In a segment today on new guidelines on how often women should get Pap smears, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer suggested, multiple times, that the guidelines -- coupled with those released about breast cancer screenings -- amount to government rationing.
"Some people are concerned it looks like this is the start of rationing, sanctioned, in effect, by the government. Is it?" he asked Sheila Rothman, a public health professor and health historian at Columbia University.
When she said no, Blitzer came back.
"To a lot of critics, it looks like they're more interested in saving money, which is not necessarily a bad thing, if you can use that money for some more worthwhile uses, as opposed to saving lives," Blitzer said.
"I don't think that's really the issue here," Rothman said, saying the guidelines are based on solid data instead of the anecdotal evidence of previous guidelines. And, she said, "They're just guidelines" that can't affect individual decisions."
"You say they're just guidelines," Blitzer said, but "some fear" that insurance companies will stop reimbursing women for mammograms and Pap smears.
"That's hard to tell," Rothman said.

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

Hank Scorpio
November 20, 2009 6:49 PM
"Some people"..."To a lot of critics"
Does Wolf think it was he who jumped over to Faux & not Dobbs?!?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
November 20, 2009 7:02 PM
I saw that Wolf Blizter interview and it was laughable and pathetic at the same time. The republicans cannot accuse the media of a so-called 'liberal bias" agenda when those same supposed liberals are regurgitating conservative talking points.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unmitigated Audacity
November 20, 2009 8:07 PM
He's right. How is this not rationing? Letting thousands of women die to save money - this is progressive? Liberal? I don't support pin-headed accountants more concerned with $$ than lives just because they belong to the Democratic Party; a party which has seemingly totally relinquished the standard of FDR, JFK and RFK.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mattomega
November 20, 2009 8:23 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
@unmitigated: The announcements that have been made this week are not partisan: Aside from how numbingly annoying it was that some folks (like you) turned the findings of the independent United States Preventive Services Task Force that called for more judicious use of mammography into an opportunity to rail against "government," the subsequent findings by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists regarding frequency reduction for screening for cervical cancer provide a platform for a very important discussion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
here
November 20, 2009 10:05 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
This isn't about money. This is about medicine.
Basically they found that the advantage of starting at 40 based on the outcome doesn't outweigh the increased risks associated with it (increased radiation exposure, false-positives, unnecessary biopsies).
This is why they don't recommend starting mammograms at 20: not because it's cheaper, but because for someone with an average risk profile, it hurts more than it helps.
This is the same reason you don't give everyone chest X-rays or amputate limbs for no reason. Sure it'd be more expensive, but more importantly it wouldn't help people. It might save someone, but it would cause a lot more harm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kinkistyle
November 21, 2009 9:11 AM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
I guess you like paying for X-rays that you don't need. I certainly don't.
The panel is simply stating that the benefits of biennial mammograms between the age of 40-49 seem to be small enough that the decision to have mammograms at that age range should be an individual one based on the patient's medical background. Its not a restriction. If a patient still wants a mammogram, they can still get one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LegalCat
November 21, 2009 10:16 AM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
Fascinating: a conservative who favors doing tests that non-partisan medical organizations have declared to be unnecessary. Now, if we were talking about doctors doing unnecessary tests out of concerns about being sued for malpractice for not doing them, Unmitigated would be screaming "Tort reform!" at the top of his lungs; he'd be absolutely opposed to doing the tests, as long as there was no way to hold doctors accountable for deciding not to do them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unmitigated Audacity
November 21, 2009 10:31 AM in reply to LegalCat
I am not a conservative. I am a Democrat who voted for Obama and Kerry before him. I am just against cost-cutting fascism, whatever party or "independent" panel may propose it.
CBS-TV's affiliate in Washington, D.C. did the obvious in its Nov. 18th coverage of the USPSTF taskforce's murderous cost-cutting recommendation that women under 50 not have routine mammogram screening—they followed the money. Not surprising, their researches showed that, in addition to the fact that there was not one oncologist or radiologist on the panel of 16, at least six of the members were linked to HMOs or what is called the "health care industry."
They are: Dr. George Isham, Chief Health Office for Health Partners; Dr. David Grossman, investigator in the research division of Group Health Cooperative; Dr. J. Sanford Schwartz, past executive director of the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and on the Blue Shield Medical Advisory Board; Task Force chairman Bruce Nedrow Calonge, chairman of the Colorado Foundation for Medical Care, which advises health care organization on "quality improvement;" Dr. Diane Pettiti, a health policy and medical advisor for Kaiser Permanente; and Joy Melnikow, associate medical adviser for Healthwise, a medical knowledgebase company serving insurance companies and others.
The American College of Radiology said the decision will lead to "countless deaths." They continue:
"The USPSTF recommendations are a step backward and represent a significant harm to women's health. To tell women they should not get regular mammograms starting at 40 when this approach has overwhelmingly been shown to save lives is shocking. At least 40% of the patient years of life saved by mammographic screening are of women aged 40-49. These recommendations are inconsistent with current science and apparently have been developed in an attempt to reduce costs. Unfortunately, many women may pay for this unsound approach with their lives," said the president of the Society of Breast Imaging.
"... The Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) gave HHS the authority to consider USPSTF recommendations in Medicare coverage determinations for additional preventive services. Recently, Congress has expressed their desire to broaden this authority and enhance the role of USPSTF in terms of its impact on coverage for existing services."
The ACR is joined by the American Cancer Society, many women survivors of breast cancer, and leading doctors such as Dr. Daniel B. Kopans, head of radiology at Harvard Medical School, who said "Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and these idiots want to do away with it. It's crazy—unethical, really."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SqueakyRat
November 21, 2009 10:59 AM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
Gee, the American College of Radiology likes doing as much radiology as possible. What a surprise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unmitigated Audacity
November 21, 2009 11:34 AM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
I would just add that I have a 40 year old co-worker who within the last 4 months had a mamogram which detected a malignant breast cancer. She had the cancer removed and appears to be fully recovered now. What say the cost-cutters to her? We had a financial collapse caused by a rapacious financial services industry, to which we HAD to hand over $24 trillion in zero-interest loans, so there is no money for the general welfare of the population anymore? These two questions are intimately related.
Our gov't is controlled a monetarist empire. They know their empire is bankrupt and the monetarist system has collapsed. Until we break their power to steal from the Treasury and the real physical economy in order prop up their dead system, this sorts of cost-cutting austerity will continue to be pushed through against the welfare of the general population. Austerity is where fascism and genocide start. Take off your "right vs. left" blinders. Only a FDR-style reorganization of the monetary system, followed by credit system which invests in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure in transportation, health, energy, etc., will give us the societal profit necessary to obviate the "need" to make these sorts of anti-human Hobbesian choices.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
here
November 21, 2009 1:31 PM in reply to Unmitigated Audacity
I don't know, what say you to the tens of thousands of women who get breast cancer in their 30's?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
storm
November 20, 2009 8:33 PM
i was trapped in the airport with wolf talking at me for 4 hours. lost alot of respect for him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
November 20, 2009 10:09 PM in reply to storm
I remember a couple really cringe-worthy appearances on The Daily Show; smug AND vacuous...how does he do it?? Taking the weasel's favorite "Some say..." route is wholly predictable from the guy who had his posterior handed to him on 'Celebrity Jeopardy!'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
November 21, 2009 1:33 AM
Blitzer might be a bit more visible as a fool without the distraction of Lou Dobbs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jfields
November 21, 2009 4:40 AM
Wolf was better when he was riding around in a tank reporting on loud noises. He has the perfect name for such a role, after all. He really wasn't bad at being a war reporter.
It was only when he was promoted beyond his skills that the problems began. Blitzer as any sort of serious news anchor? Please. Don't make me laugh.
Wolf Blitzer is the Peter Principle, writ small.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
November 21, 2009 9:40 AM in reply to jfields
I agree. One of the (many) problems w TV news is that the producers don't know how to use the talent. They are so desperate for anchors that anybody who distinguishes him or herself in any capacity get elevated to anchor-dom. Just because you re a good reporter or commentator doesn't mean you are suited to hosting. For instance, Chris Matthews is a fine political commentator but has no business hosting anything. He should be a guest giving his opinions. What I truly can't understand is why there are so many stupid people hosting TV news shows, one of whom is Wolf Blitzer. Is stupidity good for ratings?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kinkistyle
November 21, 2009 8:58 AM
I bet if the guidelines had been to have more frequent mammograms and pap smears, there would have been a similar outcry about death panel by radiation poisoning and socialist intervention in our medical decisions. There is no winning with these folks, and I firmly throw Wolf in with "these folks".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kinkistyle
November 21, 2009 9:16 AM
By the way, the task force also released recommentations against ovarian cancer and testicular cancer screenings in 2004, but where was the outcry about government rationing?
Oh yeah thats right, its OK If You Are Republican, I forgot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
November 21, 2009 9:47 AM
Wolf Blitzer: 'Senator Mitch McConnell says the world is flat, what about that Senator Dodd?'
Blitzer is horrible, as a "journalist" he's shallow and slothful. I stopped watching him years ago
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShawninMo
November 21, 2009 9:50 AM
Exactly Wolf! Now, when the government puts out health guidelines and the holds our coverage to those guidelines, what else can it be called? Other than total control that is.
And where are the cries about women having control over their bodies if the government rations paps and mamograms? Dems are losing their way with this one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
here
November 21, 2009 10:15 AM in reply to ShawninMo
The woman still has the choice of getting them since the guidelines say its up to the individual patient.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShawninMo
November 21, 2009 11:09 AM in reply to here
When this entitlement runs into funding woes, like every other government endeavor, there will be rationing and it won't be up to the patient as to what treatment they get.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
here
November 21, 2009 1:21 PM in reply to ShawninMo
The patient can still get it done; the same way as now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShawninMo
November 21, 2009 1:33 PM in reply to here
If the government says they're not going to cover routine mamograms for those under 50, or paps for those under 21 and no more than once every two years, guess what, they're not going to pay for it. The patient will pay for it out of their own pocket, which isn't what is being advertised about government insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
here
November 21, 2009 1:35 PM in reply to ShawninMo
I'm pretty sure getting your claims turned down isn't advertised in any of the current insurance programs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShawninMo
November 21, 2009 1:52 PM in reply to here
This is being advertised as the cure for bad insurance. Like it's going to straighten them up and make them more affordable. With a profit margin of 3%, I don't see the logic. The government is going to be beholden to the same constraints as the insurance companies. Cut services or raise prices.
But when the government ends up providing crappy coverage when this turns into universal health care, we will no longer have the option of changing providers.
A lot can be done with regulations to help make insurance affordable with out the government making the health care industry in the next DMV.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
here
November 21, 2009 2:14 PM in reply to ShawninMo
Well, I've not seen the same advertisements, and I'm not sure I agree completely with your line of reasoning.
I agree that there are other ways for the government to make insurance more affordable.
Personally, I can't wait until the government provides crappy universal service forcing a collapse of private insurers; I'm going to start an insurance company and be rich. (shhh, don't tell anyone my plan or they might try to too!)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ShawninMo
November 21, 2009 2:36 PM in reply to here
There will be people making lots of money in universal healthcare. We've already seen congress members giving lucrative contracts to family and friends when they weren't the best available for the job. We will just have a changing of ranks at club houses across America.
In the private sector you can go over someones head or call the local TV station, or even the BBB. Private companies don't like bad press. With government, you may be able to get ahold of your senator and get the care you're looking for. Other than that, bring a volume of encylopedias so you have something to read in the waiting room.
There used to be a company that advertised on the radio that grouped individuals together and went to insurance companies and bought plans as a block. The rates were supposed to be much more affordable than an individual trying to by into a plan. I don't know what happened to them. Maybe the insurance companies quit dealing with them because they could make more money dealing with them individually. These are things that the government should be doing, not making a quagmire.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stevelaudig
November 21, 2009 10:03 AM
Wolf "I lost on Celebrity Jeopardy because I didn't know anything" Blitzer gets things right occasionally and, I believe, accidently. But this isn't one of those times.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
November 21, 2009 10:11 AM
Wolf, as in the boy who cried...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?