What editorial writers are saying about new mammography recommendations

A sampling from newspapers across the nation shows editorial writers' views on the controversial guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which later clarified that it did not mean to discourage women from consulting with doctors about mammograms.

Mammogram conundrum

Americans would do well to take a deep breath and step back from the recent uproar over mammograms. ... The alarmed response demonstrates just how invested Americans have become in the idea of early cancer detection. ... The latest recommendations are not binding, and in fact they are quite similar to the stand the task force took in the 1990s. Those, obviously, did not change policy. ... The upshot is that little has changed: Women should still decide on testing in consultation with their doctors. The task force recommendations have introduced more doubt, but doubt matches the state of the science. Providence (R.I.) Journal, Nov. 26

The controversy over mammograms

Opponents of the health care reform bills moving through Congress have seized on the new recommendations as evidence that the government is seeking to put bureaucrats between you and your doctor or that it would ration care by denying coverage for some mammograms that are now covered. There is virtually no chance that any insurers, either public or private, will deny coverage to anyone based on these recommendations. ... The only part of the reform bills that could affect mammography would only make them more accessible. ... There is nothing wrong with a healthy public debate about mammography within the medical community and among women who must decide when and how often to get screened. It should not be injected into the partisan debate over health care reform. New York Times, Nov. 19

Liberals and mammography

The flap over breast cancer screening has provided a fascinating insight into the political future of ObamaCare. Specifically, the political left supports such medical rationing even as it disavows that any such thing is happening. ... The task force found a sneaky way to use clinical data to take costs into account without admitting it. It cites all sorts of harm associated with the problem of "overdiagnosis"--i.e., too many costly procedures. ...What's really going on here is that the left knows its designs will require political rationing of care, but it doesn't want the public to figure this out until ObamaCare passes. Wall Street Journal, Nov. 24

Early screenings save lives

In reaching its conclusions, the task force said false positives in regular breast exams caused unnecessary levels of anxiety among women and generated more unnecessary exams and potentially dangerous procedures than they're worth. Many in the medical community fear the report will create confusion among women and perhaps prompt some to delay screening until it's too late. They say women are putting themselves at great risk if they follow the task force's recommendations. ... There's no need for women to be confused by this new report. Take this advice: Ignore it. Post-Star (Glen Falls, N.Y.), Nov. 21

A common-sense approach to recent health news

The new recommendations, it should be emphasized, are just that. They are NOT rules. They should be viewed in their proper context. As health care consumers, we should keep an open mind about these recommendations. But decisions about care strategies such as breast-cancer screening should continue to be made by individuals in close consultation with their physicians. Terre Haute (Ind.) Tribune-Star, Nov. 19

Mammogram debate should help screening

The new recommendations against women under 50 receiving regular mammograms are confusing enough without throwing politics into the mix. Unfortunately, that's exactly what's happened as the report has become fodder for those who oppose health care legislation before Congress. ... If there is an upside to the mammogram controversy, it is that the issue of screening for breast cancer has the attention of top policymakers across the political spectrum. This is an opportunity to turn politicians' publicly professed concern for the health of women into meaningful action that improves access to health care. This is also a reminder that the health care debate ought to be about improving access to and the quality of health care. Burlington (Vt.) Free Press, Nov. 20