Comments on: My disappointment in Sebelius

By: Doc99

Doc99 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:37:37 +0000

No oncologists on a panel formulating guidelines on … cancer? Curious.

By: Michael Kirsch, M.D.

Michael Kirsch, M.D. — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:29:53 +0000

Rob, I am more than disappointed with Sebelius, but I am angry at her decision. She was given solid data on comparative effectiveness research (CER) and rejected it for political reasons. The USPSTF, which she 'dissed' is under her own HHS agency! We learned last week that there may be no one willing to make the tough decisions that real health care reform would require. If our government is throwing it's own impartial and objective task force under the bus, then what hope do we have for real progress? More thoughts at my current post at www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com

By: WaltMD

WaltMD — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:55:17 +0000

Is there any information about the natural history of DCIS and if those cancers were included in the analysis?

By: Dr. Bob (FP)

Dr. Bob (FP) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:22:37 +0000

Well Mark, you could read what the USPSTF actually said on their website rather that listening to Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc. They says exactly what their decicsions were based on along with supporting articles. The USPSTF doesn't use cost criteria, e.g., $ per QALY. They use net benefits & harms.

By: JPB

JPB — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:50:01 +0000

Bravo, db. Mammography has become a sacred cow. It is time for rational people to examine its effectiveness.

By: Mark Friedman

Mark Friedman — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:12:23 +0000

So how can we decide whether the "guidelines" are for maximum health or "cost-containment?"