Disturbing - Repub. Congressional Cand. - 'People Now Don't Die From Prostate Cancer, Breast Cancer'

[boston bean]

GOP congressional candidate Chris Collins knows health care is expensive these days, but he argues it's for good reason: People are no longer dying from deadly forms of cancer.

"People now don't die from prostate cancer, breast cancer and some of the other things," he told The Batavian in an interview that was flagged Tuesday by City & State NY. Collins was discussing his desire to repeal Obamacare.

"The fact of the matter is, our healthcare today is so much better, we're living so much longer, because of innovations in drug development, surgical procedures, stents, implantable cardiac defibrillators, neural stimulators -- they didn't exist 10 years ago," he continued. "The increase in cost is not because doctors are making a lot more money. It's what you can get for healthcare, extending your life and curing diseases."

In fact, a lot of people do die from breast cancer and prostate cancer, despite advances in treatment. An estimated 577,190 people in the United States will die from cancer this year, including about 39,920 deaths from breast cancer and 28,170 from prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/03/chris-collins-cancer_n_1647196.html

This jerk is challenging Rep. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.), who won a special election in May 2011.

[Faygo Kid]

1. What?!? This doofus is too dumb to even be a dittohead.

What an offensive, stupid statement.

[boston bean]

3. I know, I can't believe some of the stuff these republicans utter.

They can't possibly believe it, can they? Do they?

Or are they just trying to sell the unwitting masses of people who just want to believe something for any reason.

[lob1]

2. Is he that stupid, or does he think we're that stupid?

[boston bean]

4. I think all of this stuff is calculated.

I read down further in the article and Hochul's response was not critical enough. I think she missed a chance there.

[Ezlivin]

5. If stupidity was terminal

this Representative would already be in the ground.

Damn. Do any of these people ever visit a hospital? Read a medical journal?

[kestrel91316]

6. 67k+ dead each year from those two cancers alone - that's trivial to this guy.

Not important enough to pay any heed, let alone try to correct.

[lob1]

7. Are you saying he pulled the prostate cancer stats out of his ass?

[TreasonousBastard]

8. That was a just small part of his speech...

but after redistricting, Hochul is in a teabagger district and being seriously targeted by the RNC.
Even in a 3-way race with the Conservative and Republican votes split, she could have trouble.

Anyone with some extra cash might think about sending some her way.

[boston bean]

9. Are you saying that there was some more context that needs to be given to the quote?

Also, I wasn't aware Hochul was in a newly redistricted teabagger district. That sheds some light on why her response was so weak.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. If you read the full Batavian article..

(but you don't have to bother-- it will just piss you off) Collins was going through the whole list of bagger memes about taxes and small gummint. The Obamacare comments came toward the end and seemed like they were there just to complete the list.

Yeah, Hochul is the first Democrat to hold that seat in 40 years, and the district just got redder. She barely won a special election last year when the Pubby congresscritter was found to have pulled a Weiner and hit on at least one woman on Craigslist-- when the woman outed him he had to resign. Hochul was outspent 2-1 by the other guy but local disgust at her predecessor seemed to call for a new broom.

There's a tough Republican primary up there now, with Collins promising to run as a Conservative even if he loses-- making it a 3-way race. Hochul's got good vibes throughout the district, but possibly not good enough to fight off the baggers and RNC influence.

Senator Gillibrand regularly sends me emails asking for cash for Hochul and a few other endangered women in Congress. I try to help.

[boston bean]

11. Thanks for the history TB.

I'll try to find a few bucks to send.

[ElizabethB]

12. Mammograms and PSA test

I agree that Chris Collin's statement was ignorant but are any of you aware that Obama's "Preventive Services Task Force" has held that:

(1) routine checks for prostate cancer (the PSA test) are unnecessary for men under 70

AND

(2) mammograms are unnecessary for women under 50?

That decision *sorta* rubs me the wrong way...particularly because my father has matastic prostate cancer. The PSA test is the only reason he has been able to hang on as long as he has. Both of these diseases can be treated if you catch them early enough, but the PSTF has now made a decision that will allow insurers to stop covering routine checks for them. Welcome to Obamacare!

[redqueen]

13. The only reference I find after a quick search is that they're covered after 40.

Please cite your source for these claims.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. They are covered (most of the time) but...

several panels have found that these tests don't do much for younger people.

Yeah, they use statistics to look at life expectancy and cure rates, and we all know about statistics, but the number of false positives for the PSA test make it largely useless.

Most reports I've seen say that while these are recommendations to slow down overuse of the tests, individual risk factors (like your mother, grandmother and two aunts had breast cancer) make the tests a good idea for some people.

But, still, they are recommendations, not rules.

[ElizabethB]

17. PSA test is the ONLY one available

Yes, there are false positives, but there are no other screening tests available. The PSA test is simply a blood test...it is not risky in itself. If you got a positive result, more often than not, they have you take multiple tests to measure the rate of change. And, if they determined you had prostate cancer you would decide with your doctor what treatment to pursue if any. Many men just do "watchful waiting" which means they keep taking the PSA test to see how quickly it is progressing. If you can limit it to the prostate, it's almost 100% treatable i.e. the man will end of dying from something else most likely. If it leaves the prostate, as in my Dad's case, it's a death sentence and it's not a pretty one. My Dad has gone through three years of chemo, radiation and hormone therapy and now he's doing second line therapy. He will most likely die from bone cancer as a result of prostate cancer.

My question for you is this....since when is knowledge dangerous? Especially when it comes to cancer? Wouldn't you be devastated if you only found out after you were exhibiting physical symptoms? Have you seen the "pre-PSA testing" statistics? Did you know there was not one breast cancer or prostate cancer/urologist on that so-called panel of experts? In your opinion, how many men is an acceptable number to die from a disease that could have been screened?

Lastly, the " recommendations" of the USPSTF are indeed used by insurers to deny coverage. Obviously the government can't prosecute a private insurer that declines to cover something that the government itself has labeled "unnecessary". And why would the goverment/public healthcare system offer routine testing of something that it has ruled is "unnecessary"? (It's not happening)

[uppityperson]

15. Here is from gvt site, not quite as that poster claims.

Bold is mine. Screen for those who are most apt to have cancer rather than routinely screening everyone.

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf.htm

Screening for Breast Cancer
Periodic breast cancer screening is recommended for all women 50-69 years of age with mammography every 1 or 2 years (with or without clinical breast examination). Although the Task Force found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine mammography or clinical breast examination for women age 40-49 and those over age 70, it concluded that continued screening of healthy women after age 70 and screening of young women with a family history of breast cancer could be justified by their increased risk of cancer.

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer in women, accounting for 46,000 deaths annually. Periodic mammography in women over age 50 can reduce breast cancer deaths by one-third, yet many such women have not received a recent mammogram.

The 1995 Guide does not recommend routine screening of asymptomatic men for prostate cancer by measurement of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or performance of digital rectal examination (DRE). If clinicians choose to offer screening to individual patients, they should target men with a life expectancy of at least 10 years, explain the potential risks and benefits of screening and treatment, and let patients decide whether or not to undergo screening.

Prostate cancer causes 40,000 deaths a year in the United States. There is not yet conclusive evidence that early detection can reduce prostate cancer mortality, an issue being studied in an ongoing trial sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. At the same time, the potential adverse consequences of widespread screening are important, especially in men over age 70: frequent false-positive results, unnecessary prostate biopsies, and harms from aggressive treatments for indolent cancers that may never have caused symptoms in a patients lifetime.

[ElizabethB]

16. Knowledge is dangerous and Ignorance is cheap $$$

You will find many articles if you just google "PSA testing, mammograms, and the PSTF. " Insurers can and likely will use this ruling as a reason to stop covering mammograms and prostate cancer testing.

The Mammogram ruling resulted in public outrage by women and people were so angry about the PSA holding that the PSTF website had to shut down for a couple days. (This has been in the news for quite awhile).

The PSA test is just a simple blood test. If a man had a positive result they'd discuss options for treatment (or choose "watchful waiting&quot with a doctor. Since when is knowledge dangerous...especially when it comes to cancer?? The PSA test does give false positives, but that's why they often use more than one PSA test. It's also the ONLY test available at present!! If prostate cancer is caught within the prostate there is almost a 100% survival rate...if it's not (as was the case with my Dad), it's a death sentence. Testing is expensive, and I can't help but think that the PTSF decision was just a risk/loss analysis.

My Dad, two uncles, and one cousin were all diagnosed with prostate cancer in the past five years. These men are not all related to each other either (different sides of the family). My Dad is the only one that didn't catch it and after watching him go through chemo, radiation, and hormone therapy for three years...my heart is absolutely broken. Now he takes the PSA test weekly to monitor how his chemo is working. He starts second line therapy next week (stage IV). I'm damn grateful that my other relatives and my Dad at least had a chance to fight it. It kills me that we are going to see a return to pre-PSA statistics.



More about PSA test ruling....

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/54284455-82/cancer-prostate-screening-psa.html.csp

Who is the Preventive Services Task Force?....

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfix.htm

[uppityperson]

18. DRE and PCA3 are 2 other tests, PSA is not "the ONLY test".

DRE is digital rectal exam. PCA3 is a fairly new urine test. Yes, digital exam is a test performed on most men to check for enlarged prostate and prostate cancer. Not fun but hey, try getting a pap and pelvic exam.

Yes, PSA does have false negatives and there has been a need to develop a better blood/urine test. PCA3 is the urine test and another more sensitive with less false negatives blood test is also being worked on.

[ornotna]

19. Why do you call it - Obama's "Preventive Services Task Force"

Created in 1984, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF or Task Force) is an independent group of national experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine that works to improve the health of all Americans by making evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services such as screenings, counseling services, or preventive medications. The USPSTF is made up of 16 volunteer members who come from the fields of preventive medicine and primary care, including internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, behavioral health, obstetrics/gynecology, and nursing. All members volunteer their time to serve on the USPSTF, and most are practicing clinicians.

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfix.htm

[ElizabethB]

20. Why didn't you read or post the second paragraph?

The US Department of Health disseminates their materials as "government recommendations" and they oversee the ACA. You can call it an "independent body" but their job is to cut what they see as excessive health care costs for the ACA.

"When Congress authorized the USPSTF, it required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to support the Task Force's work. The 1998 Public Health Service Act and the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act instruct AHRQ to provide administrative, research, technical, and communication support to the Task Force. As part of this support, AHRQ helps with day-to-day operations, coordinates the production of evidence reports, ensures consistent use of Task Force methods, and helps disseminate Task Force materials and recommendations. The Director of AHRQ also appoints new USPSTF members, with guidance from the Chair of the Task Force. While AHRQ staff supports the Task Force, it is important to note that the Task Force is an independent body, and its work does not require AHRQ or HHS approval."

[ornotna]

21. I still don't see Obama's Preventive Services Task Force

Could you point it out to me please?

[ElizabethB]

22. USPSTF

It's a United States GOVERNMENT task force. Who do you think chooses the volunteers? If "John Hancock" was president right now...I'd be calling it his government task force.

[ornotna]

23. So you think the President chose the volunteers

The USPSTF is composed of members appointed by the Director of AHRQ to serve 4-year terms. New members are selected each year to replace those members who are completing their appointments.

http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tfnominfo.htm

[uppityperson]

24. Info on who is on the task force and how to nominate,links, etc here (don't see Obama mentioned)

http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/intro.htm

he U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), first convened by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1984, and since 1998 sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), is the leading independent panel of private-sector experts in prevention and primary care. The USPSTF conducts rigorous, impartial assessments of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are considered the "gold standard" for clinical preventive services.
The mission of the USPSTF is to evaluate the benefits of individual services based on age, gender, and risk factors for disease; make recommendations about which preventive services should be incorporated routinely into primary medical care and for which populations; and identify a research agenda for clinical preventive care.

http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/members.htm
Who the members are

http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/partners.htm
About partners

To Nominate a new member, go here
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tfnominfo.htm

Who can nominate a USPSTF member?
Interested individuals can self nominate. Organizations and individuals may nominate one or more persons qualified for membership on the USPSTF. Individuals nominated prior to May 15, 2011, who continue to have interest in serving should be renominated for consideration in the future.

How long does USPSTF membership last?
The USPSTF is composed of members appointed by the Director of AHRQ to serve 4-year terms. New members are selected each year to replace those members who are completing their appointments.

What are USPSTF member responsibilities?
USPSTF members meet three times a year for 2 days in the Washington, DC area. A significant portion of the USPSTF's work occurs between meetings during conference calls and via email discussions. Member duties include prioritizing topics, designing research plans, reviewing and commenting on systematic evidence reviews, discussing and making recommendations on preventive services, reviewing stakeholder comments, drafting final recommendation documents, and participating in workgroups on specific topics and methods. Members can expect frequent emails, to participate in multiple conference calls each month, and periodic interactions with stakeholders. AHRQ estimates that members devote approximately 200 hours a year outside of in-person meetings to their USPSTF duties. The members are all volunteers.

What qualifications does a USPSTF candidate need?
To obtain a diversity of perspectives, AHRQ particularly encourages nominations of women, members of minority populations, and persons with disabilities.

Qualified applicants and nominees must, at a minimum, demonstrate knowledge, expertise, and national leadership in the following areas:

The critical evaluation of research published in peer reviewed literature and in the methods of evidence review.
Clinical prevention, health promotion, and primary health care.
Implementation of evidence-based recommendations in clinical practice, including at the clinician-patient level, practice level, and health system level.
Some USPSTF members without primary health care clinical experience may be selected based on their expertise in methodological issues, such as meta-analysis, analytic modeling, or clinical epidemiology. For individuals with clinical expertise in primary health care, additional qualifications in methodology would enhance their candidacy.

Additionally, the Task Force benefits from members with expertise in the following areas:

Behavioral medicine
Public health
Health equity and the reduction of health disparities
Application of science to health policy
Communication of scientific findings to multiple audiences, including health care professionals, policymakers, and the general public
Candidates with experience and skills in any of these areas should highlight them in their nomination materials.

Applicants must have no substantial conflicts of interest, whether financial, professional, or intellectual, that would impair the scientific integrity of the work of the USPSTF, and must be willing to complete regular conflict of interest disclosures.

Applicants must have the ability to work collaboratively with a team of diverse professionals who support the mission of the USPSTF. Applicants must have adequate time to contribute substantively to the work products of the USPSTF.

[AndrewD]

25. BIPARTISAN BILL CURRENTLY BEFORE CONGRESS TO REFORM USPSTF RULING REGARDING PSA TESTING GRADE D

There is a bipartisan bill currently before Congress to reform the USPSTF. It would change the guidelines for who is on the panel, how they are appointed and how grades are given. The current chairwoman of the USPSTF is a Pediatrician and she is adamantly against routine PSA testing. For the record...if it concerns my prostate and cancer, I want to hear from a urologist as opposed to my child's doctor!

The bill also specifically seeks to prevent private insurers and government programs like Medicare from withholding coverage for PSA testing based on its current Grade of D. This means that PSA testing (as imperfect as it might be) could still be used as a preventative medicine tool and not just for maintaining the lives of those that are already dying with it.


http://prostatecancervictory.com/prostate-cancer/prostate-cancer-news-prostate-cancer-2/prostate-cancer-news-new-legislation-proposed-to-make-the-uspstf-more-transparent/

[uppityperson]

26. fwiw, posting ALL CAPS is like yelling and doesn't contribute much. Here's the text of the bill,

referred to committee. Lots of bills are introduced every yr. Are you Elizabeth's husband or father? Have you heard of the other tests for prostate cancer? DRE and PCA3? Good luck to you and hoping your cancer stays dormant and small.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr5998/text