The Issue of Cost Versus Price
(USPSTF) Recommendation does not include the “Human Factor.”

The Rose supports the current screening guidelines which recommend a woman start annual screening at age 40 and we will continue to screen women within the current guidelines.

We disagree with the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) proposed Mammography Screening Recommendations which eliminates universal screening mammography for women aged 40-49, and recommends every other year screening for women 50-74, rather than annual screening and recommending against teaching breast self examination

This recommendation poses a serious threat to the health of women. For over 23 years, The Rose has encouraged women to take an active role in their own health. In that same time period, there has been a 30% drop in the mortality rate due to breast cancer.  The primary factor in that drop in mortality has been the use of mammography on a regular, annual basis.

The USPSTF recommendation, if adopted, is guaranteed to restrict women in participating in their own health because it most assuredly will impact whether or not insurance will cover routine screenings. If the recommendation is accepted, as we have seen in the past, insurance companies will no longer provide coverage for women. Limiting access to care is the bottom line to this controversy—and another clear example that the only groups who stand to benefit from such a recommendation are the insurance companies.

The question of “cost versus price” remains.  Statistically justifying “cost” savings by eliminating screening is one thing, but there is no way – morally, ethically or statistically – to put a price on a woman’s life.

According to Dr. Dixie Melillo, Co-Founder and Breast Specialist, “If we go with these recommendations a lot of women are going to die and they're going to die at an age when they could be productive. We're going to be taking care of their children."

We join with other leading State and National organizations* who are opposing this recommendation and definitely question the composition of the committee which does not include an oncologist, radiologist or any other type of specialist in the breast health field.

 
Additionally, to attempt to eliminate self breast examination, a test that is free and effective, makes no sense at all—especially at a time when the incidence of lobular invasive carcinoma has risen to an all time high. This disease is most often diagnosed in younger women. Lobular invasive carcinoma most often can not be seen by mammography or ultrasound imaging and is usually determined by a clinical and/or self breast examination.

We are delighted at the huge public outcry against the USPSTF recommendation. We encourage our constituents to be mindful of all of the facts around this issue, the potential danger involved in further limiting access to healthcare, and to remain on alert.

Dorothy Weston Gibbons
Chief Executive Officer, The Rose