Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff
More and more people are coming to the startling conclusion that a government panel's recently announced mammogram recommendations were all about money and politics -- not about science and saving lives.
The federally funded U.S. Preventive Services Task Force ignited a firestorm of criticism and confusion recently when it changed recommendations to say that regular mammograms should start at age 50 instead of 40.
Even Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is backing away from the panel's suggestion, saying women should "Keep doing what you have been doing for years."
The task force, she said, does not "set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government."
Perhaps not, but the government has routinely followed its recommendations.
Until now -- which makes you wonder: Was the recommendation based on sound science -- or saving money?
Some worry that it's the start of government rationing of health care. Indeed, on ABC's Good Morning America , breast cancer survivor Robin Roberts challenged a member of the Preventive Services Task Force on its numbers: "Between the ages of 40 and 49," Roberts noted, "one death prevented per roughly 1,900 women screened; between the ages of 50 and 59, one death prevented per roughly 1,300 women screened. Doesn't seem like that big of a difference, statistically, to make such a drastic change in the recommendation of a decade."
Even having that sort of discussion smacks of government rationing of health care.
"Many are feeling that this is trying to save money, that this is a political move," Roberts said.
"I think this is really about money and politics," Dr. Peter Jokich, of Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, also said on Good Morning America . "It's about the beginning of rationing care, and I don't think it's really about the health of individual women."
That would be simply alarming.
Here's the thing: Even if it's not about rationing, the government's involvement will always raise suspicions that it is.
Consider that as Congress barrels toward government health care.
