to my 9 an 12 year old children.
My heart goes out to you, "eng".
With government operated health care your circumstance will become all to familiar.
What to do?
I am so sorry, engnenk.
Interesting that this comes out at a time when, if enacted by insurance companies, the only affordable choice for affordable pap smears would be planned parenthood. Considering that right wing Repubs want to do away with that too, I truly hope every single woman who is registered to vote considers what this and the loss of affordable contraception could do to the poor and even the middle class women of this country!!!!!
As far as I can tell, the conservatives want to prevent planned parenthood from paying for abortions with tax dollars. If they are trying to close down planned parenthood, I'd like to see the proof.
As a person who's life was most likely saved due to these screenings, colposcopy & leep procedure to remove precancerous cells, this is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
It was 3 years between my paps... and in that 3 years I not only developed the lesions but they progressed to precancerous. 5 years? I'd probably made it into full blown cancer.
This is really irresponsible. Are colposcopies fun? No. It was horrible. But worth saving my life.
Diva10 - I had the exact same procedure as you, but my pap had been done 13 mos prior and the changes were dramatic. There was no previous family history of cervical issues so this whole concept of 5 years between paps absolutely frightens me, for all women that may actually believe these people that are recommending this. Does anyone actually know who comprises the group that is recommending this AND do the majority of Gynecologists recommend this same thought? I bet not.
Over-treatment is so enormous in cervical screening it is most unlikely LEEP saves many women - the lifetime risk of the cancer is 0.65% (LESS than 1%) yet how many women have LEEP every year?
Referral rates after "abnormal" pap tests - the lifetime risk, is a whopping 77% in Australia, even higher in the States, which means only a VERY small number can be helped by screening (less than 0.45% when you take out false negatives) - the rest is over-detection (false positives) and over-treatment. Pre-cancer is as common as dirt - if we looked hard enough we all have pre-cancer somewhere in our bodies and after a certain age, many of us have indolent cancers, we'll die with them, not from them. (some prostate, renal and breast and most thyroid cancer)
FEDUP1967 wrote "There was no previous family history of cervical issues so this whole concept of 5 years between paps absolutely frightens me"
With more data collected every year, medical panels are learning what type of prevention is useful. If you want more screenings, pay for them outside of an insurance plan.
I am a V.A. patient and was scheduled for a yearly mammogram in January, only to arrive and find that it had been cancelled FOR me by a case worker, with no explanation and no advance notice. Having had breasts cysts in the past, and having had my mammogram passed on to another doctor for a second opinion just last year, I can't begin to explain the logic.
To think that they might do that with a yearly pap smear is very frightening. My mother had cervical and uterine cancer, and is lucky that it was caught in time; she's now a nearly-40-year cancer survivor.
What's better, America? To get early warning of a problem and treat it before it advances, or pay for someone who is in the hospital, dying of Stage IV cancer ?
StandUpJokeOff wrote "To get early warning of a problem and treat it before it advances, or pay for someone who is in the hospital, dying of Stage IV cancer ?"
If you read the article, the issue includes extraneous treatments. Aren't you concerned about being treated for cancer excessively? Aren't you concerned that mammograms also cause breast cancer?