Reading the first article really made me think about the importance of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka the Health Reform Law), and why it is important that it is not repealed (regardless of politics). The health reform law set in place regulations that patients with health insurance do not have to pay for certain preventive measures, especially mammograms. Coupled with increased health insurance coverage, that means that more women will have access to free mammograms once all of the health reform laws take effect.

I agree that the debate needs to be more than just economics, but I think the economics argument is meant for the people who ignore the pathos appeal. For those people, it is important for them to know that public funding being spent on mammograms is actually going to end up saving them money by not needing as much post-diagnosis care.

I think one definite problem is the Medicare rates. In all parts of women's health care, and all of health care, Medicare consistently pays below operating costs for many procedures. When people realize the importance of these procedures, I think we should increase the amount that we are willing to pay for them, and we should not have to place doctors in the position of choosing between bankruptcy and preventing breast cancer.

Going with what Kat said, I think it is important to have a structure where health insurance companies actually benefit from preventing disease among their patients. It just seems so obvious, but it rarely happens. Instead patients and their health insurers are left on opposite sides, struggling over bills and what procedures should be covered.

About the mammogram age guidelines, the idea that women over 40 should not get annual mammograms is absurd. There are thousands of women over age 40 who get breast cancer each year. When my mom was diagnosed, she was 42/3, and according to this guideline, she should not have gotten a mammogram more than every other year. The entire reason that her cancer was found early was because she did get regular mammograms, twice a year actually.

---

On the topic of HPV vaccines, I believe that all pre-teens, teenagers, and young adults, both male and female, should receive HPV vaccines. However, until pharmaceutical companies are able to develop a vaccine without the side-effects on the scale of Gardasil, I don't think it should be mandatory. It would be like forcing the side-effects on people. I think it is more of a moral responsibility that people who are sexually active should be vaccinated.

Personally, I think the debate should be more about the safety of requiring vaccinations rather than increasing sexual activity. Analogy: (?) People who commonly wear seatbelts in a car aren't more likely to stop wearing a seatbelt if they know that emergency surgery has improved. It is more that people who are conditioned to be safe will continue to be safe.

the first link i posted briefly discusses the impact of the health reform on preventive procedure coverage

the second link is a very recent article about the guidelines, etc.