Angelina Jolie gets double mastectomy

BinauralJam

Last-12-Exit wrote:

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-Exit

BinauralJam wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

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?

Jeanwah

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.

unsung

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.

hedonist

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.

Pjzepp67

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.

brianlux

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).

Last-12-Exit

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 bliss

Last-12-Exit wrote:

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.

unsung

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.

Pjzepp67

Last-12-Exit wrote:

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.

This was a personal quote from a personal point of view and was in no way meant as an attack on your original post...I'm just joining in as someone who was moved by the young ladies decision...but I am glad to see you are following up your post as concerned observer. I welcomed your post the moment I saw it on the main page, and I feel this is something important that should be discussed at length here, on this most open and engaging of forums. I have enjoyed your posts in the past and look forward to reading and engaging with in the future.

riotgrl

unsung wrote:

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.

But that's illegal in most states :fp:

Loulou

I think Angelina is incredibly brave to go through this. She's obviously a smart woman who could see that the potential risk of dying from this disease out weighed the need for her breasts to define herself as a woman. Good for her, a courageous and possibly life saving decision.

covered in bliss

Last-12-Exit wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

Last-12-Exit wrote:

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?

My medical group charged my insurance company 375.00.

mysticweed

yes, very brave
her mother died at 56 and she wants to be around for her children
and yes, the whole thing is far more costly than the average woman could afford

hedonist

Pjzepp67 wrote:

And as a side note; guys, should we be commenting on what is clearly a feminine issue, even though I hypocritically just have.

To the guys from a woman (assume I'm not the only one who'd say this) - yes, and please continue to do so. I value your viewpoints and appreciate the willingness to learn more.

(and this chick can always stand to learn more as well, as I have in this thread - amongst the many)

unsung

riotgrl wrote:

unsung wrote:

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.

But that's illegal in most states :fp:

Of which baffles my mind. I'm picking some up next week, although I gave up dairy I want to try it before I lose the right to.

Drowned Out

My ex wife had this screening done a couple years ago....she was positive for the same cancer related gene that took her mom at 52....her sister as well.
She had a total hysterectomy (removal of uterus and cervix), a double mastectomy, and reconstructive surgery (not 'some kind of implant', Cliffy .....the common salene augmentation type surgery).
All expenses, from screening to reconstruction, paid by the evil socialist universal healthcare system here in Canada.

redrock

hedonist wrote:

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.

Another one for the synchronicity thread

redrock

Loulou wrote:

I think Angelina is incredibly brave to go through this. She's obviously a smart woman who could see that the potential risk of dying from this disease out weighed the need for her breasts to define herself as a woman. Good for her, a courageous and possibly life saving decision.

Especially a young woman in the business she's in where physique is so important.

It is a bold and extremely difficult decision as womanhood is still overall defined by 'external' factors - breasts, visible pregnancy, etc. A woman having had children (and society as a whole) have less of a dilemma with say a complete hysterectomy and removal of the ovaries if presented with such odds as they are inside - not visible... Same with, for example, thyroid cancer - whip it out, no questions asked!

I know that with breasts one can have reconstructive surgery but it is not immediate and physical scars will always be there.

As an intelligent woman who has no financial restrictions, I'm sure Jolie looked at all the options but with odds of not getting cancer at only 10%.... Sure, cancer is somewhat treatable, but what one has to go through is immense - with no guarantee that it's gone. She is thinking of her young family (as well as herself).

If you look at those odds, how many would take risks like that for simple things in life? You are told the flight you are boarding only has a 10% chance of reaching it's destination with 90% chance of being in an accident which could result in death, major trauma, just a broken arm or maybe nothing and the airline is offering alternatives. I don't gamble with such poor odds - I'd go for alternative. Some take the gamble.