More access to health care may lead to unnecessary mammograms

Credit: National Cancer Institute/public domain

Researchers have concluded that providing better access to health care may lead to the overuse of mammograms for women who regularly see a primary care physician and who have a limited life expectancy.

The cautionary note from researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston is that women in this category could subject them "to greater risks of physical, emotional and economic suffering."

Dr. Alai Tan, a senior biostatistician in UTMB's Sealy Center on Aging and lead author of the study, said that "there has been little systematic attempt to define guidelines that would help determine when breast cancer screening might not be appropriate or overused.

"The American Cancer Society guidelines on screening, for example, have had no upper age limit," Tan wrote in the study. "This is different from the case with prostate-specific antigen screening, where both the American Cancer Society and the American Urological Association have longstanding guidelines that exclude men with a less than 10-year ."

The study was published in the June edition of Medical Care, the official journal of the Medical Care Section of the American Public Health Association.

Using data from 2006 through 2009, researchers studied about 5 percent the Medicare claims filed during that period by women whose life expectancy was less than seven years. They further studied where the women lived and whether they had a primary care physician.

In general, the researchers found that the use of mammograms decreases as a woman's life expectancy grows smaller. However, they found that the general downtrend as a woman ages could be offset by better access to .

For example, the screening rate for woman with a life expectancy of less than six years who had seen a primary care physician two or fewer times during the three-year period studied was about 20 percent. However, among women who had seen a physician 13 or more times during that period who had a life expectancy of less than four years, the rate was about 34 percent.

The researchers also noted that there is about a four-year difference from when a cancer is diagnosed via screening and when it would be diagnosed clinically for women between 65 to 74. Previous studies have demonstrated that "survival benefits" were not apparent seven to 10 years after a screening.

The study also found that with a limited life expectancy who lived in an area with greater access to mammography resources, more , mammographic facilities and radiologists, were more likely to be screened.

Mammograms have been heavily promoted for about 25 years and many patients have come to expect that a screening test such as this would be a routine procedure, the researchers wrote. The researchers concluded that life expectancy should be a factor in deciding whether a mammogram is needed.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Women with diabetes less likely to have a mammogram

Apr 11, 2014

Women with diabetes are 14 per cent less likely to be screened for breast cancer compared to women without diabetes, according to a study by researchers at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) and Women's ...

Experts question routine mammograms in elderly

Apr 01, 2014

Doctors should focus on life expectancy when deciding whether to order mammograms for their oldest female patients, since the harms of screening likely outweigh the benefits unless women are expected to live at least another ...

Recommended for you

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rockwolf1000
3 / 5 (2) May 27, 2014
Medical treatment with an accountants compassion.

Ex. "You're 75 years old and we expect you to die in 6-7 years thus it's not cost effective to screen you for cancer even though you may live to be 110."

Absolute hogwash.

In Ontario, the land of "free" medicare, they decided to do away with "free" annual eye exams because it is more cost effective to let a bunch of people go blind and make disability payments then it is to screen the whole populace every year.

Isn't it great to be treated like a commodity?? All hail the mighty dollar!
freethinking
1 / 5 (1) May 27, 2014
Now we know why Obama and the democrats are destroying health care in America.... it's to save women......