About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Right-wing blogs falsely claim decline in free mammogram screenings followed task force recommendations

December 15, 2009 1:37 pm ET — 31 Comments

Right-wing blogs Gateway Pundit and Say Anything recently seized on an Associated Press article which reported that 20 states facing budget strains have cut back on free cancer screenings, such as mammograms, to claim that the declines followed recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in November. In fact, as the AP article made clear, this statistic came from an American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network survey, which was conducted from July 2008 to April 2009, months before the USPSTF issued its recommendation.

Right-wing blogs claimed screening cuts came after task force recommendations

Gateway Pundit: "20 States Cut Mammograms After Government Report Released." In a December 14 post titled, "Change!...20 States Cut Mammograms After Government Report Released," Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft stated, "This won't end well," and falsely claimed that "[a] full 20 states have now cut funding for mammogram screenings for low income women after a government task force last month made its recommendations that women in their 40s should stop routinely having annual mammograms."

Say Anything also tied free screening cuts to task force. In a December 14 post, Say Anything blog asserted that "the Obama administration came right out and said that the panel should be ignored.  But the panel hasn't been ignored. A full 20 states have now cut funding for mammogram screenings after this task force made its recommendations." The article also claimed "the point here is that when the government provides you with health care they tend to ration it. They make decisions for you, and those decisions aren't usually so much made with your best interests in mind but theirs."

Survey on screenings ended months before USPSTF issued mammogram recommendations

AP: The American Cancer Society survey was conducted from July 2008 to April 2009.  The AP article, which both Hoft and Say Anything cited in their posts, reported that through the Amercan Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network's "unofficial survey of programs for July 2008 through April 2009, the organization found that state budget strains are forcing some programs to reject people who would otherwise qualify for free mammograms and Pap smears. Just how many are turned away isn't known; in some cases, the women are screened through other programs or referred to different providers."

USPSTF mammography recommendations were released in November of 2009. The USPSTF issued its recommendation for biennial mammogram screenings for woman aged 50-74 in November 2009. The task force had previously recommended that women have regular mammograms starting at age 40.

Decline in screenings reportedly attributed to budget shortfalls, not task force recommendations

AP: "The economy has forced cutbacks in screenings."  According to the AP article, the American Cancer Society survey found that the cutbacks in free mammograms and Pap smears for low-income women were driven by state budget shortfalls: "In the unofficial survey of programs for July 2008 through April 2009, the organization found that state budget strains are forcing some programs to reject people who would otherwise qualify for free mammograms and Pap smears." The article quotes Claudia Hutton, a spokesperson for the New York Department of Health saying, "We don't do this lightly ... This is not a cut that we would have made if the state had the money, but the state just does not have the money."

— J.V.B.
Support Our Work


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Smagoo (December 15, 2009 1:52 pm ET)
        4
      The rationing begins before there is even a bill. Typical government!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (December 15, 2009 6:59 pm ET)
        2  
        And the idiocy apparently (at least in your case) begins before there is even basic functional literacy. Typical conservative...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (December 16, 2009 2:11 pm ET)
           
        Looks liks Smagoo has been rationing his critical thought processes......
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (December 15, 2009 2:17 pm ET)
      1  
      I'm so confused by the right-wing tantrum over this.

      State governments are cutting back on free cancer screenings, and the right wingers are upset over this?

      Does this not conform to the conservative agenda of smaller government and individual self reliance?

      Is this really the government "making decisions for you?" Does this prevent anyone from paying for all cancer screenings they want out of their own pocket?

      Why isn't this being hailed as a victory by the I've-got-mine-so-screw-you conservatives?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (December 15, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
           
        OK, maybe they are hailing it as a victory for their side, albeit on false grounds as MMFA says. But how can they maintain that this amounts to the government making health care decisions for you, when it is their viewpoint that you should be paying for the screenings yourself? If the free screenings aren't enough, you can decide to get up off your lazy liberal tookus and go earn more money to pay for them, right?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 2:33 pm ET)
          7
        No, actually it just illustrates more and more the way liberal politicians govern by apocalypse. See, unless you give us more money we will cut out cancer screenings for the poor, we have no choice. Baloney. When some spokesperson issues some statement about having no money for this or that, it's just a plea for more, and it's a crapshoot whether or not what was cut in the first place will even be restored.

        Get off your fat, padded budgets and trim in areas that need it. Don't sit there and tell me we have no money for police or fire or other necessary government services while bloated wasteful spending occurs on a daily basis.

        If cancer screenings for those who cannot afford it are that low on the priority budgetary pole, then you need to rework your pole. Not demand more from taxpayers. Do your job.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (December 15, 2009 2:41 pm ET)
             
          Both sides govern by apocalypse. With liberals, its domestic issues like this one. With conservatives, they've never known a war that's too expensive. See, unless you give us more money, Saddam Hussein is going to give WMD's to Al Qaeda so they can kill you and your family.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (December 15, 2009 2:42 pm ET)
               
            Oops, almost forgot... we have no choice.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 2:43 pm ET)
              4
            Perhaps, your point is taken and Bush did it. Maybe I should just say politicians in general, but considering liberals normally want taxes raised on somebody, they're usually the ones with their hands out far more.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by pete592 (December 15, 2009 3:03 pm ET)
              1  
              Liberals would rather have things paid for than depend on unproven top-down economic voodoo.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 3:07 pm ET)
                  4
                I want things paid for too, with accountability and justification. If I was spending my own money, then you have no say. But if I am spending your money, you deserve every detail on its validity. And if I ask you for more, you deserve to know why.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by open_mind (December 15, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
                  1  
                  That is a reasonable position and I don't know how anyone can disagree. I also do not see how that has anything to do with a supposed deficiency in Liberals.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 3:54 pm ET)
                      2
                    Because by definition liberals want bigger government with more regulation and more taxes. And along with that comes less stringent accountability. It is inherent in something that gets too big and veers off the rails of fiscal prudence. Especially in government where unless they spend every dime they're given, they won't get anymore. It's the way the system operates. So if it's smaller it has to be more efficient and cost conscious. It's the way it is.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by open_mind (December 15, 2009 9:24 pm ET)
                         
                      Well that is just a cheap generality. We all know many examples where conservatives have expanded government,eschewed accountability and raised taxes. I think putting that just on liberals is ignoring reality in favor of the ideological fairy tale.

                      Also the way I read your quote above, you are not necessarily against government programs yourself as long as we get "every detail on its validity." and if there are tax increases we "deserve to know why". It seems kind of a strange argument considering you believe government itself is inherently wasteful in your very next post.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (December 16, 2009 11:36 am ET)
                           
                        Government is inherently wasteful, but there are services the government is there to provide. I am not opposed to every program or govt. expenditure, obviously. But to demand fiscal restraint and accountability is not a strange argument at all, unless handing out blank checks and giving blind trust to those appropriating it is your thing. It's not mine.
                        Report Abuse
                    • Author by wzwriter (December 16, 2009 2:13 pm ET)
                         
                      And by definition, right ON is a blithering idiot.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by open_mind (December 16, 2009 5:36 pm ET)
                           
                        I gathered that from the feeble attempt to marginalize me in his/her last post.
                        Report Abuse
          • Author by open_mind (December 15, 2009 2:58 pm ET)
            1  
            Both sides govern by apocalypse. With liberals, its domestic issues like this one.
            Except this recommendation has nothing to do with a supposed shortage of funds. It is an evidence based recommendation.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 3:02 pm ET)
                4
              I don't think you read this at all. Or this above "The article quotes Claudia Hutton, a spokesperson for the New York Department of Health saying, "We don't do this lightly ... This is not a cut that we would have made if the state had the money, but the state just does not have the money."
              Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (December 15, 2009 3:26 pm ET)
                1  
                That may apply to the state's situation, but I was referring to the actual recommendation.This should have been another hint to wingnuts that the recommendation had nothing to do with the cuts.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by caels (December 15, 2009 2:42 pm ET)
          2  
          Conservatives can never ever find anything to cut seriously because the major cost concerns aren't in "waste,fraud, and abuse." Even if you eliminated every bit of waste, the budgets would still be overbearing. Nobody seriously thinks that budget deficits can be resolved without either raising taxes or cutting / eliminated highly desired and / or necessary programs.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (December 15, 2009 2:56 pm ET)
             
          If cancer screenings for those who cannot afford it are that low on the priority budgetary pole, then you need to rework your pole. Not demand more from taxpayers. Do your job.
          Judging from your apparent grasp of the issue at hand, it seems you are a member of the Palin wing of the Republican Party.

          The recommendations have nothing to do with budgets or rationing, but with actual health reasons as supported by statistical analyses. It seems that there are many false positives detected as well as slow growing cancers that are not a danger causing a rise in unnecessary mastectomies and other proceedures. The truth is that unless you actually have a family history of breast cancer, it is in your own best interest not to get mammograms before age 50 according to the available evidence. If you actually read the literature instead of the conservative bs blogs, you would know that.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 3:02 pm ET)
              5
            I suggest you read the thread to which you are responding instead of telling me what wing of what party I am a member of.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by open_mind (December 15, 2009 3:22 pm ET)
                 
              It was not a response to you.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 3:24 pm ET)
                  4
                Then why did you use a quote from me in your post and then respond to it? Seriously, I have no idea what your point is.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by open_mind (December 15, 2009 3:39 pm ET)
                  1  
                  Okay. Sorry. Obviously I got a little confused as to whom I was replying.

                  I misread your post. I thought you were talking about the recommendation and not the budgetary issue - which the linkage of the two by the Palin wing was the subject of the above article.

                  My mistake.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (December 15, 2009 3:28 pm ET)
              1  
              In principle I agree with everything you have posted about budgets and spending decisions. Cities suspend garbage collections to push citizens for more money.
              But I fail to see how that all relates to the actual point of the post, which is right wing blogs falsely blaming cut-backs on USPSTF recommendations rather than budget constraints.
              In the proper thread I would give you all thumbs up.
              BTW, I have noticed that you are astute at derailing a thread.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 3:36 pm ET)
                  2
                I spoke to the larger more important point about budgets and spending. Stupid blogs written by some political hack with an agenda doesn't move me so much, nor whatever stuff they spew. I know it's red meat to liberals to let off steam, but not to me.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by johnny_nyc (December 15, 2009 4:02 pm ET)
                  3  
                  That's just a roundabout way of agreeing you'll derail a thread to a topic more to your liking like blaming liberals and Democrats for just about anything.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by johnny_nyc (December 15, 2009 4:01 pm ET)
                3  
                You obviously are not familiar with this poster and his off topic rants about the "bigger issue" of blaming Democrats and liberals for all the ills of western civilization.
                Report Abuse