Quick Fact: Van Susteren allowed Brown to falsely suggest health reform will limit mammograms, pap smears
During the January 11 edition of her Fox News program, Greta van Susteren allowed Scott Brown, Republican Senate candidate for Massachusetts, advance the false suggestion that the health care reform bills would prevent women from receiving mammograms and pap smears.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the January 11 edition of On the Record:
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, what do you two agree on, because I know there's some area of agreement? What do you and Martha Coakley agree on, and what is the biggest difference between the two of you?
BROWN: The biggest difference is her position on taxing and spending, and the fact that she is pushing a health care bill that is bad for Massachusetts because we already have 98 percent of our people insured. We have already done what the government, the federal government is trying to do.
And why would we in fact have a one size fits all national plan that is going to put Massachusetts businesses out of business and give us longer lines, a half a trillion in Medicare cuts, Tri-Care for veterans is going to be affected. And then just the fact that a lot of the panels that are starting and the having mammograms go from, you know, 40 to 50 and pap smear testing.
There are a whole lot of things that are just bad. We really need to start again.
Fact: Health reform bills do not require insurers to adopt recommendations against preventative screenings
Task force recommendations not legally binding. In the aftermath of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation that some women receive fewer breast cancer screenings, media conservatives have fearmongered that the nonbinding recommendations represent government rationing -- with some tying the guidelines to the debunked "death panel" smear. However, the task force recommendations are not legally binding. Moreover, the task force encouraged clinicians and 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."
Senate bill does not require insurers to adopt task force recommendations against preventive screenings, only those in favor of preventive screenings. The Senate health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requires insurance companies only to cover screenings that the USPSTF recommends, those rated as an A or B recommendation; it does not require insurers to adopt guidelines that recommend against preventive screenings.
House bill requires insurers to adopt task force recommendations for coverage, but not those against coverage. Similarly, the House health care reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, requires insurance companies to cover the A or B recommendations of a new task force, the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services, but does not require that insurers adopt recommendations against preventive services.
Fact: ACOG cervical cancer screening guidelines not binding and in no way connected to health care reform
ACOG issued nonbinding guidelines, not mandates. On November 20, ACOG announced new recommendations for cervical cancer screenings, stating: "Women should have their first cervical cancer screening at age 21 and can be rescreened less frequently than previously recommended, according to newly revised evidence-based guidelines issued today by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and published in the December issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Most women younger than 30 should undergo cervical screening once every two years instead of annually, and those age 30 and older can be rescreened once every three years."
ACOG: "[A] private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization." The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is not a government entity; it is a private membership organization. The organization's website states, "Founded in 1951 in Chicago, Illinois, ACOG has over 52,000 members and is the nation's leading group of professionals providing health care for women. Now based in Washington, DC, it is a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization."
NY Times: "It is by no means clear that doctors or patients will follow the new guidelines." Further undermining Siegel's attempt to connect the ACOG guidance with health care reform, a November 20 New York Times article reported: "It is by no means clear that doctors or patients will follow the new guidelines. Medical groups, including the American Cancer Society, have been suggesting for years that women with repeated normal Pap tests could begin to have the test less frequently, but many have gone on to have them year after year anyway."

















If Scott Brown didn't lie about health care reform, how would people know that he's a Republican?
~
It will NOT be as a result of this health reform.
This is not rocket science.
But it won't be as a result of any healthcare reform.
What part of this is too difficult for you?
The Republican Senate candidate suggested that healthcare reform will limit that preventative and diagnostic care, and there's no reason to believe that's true - the recommendations are separate from healthcare reform, first off, and healthcare reform has nothing in it that says that these panels' recommendations have to be followed by insurance companies!
You're the one who's confused here, not me. Not sure why you think you need to continue to prove that you're lost, but feel free to keep it up!
These health care effectiveness studies have been taking place for decades. Have their results been used in the past to determine coverages? (Serious question - I don't know if they have or not.) If they have, how would the HCR signify any kind of change? If they haven't, what reason do we have to believe that that would change?
Regardless, DellDolly is right. Brown is suggesting that HCR will have have an influence on those decisions when there is no genuine reason to believe that they will.
The millions in agreement, that would be arround 3 million. Approxomately 1% of the US population.
Do you know how many millions of dollars from corporate medicine have been spent to defeat the current legislation?
Do you know how many Americans have been driven into bankruptcy and forclosure by medical bills?
Do you know the average overhead associated with corporate medicine?
Do you know that the people you are defending will not do the same for you? Massive medical problems? Prexisting conditions? To bad sucker.