Fair warning, this post should probably be sub-titled “Women’s Health Care, How Much More Seriously Effed Up Can It Possibly Get”

You would be in good company for instance if you thought Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) was no longer routinely considered an option for women going through menopause after we found out that when we quit taking it, breast cancer rates immediately fell–think again–Martha Rosenberg vivisects the New York Times for revisiting it as a medically acceptable option here.

And funny story, seems that never mind that we just spent how many months passing a watered down health care bill that was supposed to solve all our ills–getting and keeping health insurance while female is still some sort of Kafka-like joke.

WellPoint CEO Angela Braly got a 51% raise last year and now has a compensaton package that totals more than $13 million according to the LA Times.

Got breast cancer, kiss your health insurance goodbye.  Via Reuters:

One after another, shortly after a diagnosis of breast cancer, each of the women learned that her health insurance had been canceled…
…None of the women knew about the others. But besides their similar narratives, they had something else in common: Their health insurance carriers were subsidiaries of WellPoint, which has 33.7 million policyholders — more than any other health insurance company in the United States.

The women all paid their premiums on time. Before they fell ill, none had any problems with their insurance. Initially, they believed their policies had been canceled by mistake.

They had no idea that WellPoint was using a computer algorithm that automatically targeted them and every other policyholder recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The software triggered an immediate fraud investigation, as the company searched for some pretext to drop their policies, according to government regulators and investigators.

Once the women were singled out, they say, the insurer then canceled their policies based on either erroneous or flimsy information.

Read the whole story, it gets much, much worse.  I particularly found this quote illuminating:

“It’s not like these companies don’t like women because they are women,” says Jeff Isaacs, the chief assistant Los Angeles City Attorney who runs the office’s 300-lawyer criminal division. “But there are two things that really scare them and they are breast cancer and pregnancy. Breast cancer can really be a costly thing for them. Pregnancy is right up there too. Their worst-case scenario is that a child will be born with some disability and they will have to pay for that child’s treatment over the course of a lifetime.”

No really, that is pretty much the same as hating women, at least until men start giving birth.  Pissed off (and if you aren’t, what the hell is wrong with you)?  Tell WellPoint what you think here.

(H/t to RH Reality Check for pointing to this story.)

Before we leave the subject of breast cancer profiteering, our friends at Breast Cancer Action are none too happy at Kentucky Fried Chicken’s form letter response to their protest of the KFC Buckets for the Cure pink-washing campaign. The response from KFC read in part,

“You should know that our partnership with KFC is designed to help reach millions of women we might not otherwise reach with breast health education and awareness messages which we consider critical to our mission. This additional outreach is made possible through KFC’s 5,300 restaurants (about 900 of them in communities not yet served by a Komen Affiliate).”

Breast Cancer Action’s awesome reply addresses the huge inequities in health and health care that exist because of poverty in this country, saying that KFC has:

targeted underserved communities whose residents often struggle to stretch their food dollars and are dependent on cheap meals. If you want to serve underserved communities, work with the community health clinics, economic development corporations, and community coalitions that are working to reverse the damage KFC and others have done.

KFC and other fast food restaurants are disproportionately located in low-income communities (especially those of color) for very specific reasons.

Low-income neighborhoods are underserved by grocery stores with healthier options, and therefore are “prime real estate” for fast food restaurants that provide inexpensive, already prepared options.  Faced with a lack of options, these already vulnerable communities are prey to large companies like KFC that offer the least amount of nutrition for the most profit.

In response to KFC’s claim that the campaign focuses on healthy diet choices such as grilled, not fried chicken, Breast Cancer Action declares bullshit:

By placing the responsibility for our crisis in diet on the consumer, they reveal a disturbing lack of insight and understanding related to social inequities in this country. This is shameful.
In addition, the claim that the partnership focuses on healthy options is outrageous. A menu with one or two salads does not a “focus” make! And it is equally outrageous that they claim to be educating people to make healthy food choices by encouraging them to eat at a fried chicken franchise.

KFC is currently embroiled in a suit related to their chicken’s high levels of PhIP, a byproduct of the grilling process listed on the state of California’s list of carcinogens.  While there is much that isn’t known about PhIP- Komen’s representative acknowledged that the NCI has not established safe or unsafe levels for its consumption- it seems both ridiculous and unethical to frame the breast cancer epidemic as something “curable” through repeated consumption of these ingredients. And in terms of prevention, we cannot imagine feeding people carcinogenic grilled chicken that raises the risk of heart disease and breast cancer and then expect them not to become sick.

Returning now to health care reform and the small issue of whether or not you can get affordable health care insurance in the first place, remember gender ratings–weren’t they supposed to be a thing of the past once we passed health care reform?  Maybe….eventually…

In the meantime, not to worry, Sue Lowden, a would-be challenger against Sen. Harry Reid in Nevada suggests that you can always barter for health care with chickens:

(Note:  For a hilarious response to Lowden that tells you how many chickens it will cost for your particular ailment, click here.)

And finally– just for the guys–want to get with the flow when it comes to your lady friend’s menstrual period–there’s an app for that, several of them actually, marketed specifically to menJodi Jacobson points out why, after 5 seconds of eye-rolling laughter there are a few ever so problematic aspects to this cutesy idea:

But that it is so popular is a reminder of our cultural schizophrenia around sex, power, and gender. On one hand, despite record numbers of sexually transmitted infections and despite still-too-high levels of teenage pregnancy, we can’t get the federal government to stop spending money on failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. Networks and cable stations will sell sex 24-7, but many still refuse to air responsible ads for contraceptive methods or such controversial things as condoms, or information about sexually transmitted infections…

…And it is worth noting the the current wave of laws at the state and federal level and the general level of hysteria around women’s rights to choose pregnancy and childbirth in the United States has a lot to do with control over their bodies…

…It is also worth watching how well this app does elsewhere in the world.  I am not kidding.  Yesterday, for example, a story on Apple’s first-quarter profits indicated that sales of the iPhone and iPad are booming in places like China, India, Pakistan and elsewhere.  These are cultures in which women’s periods are indeed more openly the source of control (here, we like to pretend we are protecting “life,” not controlling women’s lives.

Taken by themselves, every one of these stories is deeply troubling and messed up. While the profit opportunities (even with health care reform) abound, the reality is that our commodified health care system is damaging and too often deadly, especially for women.  Despite all the health care debate ruckus of the last year, we have accomplished very little.  Much, much more remains to be done, and the only starting point from which that can be accomplished is one that sees the health care of all as a human right, not a commodity that can be bought and sold.  And as of yet, there is no app for that.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 

Oh for pity sake…I was out running errands before and drove past a pepto pink Kentucky Fried Chicken and there but for heavy traffic was tempted to stop and confirm my worst suspicions. Sure enough, KFC has started a Buckets for the Cure campaign:

KFC's eat unhealthy fast food to combat breast cancer campaign

KFC's eat unhealthy fast food to combat breast cancer campaign

On their website you can rotate the bucket to see pictures of women who will tell you their breast cancer story and you can even post your own story.  For each pink bucket you buy, they’ll donate 50 cents to Susan G. Komen for the Cure.  No word on the website how much the bucket costs but clearly KFC is going to make more on this than Komen, although the pink paint on their restaurants probably set them back a bit (will post a pic when I get a chance).

As I’ve said too many times already–selling unhealthy things to raise money for breast cancer is unacceptable as is predatory cause marketing where the cause gets a lot less than the manufacturer of the cute pepto pink thingy. As our alert friends at Breast Cancer Action point out, KFC has said that their goal is to contribute $8.5 million, however in small print, the guaranteed minimum is $1 million and according to the promotion (reprinted here in a reasonable approximation of the pepto pink),

“Customer purchases of KFC buckets during the promotion will not directly
increase the total contribution,”

So we’re buying pink buckets of greasy chicken why?  And what’s with the $7.5 million discrepancy between the goal and the minimum promised–looks like 15 million people have to buy the pink buckets to make that happen.  That’s a lot of breasts for breasts…

If you want to donate money to fight breast cancer in a way that makes a difference and doesn’t involve eating fried, greasy unhealthy food, please donate to Breast Cancer Action.

And while you’re at it, you can tell KFC to keep their greasy finger lickin corporate selves off our breasts here.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 

This is a HUGE change in policy and as noted below is in line with international recommendations.  I have written numerous times questioning the advice to have a mammogram every year after age 40 for all of the reasons mentioned in this article and also because radiation even in small amounts always poses a risk, particularly since not only does it increase your risk of getting cancer but also because that risk is cumulative, so no matter how little you are  exposed to with one mammogram, it is added to your existing exposure load.  Please read this very important article in its entirety.

Excerpted from a  report by the AP:

Most women don’t need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said Monday. It’s a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society‘s long-standing position.

Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn’t be taught to do them.

For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.

But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women’s odds of survival.

The new guidelines are as follows:

  • Most women in their 40s should not routinely get mammograms.
  • Women 50 to 74 should get a mammogram every other year until they turn 75, after which the risks and benefits are unknown. (The task force’s previous guidelines had no upper limit and called for exams every year or two.)
  • The value of breast exams by doctors is unknown. And breast self-exams are of no value.

As I mentioned above,

International guidelines also call for screening to start at age 50; the World Health Organization recommends the test every two years, Britain says every three years.

This is a significant step to more rational breast care and hopefully a shift away from the profitable over-treatment of this disease at the expense of looking for the causes.

Addenda:  Breast Cancer Action has an excellent analysis of the changes and does a thoughtful and thorough job of addressing some very legitimate and understandable concerns:

Some people will be upset because their breast cancer was found on a mammogram that would not have happened under the new guidelines. Some people will be confused because they don’t understand what the downsides could possibly be to the early detection of breast cancer.

One thing to keep in mind is that mammograms are a medical intervention, and, like all medical interventions, they have benefits and risks. The benefits have to do with finding some cancers early enough to effectively treat them so that fewer women die of breast cancer. The risks are these:

  • False negative results (mammogram reads as clear, but there is breast cancer present)
  • False positive results (mammogram shows a problem, but biopsy reveals that the problem is not cancer). False positive results result in unnecessary biopsies, increased anxiety and stress, and physical scarring
  • Cumulative exposure to radiation. (Radiation is one of the few known causes of breast cancer. All radiation exposures accumulate in the body. Our bodies do not eliminate these exposures.
  • Diagnosis and treatment of cancers that are not life threatening at the time of diagnosis and will never become life threatening if untreated.

What is not well understood is that “early detection” doesn’t really mean what we’ve been lead to believe, which is that finding breast cancer early is the key to survival. It’s not that simple.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare
 

Perhaps one of the most insidious things about about breast cancer and how we treat it is that some of the same companies that produce drugs to treat this disease also produce products that have been linked to or shown to cause cancer.  This year, Breast Cancer Action’s Think Before You Pink campaign targets one of those companies, Eli Lilly,

“the sole manufacturer of rBGH — the artificial growth hormone given to dairy cows that increases people’s risk of cancer. Eli Lilly also manufactures breast cancer treatment medications and a pill that “reduces the risk” of breast cancer.”

Please take a moment and let Eli Lilly know that Milking Cancer is not acceptable and needs to stop.

Note:  Eli Lilly is certainly not the only company that profits from both sides of the cancer fence.  See more here about  Novartis and Astra Zeneca, two other companies that engage in this despicable practice.

DeliciousFacebookGoogle+RedditStumbleUponTwitterPrintFriendlyEmailEvernoteDiggShare