NEW FINDINGS ON MAMMAGRAMS BY U.S. PREVENTIVE TASK FORCE INDICATE RATIONING IMMINENT-SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES

It is ironic that this president, who insisted that his health care initiative would rest on the strong foundation of wellness and prevention, is instead lacing his Health Care Bill with directives coming from the U.S. Preventative Task Force Services. One of these, was an issuing a " stop the mammograms order " on women 20 to 49, who have the most aggressive type of breast cancers. This is the case, because 90% of them present their doctor with neither a prior history of cancer in their family, nor any symptoms.

Ironically, these very mammograms which are now denied, were the best preventive care for women who were able to use them, because these mammograms provided the only inkling that cancer was present. An additional irony, in this sea of ironies, is that these women most likely caught the cancer at an early stage, saving the taxpayers millions in Health Care costs. This is so, because if these women had a more aggressive type of cancer which was not caught - they would move into stage 3 or 4 of the cancer cycle, which is extremely expensive to treat and results in more deaths.

Who and what is the United States Preventive Services Task Force, the agency which issued the mammograms ? First of all, it is always interesting to follow the money, to determine who is beholding to whom. Their source of funding is the United States government. The U.S. Congress mandates that (A.H.R.Q.) the Agency for Health care Research and Quality, which is within the Department of Health and Human Services, supports the operation of ( U.S.P.S.T.F. ) which is The United States Preventive Services Task Force. This directive on mammograms, while found in the web pages of the Department of Health, has a disclaimer that although U.S.P.T.F. recommendations are found on their web site, it does not mean that this department is endorsing the findings of this Task Force.

Again ironically, when the directive of this Task Force first came out, Kathleen Sebelius, Head of the Department of Health, readily endorsed these directives. Within days, a fire- storm over this issue erupted, and she backed away from the no mammograms rule, for those 40 and above to forty- nine years . However, it is extremely important to know that this directive remains, and has not been removed from the Senate's Financial Committee Bill. When this bill becomes law- the no mammograms for 40 year old women will stand. Plus, insurance committees will endorse the guidelines, after all, they will be under this new law, and will not be required to pay for them.
How does this Task Force work ? They work with statistics and models which are used, when studying very large population groups based on sex, age, racial grouping, and socio-economic status. Their members are nurses, physician assistants, and primary doctors who have educational degrees in public health. Their group also includes representatives from the insurance companies.

Their relationship to health care data can be described in a metamorphic context, as if these medical accountants are flying in a plane over-head, viewing the population, and then developing statistical information about those same people from a distance, that is removed from them personally, both spatially and emotionally. These are not practicing physicians, therefore they do not see patients as individuals, but as sources of data.

They perform a " benefit to harm " analysis utilizing this exact wording, " benefits and harms, " although harms can be as negligible as worry or anxiety. Make no mistake, cost is a major factor, although Obama plays down the cost factor. We have no idea however, how big of a part that it does play. An example of how " benefit to harm " may work, could be illustrated by this example: a car company knows that a car part is flawed, but what is the " cost to benefit ratio " of issuing a recall, and replacing the flawed part ? It all depends on what is most important to these members of the Task Force cost-wise. Therefore, they, the accountants, or bean counters, might find that it is cheaper to be sued a few times, than replacing the flawed parts in every car.

When Obama launches the new Health Care Law, and when he issues a ruling that " Best Practices, " must be the law of the land, then data will be collected and presented in a similar manner. This will be done by grouping patients into categories, and the use of statistical modeling on these groupings as described above. It will involve use of these statistical models on health care screenings, operations, hospital admissions, tests like CAT-SCANS, the use of hip replacements and pace-makers, and treatment plans to name a few examples. It will create a huge data stream from these enormous statistical groups for these pseudo medical accountants to analyse.

But how will these directives then become law ? One way, is to place them in bills and then foster them along, to become Health Care Law. In several of the House Health Care Bills in the House, as well as, in the Senate, these bills have listed several of these recommendations both from the Council of Comparative Effectiveness Research and the U.S. Preventive Services, which is in The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or (A.H.R.Q. ) and therefore ultimately within The Department of Health and Human Services. The government funded these recommendations, even if they claimed they were advisory.

For example, the recommendations concerning mammograms still remain in one bill, and no matter what the cagey Secretary of Health and Human Services says, if the Health Care Bill becomes law, and those recommendations remain, then yes, they will be law.

It is notable, that there are other such recommendations out there. One concerns prostate cancer, which this Task Force has determined that this type of screening has problems with those pesky " cost to benefit " considerations, when those cost- wasting false positives occur. There are other studies also on the books in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and among them are recommendations on what course to take, and what treatments to pursue, for falls by the elderly, hearing problems, and glaucoma to name a few.

In addition, the head of the National Institute of Health, Ezekiel Emanuel, who by the way, is the brother of Rahm Emanuel, who is the chief of staff of President Obama, is the Director of Comparative Effectiveness Research which also makes these types of health care recommendations. He has said that he was very concerned with doctors putting the interest of the individual patient first, and continued with that it was selfish of doctors to do this. Such statements may be disturbing to the typical American.

Isn't ironic that the rest of us believed, that is exactly what we wanted in a doctor ? Besides, didn't every doctor have to take that Hippocratic oath, which essentially said the same thing- that the doctor should put the interest of the the individual patient first ? Dr. Emanuel is working now in an unpaid position with Peter Orzag, who is head of the Office of the Budget, to cut Health care costs, while he still keeps his day job at The National Institute of Health. In a Hasting Center article published in 1995, Dr. Emanuel had said that for those with dementia, basic healthcare was not a guaranteed right. The irony here, is these poor souls may never know that they are victims of rationing, if what this doctor said does come true.

In conclusion, those recommendations on mammograms are still in several Health Care Bills, and if they are in the final Health Care Bill they will be law. And it appears that those recommendations are statistical modeling by doctors, who do not treat individual patients, but instead appear as health care accountants in some regards, as they have 3 health care representatives on their teams. To them, patients appear as ants on the scale which they are working on, which is statistics. An example of their approach was when only 15% of women in their forties were saved, when the Task Force had to provide 1,900 mammograms to save that one. It is apparent that the numbers didn't impress them, and they advocated against wasting the money. In short, these women became collateral damage. They were expendable.

If you believe you want group health care, which is based on statistical modeling , and not built on the individual relationship of what your doctor and you decide is the best treatment for you, but instead is built upon constructing categories, which may include thousands, and in some cases millions, then you should support the president's health care program. But be aware that statistical modeling health care is at its very roots, rationing of allocated health care resources. On the other hand, if you want individualized health care, call your Congressman and tell him to stop this bill.

The bottom line is this, in America we want everything individualized -even our burgers. And recall that this president used statistical modeling in the past, to predict that the unemployment rate would not rise above 8%, and he would create 3 million jobs. That really worked out well for him and us, didn't it ? You trusted him before with the economy, as well as with your money. With his track record, are you ready to trust him again, but this time with your health or your life ?