About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

WSJ falsely claimed task force recommended cutting off mammograms for grandma

November 19, 2009 4:25 pm ET — 3 Comments

In a November 19 editorial, The Wall Street Journal falsely claimed that recent task force recommendations for breast cancer screenings advises doctors to "cut off all screening in woman over 75" in order to fearmonger that the recommendations are a form of government rationing of care to the elderly -- that "grandma is probably going to die anyway, so why waste the money?" In fact, the task force made no recommendation related to women older than 75, stating that "the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older."

WSJ fearmongers that task force recommended "cut[ting] off all screening" for breast cancer in women over 75

WSJ: "[G]randma is probably going to die anyway, so why waste the money?" From the November 19 Wall Street Journal editorial:

The recommendation to cut off all screening in women over 75 is equally as myopic. The committee notes that the benefits of screening "occur only several years after the actual screening test, whereas the percentage of women who survive long enough to benefit decreases with age." It adds that "women of this age are at much greater risk for dying of other conditions that would not be affected by breast cancer screening." In other words, grandma is probably going to die anyway, so why waste the money to reduce the chances that she dies of a leading cause of death among elderly women?

The effects of this new breast cancer cost-consciousness are likely to be large. Medicare generally adopts the panel's recommendations when it makes coverage decisions for seniors, and its judgments also play a large role in the private insurance markets. Yes, people could pay for mammography out of pocket. This is fine with us, but it is also emphatically not the world of first-dollar insurance coverage we live in, in which reimbursement decisions deeply influence the practice of medicine.

Conservative media fearmonger that task force recommendations foreshadow government rationing. Responding to the task force recommendations, numerous conservative media figures have aggressively fearmongered that the nonbinding recommendations represent a preview of government rationing under health care reform, often likening the findings to the widely debunked death panels.

HHS task force recommendations do not lead to ending care for women over 75

HHS task force did not recommend doctors "cut off all screening in women over 75." While the Department of Health and Human Services' U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) did weigh the potential harms against the potential preventable burden of mammogram screenings for women over 75, it concluded that there was not enough information to make a recommendation:

The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to assess the harms or benefits of these methods for screening.

Rationing claim undermined: Task force recommendations not legally binding. In fact, the task force recommendations are not legally binding. Moreover, the task force encouraged policymakers to include additional considerations and "individualize decision making to the specific patient or situation." In a Nightly News report on the task force recommendations, NBC chief medical correspondent Dr. Nancy Snyderman stated, "It's important to remember that these new recommendations from this independent task force are just that -- they're recommendations. They don't mandate any changes in who should get mammograms and when."

Task force previously recommended against certain preventive cancer screenings under Bush, undermining efforts to connect guidelines to Obama. For example, in 2004 the task force recommended against screening for ovarian cancer, routine screening for testicular cancer in "asymptomatic adolescent and adult males," and bladder cancer screening in adults; in 2005, it recommended against routine screening of peripheral arterial disease; in 2006, it recommended against screening the asymptomatic general population for hereditary hemochromatosis; and in 2007, it recommended against screening the general adult population for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by smarshall1432997 (November 19, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
      1  
      The Wall Street Journal is owned by Murdoch who also owns FoxNews, right? If so, then ONLY right-winged, neo-conservative Republicans will believe this 100%. The other 100% moderate Republicans know better just like the rest of us, LOL.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ScienceBuff (November 19, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
      3  
      This is pure, unabashed lying. The WSJ isn't playing with words. This isn't a case of alternative interpretation. It can't even be defended as reading between the lines.

      The WSJ is knowingly printing utter and complete falsehoods.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LarryE (November 19, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
        1  
        SB -

        Just wanted to say megadittos.

        :grin: Actually, I've always wanted to say that, so I took advantage of the opportunity.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.