USA Today reports on 14 states considering some move toward mandating a newborn test looking for signs of congenital heart disease. Excerpt:
“The tests aren’t always accurate, however, and some doctors say they will prompt follow-up tests that could prove expensive — perhaps as much as $1,500.
“No question about it raising health care costs, it definitely will,” says Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, N.H.
“Why is this being mandated by a legislature?” wonders physician Stuart Kaufman of Morristown, N.J. “There are some benefits, but they are passing a law that is going to increase the cost of health care at a time when health care costs are rising and we are trying to contain the cost. They are mandating a test that may have very little effect on the outcomes.”
Politicians love screening tests. Whether evidence supports the tests or not.
The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that at least 28 states have enacted laws requiring insurers to include coverage for PSA testing.
Coverage mandated by law – despite the fact that the US Preventive Services Task Force states that there isn’t enough evidence to assess the balance of benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening in men younger than age 75 years, and it recommends against such screening in men over 75. And the American Cancer Society states “Research has not yet proven that the potential benefits of testing outweigh the harms of testing and treatment. The American Cancer Society believes that men should not be tested without learning about what we know and don’t know about the risks and possible benefits of testing and treatment.”
And of course, the Affordable Care Act (federal health care reform legislation) ignored the 2009 statement of the US Preventive Services Task Force on mammography. Instead, the feds mandate mammography coverage based on the 2002 USPSTF statement, which was found to be more politically popular. Here’s the footnote on a federal website:
In the apparent attempt to look like do-gooders, politicians may inadvertently cause harm by legislating screening mandates that don’t reflect all of the available evidence.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like