Beware being over age 70 (in America).

[pjoshea13]

New Medicare study.

First came: "Preventive Services Task Force recommends against prostate cancer screening in men above age 70".

Obviously, the USPSTF was also saying that men >70 should not have been treated if diagnosis was a result of screening. Benign neglect is best for the elderly it seems. I was 70 in January & I don't feel elderly yet. Is there an age 70 gene?

& now we have the economics case for withholding treatment:

“The tough discussions that happen in health economics are often cases where care is beneficial, but costly…,” said Justin Trogdon, PhD, Associate Professor of Health Policy Management in the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health and the study’s first author. “This is a scenario where care is probably not beneficial and also costly—and we are putting a dollar figure on just how costly this is.”

...

"Published by Trogdon et al in JAMA Oncology, the study examined the costs associated with screening for prostate cancer, including treatment, for 3 years after diagnosis. They estimated that for men diagnosed in each of 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, the total cost for treating and screening for each group would be $1.2 billion for 3 years after diagnosis."

ascopost.com/News/59285

jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...

-Patrick

[BigRich]

There is age discrimination in America. After 70, some try to treat you as a piece of furniture. I am not a child,. I can still think as an adult. When confronted with this action; I don't accept it. I win them over with my intellect.

Rich

[Hairlessness]

I typically look forward to your posts Patrick. This one is troubling.

I've worked more than 45 years, paid into the government system for 45 years, served in the military as a kid, and have never before been seriously ill in my life or utilized my paid health insurance much.

So --- Now I'm older and require health care to stay alive, but am I and others like me may possibly in the near future be told by the US government bureaucracy through medicare I must simply be grateful for a good life lived and now I must go with God ? Or it may be a more subtle message at your doctor visit, you may or may not be told that medicare will not pay for the necessary treatment. You won't know because you haven't been and won't be properly diagnosed because it is too costly. Is this what I am reading in these 2 reports?

Does this give credibility to the conspiratorial voices out there saying globalist have an agenda to reduce the population? In Bill Gates words on TED TV; "we must reduce CO2."

I assume I'm temporarily one of the lucky ones diagnosed in my 60s......

[pjoshea13 in reply to Hairlessness]

In 2004, at age 56, I found it easy to review PCa studies on PubMed. For a topic such as the newish beta estrogen receptor, I remember having to read breast cancer papers too. But even for topics such as lycopene or vitamin D, it didn't take long to review the literature.

Today? There are 177,726 PubMed hits for <prostate>. 1,252 hits for <prostate "vitamin d">. It's daunting. Why all of the interest?

We became an important demographic. Baby boomers living longer than the previous generation (lower lung cancer rates, etc.). In the U.S. there are about 3 million of us living with a PCa diagnosis. There should be power in the numbers.

Many of us are retired & could perhaps temporarily move to a swing state & influence the next election. I want to hear the candidates speak about Medicare & PCa. LOL.

About a week ago I saw a graph of how many workers it takes to support a Social Security recipient. It is currently about 2.5 but gets lower each year. There must be government planners hoping for a pandemic to balance the books. From my perspective, the problem is that the scheme was never funded as a qualified retirement plan would be. Will I ever see a return of the contributions that I & my employer made? But recipients are sometimes made to seem like parasites on society.

{In Japan where the elderly are venerated, there is concern that there are over 65,000 people over age 100.}

Best, -Patrick

[Sankirk]

Lucky over 70 group.... no lupron!

[Hidden in reply to Sankirk]

No screening, No treatment, No survival.

[Sankirk in reply to Hidden]

Have KNOWN people who’ve refused treatment, gone on a whole food, plant based, no added oil, diet...lifestyle... and metastasized tumor has almost disappeared .... also someone who takes CBD oil, same story.

[BrianF505]

Yeppers, that’s a lot of mu-lah! I was diagnosed in 2002 at 44 yo. I stayed on top of my treatments and was aggressive. (You can see what I’ve done by reading my profile) Over the years I’ve often calculated the cost, of just the big stuff, in my head. And it was a lot. I haven’t done the math for a while and forget some of the costs now. But if I ever play this game again, I now have almost 5 years of Xtandi to add in. Boggles my chemo, Lupron, firmagon, Xtandi, avodart, provenge, radiation (x2), addled brain.

[Beermaker]

Yet another attempt to set up death panels. They do exist. It is a shame. I paid into health care all my working life, and also into Social Security. Apparently most that money was destined for congress to "borrow" and spend. Personally, I strongly believe in a single payer or "Medicare for All" system. It seems to work extremely well all over Europe. Call me whatever you wish - socialist, stupid dreamer, whatever. It sure seems we could do a lot better here. End of old man's rant (I turned 73 yesterday.) Fight on!

[Hidden]

We are all lucky to have been diagnosed earlier than age 70, I guess. Are those 70 and beyond to be denied screening / biopsies / treatment now? Will Medicare cover any of this? Does Grandpa now get thrown off the cliff? It really is silly. Old guys who don't get screened will develop advanced prostate cancer and will require more expensive treatment ... unless they are euthanized. Some really stupid people in the ironically named "Preventative Services Task Force". Could call it the Penny Wise and Pound Foolish Task Force. I'll hit 70 in 16 months.