Angelina Jolie gets double mastectomy

Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
edited May 2013 in A Moving Train
I am not going to pretend I know anything about breast or orvarian cancers. I was surprised to hear about this only because she is only 37 years old. My wife is 33 with no breast cancer in her family. So she told me she has not yet been told to worry about mamograms yet.
I guess my question is when are women supposed to start checking for these cancers? Do insurance companies pay for preventitve procedures like this? If she wasn't "Angelina Jolie", would she be able to do this?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    I heard (by chance) that she has some rare gene that can cause cancer, that's why it was done.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    Jeanwah wrote:
    I heard (by chance) that she has some rare gene that can cause cancer, that's why it was done.
    her doctors said there was a >80% chance she was going to get breast cancer. the odds were not in her favor. breast cancer is nothing to play around with.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,840
    The op-ed said she had an 87% chance of cancer based on the gene and her family history with her Mom dying before 60. This procedure reduced it to something like less than 5%.

    And no, a big portion of her point was that this type of treatment is not available for all women due to its costs, and it needs to be. Probably the most important point she made, which is going to get lost in the celebrity talk of "Angelina Jolie getting her breasts removed".
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    This seems to be an extreme reaction to a possible health risk. Letting Fear rule her decision making.

    I work with a girl who has double FF's, her mother, grand mother and great grand mother all died of breast cancer. The insurance companies wouldn't cover a mammogram until she was 40, when she was 35 she started paying to have them done out of pocket, she's 45 now and so far so good.
  • riotgrlriotgrl LOUISVILLE Posts: 1,895
    I happened to run across this from one of the food blogs that I follow. Apparently, the company that does this genetic screening does so at huge costs to the individual and this is the only company that does it because they have patented their gene testing. No chance for a second opinion? Is this really the best our medical industry has to offer us women - die or cut off your breasts? Isn't there a third way?

    http://bcaction.org/our-take-on-breast-cancer/gene-patenting/
    Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?

    Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...

    I AM MINE
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,840
    This seems to be an extreme reaction to a possible health risk. Letting Fear rule her decision making.

    I work with a girl who has double FF's, her mother, grand mother and great grand mother all died of breast cancer. The insurance companies wouldn't cover a mammogram until she was 40, when she was 35 she started paying to have them done out of pocket, she's 45 now and so far so good.

    But if you have the money and are capable of reducing an 87% chance of cancer to less than a 5% chance of cancer, wouldn't you?

    The bigger issues is the second paragraph, which is hopefully what people will talk about with this situation.
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    Cliffy6745 wrote:
    This seems to be an extreme reaction to a possible health risk. Letting Fear rule her decision making.

    I work with a girl who has double FF's, her mother, grand mother and great grand mother all died of breast cancer. The insurance companies wouldn't cover a mammogram until she was 40, when she was 35 she started paying to have them done out of pocket, she's 45 now and so far so good.

    But if you have the money and are capable of reducing an 87% chance of cancer to less than a 5% chance of cancer, wouldn't you?

    The bigger issues is the second paragraph, which is hopefully what people will talk about with this situation.


    i don't know. I'd be scared either way i think.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    riotgrl wrote:
    I happened to run across this from one of the food blogs that I follow. Apparently, the company that does this genetic screening does so at huge costs to the individual and this is the only company that does it because they have patented their gene testing. No chance for a second opinion? Is this really the best our medical industry has to offer us women - die or cut off your breasts? Isn't there a third way?

    http://bcaction.org/our-take-on-breast-cancer/gene-patenting/

    Human gene patenting. Just the sound of it sounds so wrong.
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,840
    Cliffy6745 wrote:
    This seems to be an extreme reaction to a possible health risk. Letting Fear rule her decision making.

    I work with a girl who has double FF's, her mother, grand mother and great grand mother all died of breast cancer. The insurance companies wouldn't cover a mammogram until she was 40, when she was 35 she started paying to have them done out of pocket, she's 45 now and so far so good.

    But if you have the money and are capable of reducing an 87% chance of cancer to less than a 5% chance of cancer, wouldn't you?

    The bigger issues is the second paragraph, which is hopefully what people will talk about with this situation.


    i don't know. I'd be scared either way i think.

    True, me too.

    Cancer is the fucking worst.
  • riotgrlriotgrl LOUISVILLE Posts: 1,895
    Jeanwah wrote:
    riotgrl wrote:
    I happened to run across this from one of the food blogs that I follow. Apparently, the company that does this genetic screening does so at huge costs to the individual and this is the only company that does it because they have patented their gene testing. No chance for a second opinion? Is this really the best our medical industry has to offer us women - die or cut off your breasts? Isn't there a third way?

    http://bcaction.org/our-take-on-breast-cancer/gene-patenting/

    Human gene patenting. Just the sound of it sounds so wrong.

    Exactly what I thought when I read this. What's next? Or better question, who's next? I'm a huge believer in science but sometimes it scares me. How far are we going to go?
    Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?

    Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...

    I AM MINE
  • chadwickchadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    the radio station I had on this morning said she chose to have her breasts removed because she holds a gene that gives her a 90% chance of having breast cancer. they said "she took action into her own hands" & had her breasts removed, saying it was a three month process
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "Hear me, my chiefs!
    I am tired; my heart is
    sick and sad. From where
    the sun stands I will fight
    no more forever."

    Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    riotgrl wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    riotgrl wrote:
    I happened to run across this from one of the food blogs that I follow. Apparently, the company that does this genetic screening does so at huge costs to the individual and this is the only company that does it because they have patented their gene testing. No chance for a second opinion? Is this really the best our medical industry has to offer us women - die or cut off your breasts? Isn't there a third way?

    http://bcaction.org/our-take-on-breast-cancer/gene-patenting/

    Human gene patenting. Just the sound of it sounds so wrong.

    Exactly what I thought when I read this. What's next? Or better question, who's next? I'm a huge believer in science but sometimes it scares me. How far are we going to go?

    I wonder if Jolie got a second opinion, or is she even allowed, since only one company offers this gene patent? There would be no way to compare without having options.
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    Jeanwah wrote:
    I wonder if Jolie got a second opinion, or is she even allowed, since only one company offers this gene patent? There would be no way to compare without having options.

    her mother died from breast cancer at 56...combine that with the positive result of the gene, she made a tough choice but i think a well informed one
  • chadwickchadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    why couldn't she get mammograms every month & if & when cancer shows up then she acts on it. I personally think it is a pretty wild decision but what the hell do I know
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "Hear me, my chiefs!
    I am tired; my heart is
    sick and sad. From where
    the sun stands I will fight
    no more forever."

    Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    Jeanwah wrote:
    I wonder if Jolie got a second opinion, or is she even allowed, since only one company offers this gene patent? There would be no way to compare without having options.
    I imagine - hell, I hope - most women would, or could. It's too drastic a step not to.

    Someone in my extended family had this done earlier this year, after initially having a lumpectomy. Given that her mother's been fighting breast cancer for years, she felt it was her best option...the least risky gamble.
  • chadwickchadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    will jolie have artificial breasts added or is she calling it good?
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "Hear me, my chiefs!
    I am tired; my heart is
    sick and sad. From where
    the sun stands I will fight
    no more forever."

    Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
  • Cliffy6745Cliffy6745 Posts: 33,840
    chadwick wrote:
    will jolie have artificial breasts added or is she calling it good?

    She got some sort of implants as part of the process
  • riotgrlriotgrl LOUISVILLE Posts: 1,895
    norm wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    I wonder if Jolie got a second opinion, or is she even allowed, since only one company offers this gene patent? There would be no way to compare without having options.

    her mother died from breast cancer at 56...combine that with the positive result of the gene, she made a tough choice but i think a well informed one

    True, she is at a greater risk but where are the alternatives? Did she try other things first? Genetic predisposition "could" be mitigated by environmental changes including diet. Maybe she tried those things and chose this alternative. But my guess is that she knew nothing of the environmental changes she could make that might help from triggering her genetic marker.
    Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?

    Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...

    I AM MINE
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    edited May 2013
    So are women supposed to begin the mammograms at 40? Is that a doctor recomendation or an insurance company mandate?
    Post edited by Last-12-Exit on
  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    riotgrl wrote:
    norm wrote:
    Jeanwah wrote:
    I wonder if Jolie got a second opinion, or is she even allowed, since only one company offers this gene patent? There would be no way to compare without having options.

    her mother died from breast cancer at 56...combine that with the positive result of the gene, she made a tough choice but i think a well informed one

    True, she is at a greater risk but where are the alternatives? Did she try other things first? Genetic predisposition "could" be mitigated by environmental changes including diet. Maybe she tried those things and chose this alternative. But my guess is that she knew nothing of the environmental changes she could make that might help from triggering her genetic marker.

    obviously i/we have no idea all that she might have tried so i'm just going by the assumption that, for her, this was the best route...in my experience, no matter you try, cancer will find a way...hell, she could still get breast cancer even without breasts...sounds strange, but i've seen it happen
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    So are women supposed to begin the mammograms at 40? Is that a doctor recomendation or an insurance company mandate?


    Well if you listen to the news, say the Today Show, they go back and forth on the recommend age so much, you'd be better off guessing. But insurance co wouldn't cover anything before 40, despite family history.
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    So are women supposed to begin the mammograms at 40? Is that a doctor recomendation or an insurance company mandate?


    Well if you listen to the news, say the Today Show, they go back and forth on the recommend age so much, you'd be better off guessing. But insurance co wouldn't cover anything before 40, despite family history.

    How much does a mammogram cost?
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/1 ... 73594.html

    Angelina Jolie's Breast Cancer-Preventing Move May Be Too Costly For Most Women

    Towards the end of her widely read New York Times op-ed detailing her decision to get a preventative double mastectomy and lower her risk of breast cancer, Angelina Jolie noted something significant: Many American women can't afford to take the genetic test for the breast cancer gene. At $3,000, Jolie writes, the cost of testing "remains an obstacle for many women."

    The 37-year-old actress does not mention why that test is so expensive. The primary reason: A Salt Lake City, Utah-based biotech company called Myriad Genetics holds a patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The company’s main product, BRACAnalysis, tests for a mutation in those genes that comes with a high risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

    Myriad’s patent on the genes is being challenged in the Supreme Court by organizations that claim the company’s patent is hampering scientific research. In addition,the patent essentially gives the company a monopoly on the tests, meaning patients have nowhere else to go for a second opinion.

    “The test is expensive, a lot more expensive than it ought to be,” Sofia Merajver, the scientific director of the Breast Oncology program at the University of Michigan told The Huffington Post on Tuesday.

    For its part, Myriad says patients almost never pay the full cost of the test, because it’s covered by most insurance plans. “The test is widely reimbursed by insurance companies with over 95 percent of patients covered,” Myriad spokesman Ron Rogers wrote in an email statement to The Huffington Post. “For patients in need, Myriad has a patient assistance program to offer testing at reduced costs or for free.”

    As Myriad notes, the test is not much of a financial hurdle for those who have good health insurance. For them, the test has an out-of-pocket cost of $100 on average, according to the company.

    However, not everyone has access to that kind of health insurance. “In many minimally insured environments or with the public programs, it’s been fairly challenging," Merajver said. "They don’t have access to the counseling, to the good process that [Jolie] was able to go through."

    The good news is that the cost of testing may yet fall when more provisions of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, go into effect in 2014. The law requires insurers to cover the costs of testing for breast cancer risk, although it doesn't mandate that surgery costs be covered.

    But BRACAnalysis testing will still only be covered for patients who are recommended for it, and just 2 percent of women are considered at high enough risk of breast cancer receive such a referral, Janet Coffman, a health policy researcher at the University of California San Francisco told MyHealthNewsDaily in March.

    What’s more, most women don’t know to ask for it, according to Gretchen Ahrendt, the director of Surgical Breast Services at Magee-Women’s Hospital at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Ahrendt told HuffPost she often ends up recommending the test for women who are referred to her for breast cancer surgery, but noted, “In that case it’s a little late, because she’s already been diagnosed with breast cancer."

    “When we recommend testing, it’s an expensive test,” Ahrendt said. As a result, Ahrendt says her office always checks with the patient’s insurance company to make sure the test will be covered.

    The testing for BRCA1 was just the first step of many in Jolie's medical journey. The Hollywood star revealed Tuesday that after after finding out she tested positive for the gene, she had multiple surgeries, including an hours-long procedure to remove her breast tissue and then another surgery weeks later to reconstruct her breasts and add implants.

    For women who discover they have the gene mutation and have health insurance, it’s likely their provider will cover at least some of the cost of the surgery Jolie had, according to Merajver. Still, in many cases insurance companies won’t pay for preventive surgery, according to a CNN op-ed by Arthur Caplan, the director of the bioethics division at NYU’s Langone Medical Center. In addition, many who will cover the mastectomy surgery won’t pay for the reconstructive procedure Jolie had.

    There are other options for those women who determine they’re at high risk of developing breast cancer, Merajver said, including more intense and frequent screenings and in some cases medications.

    But those solutions can often be just as costly as Jolie’s surgery, because they’re required over long periods of time, according to Ellen Matloff, the director of Cancer Genetic Counseling at Yale.

    “Quite likely having a preventive surgery is the least expensive option,” she said.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    I don't agree with her and Pitt's politics, but I admire them because they walk the walk. They donate 1/3 of their income.

    Good people that regardless of their political beliefs I'd be proud to know.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    unsung wrote:
    I don't agree with her and Pitt's politics, but I admire them because they walk the walk. They donate 1/3 of their income.

    Good people that regardless of their political beliefs I'd be proud to know.
    That's funny - I used that same "walk the walk" phrase this morning in relation to her and Pitt.

    And I agree with you.
  • Pjzepp67Pjzepp67 Posts: 445
    Take away the celebrity bullshit and look at this from our normal every day point of view...surely a brave decision given her family history and chances of contracting this most destructive and hellish of diseases. Most of us, if female, would surely try and reduce our chances of contraction, if possible.

    And as a side note; guys, should we be commenting on what is clearly a feminine issue, even though I hypocritically just have.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,079
    I know a woman who is a breast cancer survivor who did a thorough study comparing American's diet with the Japanese which shows that the Japanese consume far less cow's milk than Americans do and their rate of breast cancer is much lower. Might be worth considering ladies- guys too (no kidding).
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    Pjzepp67 wrote:
    Take away the celebrity bullshit and look at this from our normal every day point of view...surely a brave decision given her family history and chances of contracting this most destructive and hellish of diseases. Most of us, if female, would surely try and reduce our chances of contraction, if possible.

    And as a side note; guys, should we be commenting on what is clearly a feminine issue, even though I hypocritically just have.
    I asked the question because I didn't know when women had to worry about it (or the cost). Not to comment on or criticize her decision.
  • covered in blisscovered in bliss chi-caw-go Posts: 1,332
    So are women supposed to begin the mammograms at 40? Is that a doctor recomendation or an insurance company mandate?

    a few years ago, insurance companies tried to push it back to 50 but there was a huge outcry. they did succeed at getting pap smears changed to every 3 years, though, instead of annually.

    most docs agree that 40 is the age to start if you have a family history.

    AJ's mom died of ovarian cancer so she will eventually yank that out, too.
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    brianlux wrote:
    I know a woman who is a breast cancer survivor who did a thorough study comparing American's diet with the Japanese which shows that the Japanese consume far less cow's milk than Americans do and their rate of breast cancer is much lower. Might be worth considering ladies- guys too (no kidding).


    Or at least consider raw milk.
Sign In or Register to comment.