Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Why It Can Take a Year to Get a Mammogram in the U.S.

By Abby Christopher, AlterNet. Posted December 4, 2008.


More radiologists are shying away from breast imaging, creating longer waits that may be leading women to put off or forgo screenings.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Depending on where you live, the wait to get a routine breast screening could be as long as a year. And even if you're not facing delays today, if current trends continue, you might well be in the near future.

In Los Angeles, a routine mammogram appointment might not be available for four months; some medical clinics in New York City cite nine-month wait times; in Florida, delays are consistently six to nine months; and in parts of Rhode Island, you can expect to wait a year.

Why? Because many radiologists don't want to read mammograms.

"There is no public or private agency measuring or ensuring that women have reliable access to mammograms," says Robert Smith, Ph.D., director of cancer screening for the American Cancer Society.

While it's tough to pin down hard numbers -- how many radiologists read mammograms, the number of cases they read every week and where they practice -- one point that everyone, from radiologists to researchers, can agree on is that supply simply isn't meeting the growing demand for mammograms, as baby boomers age and 1.2 million women hit 40 every year.

Most radiologists don't choose mammography as a subspecialty for a number of reasons -- the repetitive nature of the job, narrow focus, the stress of missing a diagnosis -- but two are cited most often: money loss and malpractice.

"Missed or delayed diagnosis of breast cancer remains the leading cause of medical malpractice litigation in the nation today, while at the same time reimbursement for mammographic examinations remains embarrassingly low,"  explains Dr. Leonard Berlin, chairman of the department of radiology at Rush North Shore Medical Center in Skokie, Ill., and Rush Medical College in Chicago.

The shortage of breast-imaging specialists has forced general practice radiologists eager to avoid mammography to read routine screenings. Most practices rely on contracts with hospitals and physician-referral networks that, in many cases, require practices to offer mammograms. Some radiologists may be lured into mammography by various incentives offered to the practitioner who reads the most screenings. But more often, practices simply divvy up mammogram readings among staff.

"Junior staff get assigned to read mammograms, and most of them just don't want to do it. Most will try to cycle out and pursue other subspecialties like MR (magnetic resonance) and CT (computerized tomography)," says Dr. Barbara Sharp, an advocate for improved access and a breast-imaging specialist at Mori, Bean & Brooks Radiology, a general radiology practice in Jacksonville, Fla.

Cost of Mammography & Radiology

Many radiologists consider it bad business to offer routine breast screenings.

The number of facilities offering mammograms has dropped from 9,114 in 2004 to 8,832 in 2006, according to the FDA. Last year's Government Accountability Office report on mammogram access stated that "mammography facility officials most often cited financial considerations as the reason their facility closed."

Among the general practice facilities that do make mammography available (often to fulfill contractual obligations), many are reducing the number of appointments offered, favoring other imaging services that bring in more revenue.

"Mammography is a loss-leader. Right now, mammography is being subsidized by other examinations," said Dr. Ellen Mendelson, director of breast imaging and professor of radiology at Northwestern University in Chicago

In 2007, President Bush signed a hastily drafted cost-cutting measure called the Deficit Reduction Act, which cut Medicare reimbursements for MRIs and CT scans by as much as 40 percent, making it even harder for practices to absorb the losses mammograms generate since other imaging services are starting to bring in less money.

Because Medicare reimbursement rates are dropping for all imaging services, radiology practices are more inclined to cut back on or eliminate mammography, the service that brings in the least revenue. Medicare reimburses about $84 per screening mammogram, while the average cost to a facility for a mammogram is $125, according to a report on mammogram access published in July by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY).


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: health, breast cancer, medical malpractice, mammograms, breast cancer detection

Abby Christopher is a freelance health and health policy writer based in Portland, Oregon.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
work the numbers...
Posted by: ellie on Dec 4, 2008 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the big message is to get screened at a 'free screening clinic'... ok, so you're under 65, no health insurance, low paying job, no assets to cash out, no kids under 18 at home so no medicaid coverage, your state does not have an adult health insurance program you qualify for and you are told there is a mass...

question is, how does one pay for breast cancer if you do not have the $$ to pay for treatments???

this is a question I have never gotten an answer to except 'don't know what to tell you...'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: work the numbers... Posted by: dmagro
» RE: work the numbers... Posted by: maestra
» Just Pay the $85. Posted by: gellero1
mammograms are dangerous
Posted by: marcwalt on Dec 4, 2008 6:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thermograms are safer and can detect changes much earlier.

Breast Cancer Rates Soar after Mammograms
http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html

HRT Drugs Found to Cause Abnormal Mammograms
http://www.naturalnews.com/023906.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mammograms are dangerous Posted by: clvngodess
When the oil's out, there won't be mammograms anyway.
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 4, 2008 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the meantime, try some grass fed milk and some more of the organic produce out there. It may cost a little more but that'll hold down the breast cancer risks at least some.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thermography
Posted by: AnnBann on Dec 4, 2008 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where available, thermal imaging is preferable to radiation mammography. Especially for women with dense or fiberous breast tissue that is not easily evaluated on mammogram films. Medical analysts can see a blood supply routed to breast cancer growths with thermal imaging. Personally, I will no longer subject myself to the unnecessary worry of unreadable and inconclusive exams. Not to mention the annual radiation exposure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's nice work if you can get it...
Posted by: medstudgeek on Dec 4, 2008 7:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have to
A) Get into medical school (which is competitive)
B) Get into radiology residency (which is competitive)

You should be in the top quarter of your class in medical school, though you can sometimes get in from the top half. While that might not sound so impossible, keep in mind you're competing with people who have been selected for their ability to test-take. It's one of the tougher specialties to get into, though not as tough as dermatology or plastic surgery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your local Health Department.
Posted by: weslen1 on Dec 4, 2008 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you don't have health insurance and have low income, you can call your local Health Department and inquire about free Breast and Cervical Cancer screening. It would be listed under your local government in your phone book.
As far as getting an appointment for mammograms, I have never had to wait more than a week from the time I call for my appointment or more than 2 weeks for the follow up with my doctor. Also, when I go in for my appointment, I've never had to wait longer than 15 minutes to be called back to the x-ray. I've also never had to wait more than 15 minutes for routine blood tests or even the 2 times I've had to use the emergency room, both times I was admitted to the hospital.
The kind of things that have been happening in other cities, where people die in waiting rooms, ignored by staff, would NEVER happen HERE. The biggest problem HERE, though, is there is a shortage of Primary Care Physicians. Many have closed their practices or just retired due to Medicare cuts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mammograms cause breast cancers to spread
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 4, 2008 8:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, mammograms are painful. This doesn't have to happen. It's first because the medical profession is so afraid to be sued that they crush the breast flat for a slightly better picture.

Second, that pain is what causes any existing breast cancer tumor to metastasize into other parts of the body, and so the mammogram sometimes kills the patient.

Some class-action lawyer should sue the scrubs off of the medical profession for this gross negligence, but it won't happen. Lawsuits are about what you can prove, and you can't ever prove that an improperly crushed breast killed your mom. You can only prove that some scrub didn't read your mammogram perfectly. Too bad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Idiotic Posted by: gellero1
Guess what.
Posted by: rafaeltoral on Dec 4, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mammograms cause breast cancer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, that too! Posted by: PaulK
No word about what causes breast cancer
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 4, 2008 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chemical causes:

That stuff on your front lawn causes breast cancer. You didn't need to use the stuff, but you wanted a perfect rose and a perfect lawn. That's exactly what you can find in the cemetery, next to the gravestones.

Any other chemicals? Sure, lots of endocrine disruptors! We're awash in death chemicals in food-grade tin can linings, in plastic water bottles, in toothpaste, in lipstick which goes into your stomach, and in perfume solvents which soak through your skin like nicotine in a nicotine patch.

What are you eating? You're eating growth hormones fed to pigs and cattle, which you eat, which are causing you to bloat up just like the pig did. You're eating gobs of things which cause sugar diabetes. You're not getting exercise. You're not getting vegetables.

Researchers report that women who have babies early don't get breast cancer later in life. So just to save women's lives, what if we had a society where the money game wasn't a given? Imagine a world where an "immature" teenager could have a baby, then go to college part-time, then have a career, with little penalty. Or, maybe raising a kid is a career in itself. What's immature about a woman not volunteering to die a horrible death early? In any case, this world has some pretty immature 45 year olds who waited until they were likely to give birth to babies with birth defects, then took lots of fertility drugs.

Breast cancer affects 1 in 7 women now. Cancer used to be quite rare. What if we made it rare again? Does our god of money prohibit such heretical (note the "her" in that word) thoughts?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No word about what causes breast cancer Posted by: QuestionAuthority
No Free Lunch
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 4, 2008 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mammography, properly performed, requires skill, patience and does not lend itself to assembly line medicine. Unfortunately, asking Medical Facilities to screen lots of people on the cheap does not fly with the realities of Mammography.

Most facilities performing Mammography will not make one thin dime for their trouble, while exposing themselves to significant potential liability. Despite the fact that many hospitals and clinics are not-for-profit, they are also not in the business of losing money- and properly done Mammography is a money loser.

Currently, facilities are compensated very poorly for Mammography, as the article relates, despite the significant expenses related to running a properly set up imaging facility (FDA & ACR Credentialed) with the exams being performed by Technologists Registered in Mammography by the ARRT (American Registry of Radiologic Technologists). At such facilities you will find best practices performed by properly trained and credentialed professionals.

Mammograms require dedicated X-Ray Machines, dedicated processors (for film based exams), significantly more QA work than conventional radiography, specially trained Technologists and Radiologists, and other things that are labor or capital intensive- despite the pitifully small compensation paid for the service.

The simple truth is that performing Mammography is a money losing service performed to serve the community by the clinics and hospitals that offer it. There is no upside other than service to patients and plenty of potential liability as a downside.

Most things in life of value carry a significant price tag. Properly done Mammography is a valuable service to patients and the community and should be compensated at a much higher rate. Currently, its paid for at roughly the same rate as a routine chest X-Ray for performance of the exam, which does not include the Radiologist's fee to interpret the exam.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Breast cancer is nothing to speak frivolously about
Posted by: ZPaul on Dec 4, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm afraid I see anybody who just leaves a note like: "Mammograms cause breast cancer", saying nothing more, as taking the subject frivolously. This is a very serious matter, and it can directly or indirectly affect anybody, including the person who made that comment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» DUH !! Posted by: gellero1
» ZPaul, are you a man? Posted by: countingdaisies
HUGE OVERUSE OF IMAGING IN MEDICINE
Posted by: drricklippin on Dec 4, 2008 2:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has now been well studied. Out of greed and maybe avoiding lawsuits there is a huge overuse of imaging technologies in medicine

Please don't add to it by stating people are denied imaging technologies.

I am for early detection of breast cancer but we have overplayed this imaging strategy hand

Some of it is outright dangerous to one's health

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» yeah but Posted by: meetmeineleusis
DIAGNOSIS OVERLOAD IS NOT THE ANSWER TO CANCER!
Posted by: BIOLOGY4U on Dec 4, 2008 4:18 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if you woke up tomorrow and found out that the medical industry is not based upon biological facts about why and how a woman's brain directs her breast glands and breast ducts to increase cell growth?!
Breast are not vital organs, they are a part of the brains biological program to nurture a women's "nest" when she has a severe psychological trauma subconsciously as when she has a "brutal separation" from her loved one or even a "deep worry".
This medical industry is a business based upon treating symptoms, it does not seek to understand the programs of nature, and, it has sold people on its "story" so much so that millions of people mistake physical symptoms in the wrong context-fear, misery and treatments is all we know; but, it is not the true story.
WAKEUP, when will we question the methods of the healthy care industry that everyone is fighting to have more of?! The AMA and the FDA were created in 1903 as a labor union for doctors, rockefeller invested in lab-drugs to stop infections and discovered big money, big business....
just like every other part of our USA society we are manipulated and live with public mind control by BIG BUSINESS and the wealthy elites.
WAKE UP! Listen to Noam Chomsky! There is much more to the picture of medicine than 99.9% of people are aware of. Its time to ask the questions.
Forget charities for more drug money, and creating more diagnosis methods and the fear mongering of people with misunderstood and sometimes painful physical symptoms. There's a reason for our biology... its time to learn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» SO TRUE Posted by: countingdaisies
Hey I just got the squish test today
Posted by: tapadance on Dec 4, 2008 10:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My chest still hurts 12 hours later from where the tech knocked me off my feet and left me hanging by the right girl when she moved the table.

I am disabled with lupus, so I am on Medicaid. My insurance will pay just 85 dollars of that bill, so along with my five dollar co-pay, I will also be billed the remainder of the cost of this exam. The full cost of the exam will be 85 to insurance, and 65 to me.

Thanks to medical bills I shall soon loose my home, and move into a cardboard box somewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A lot of dangerous info out there
Posted by: raydad on Dec 5, 2008 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mammography is safe!!! Yes it may hurt but the advantages far outweigh a lot of the comments made.
The "new" digital mammograms decrease the radiation per exposure by 1/3.
The mammogram is the most effective screening tool in all of medicine and early detection has been absolutely documented to reduce breast cancer deaths by 20-30% in the past 20 years. That's pretty good statistics.
Radiologists are shying away from mammography due to the low reimbursement, the high stress and failure to diagnose a breast cancer on a mammogram is the leading cause of medical malpractice in the country. That is definitely adding to a delay in scheduling. As fewer Radiologists can read the studies, fewer can be done per day and delays result.
A word of advice - the average radiologist in the country interprets 1,700 cases per year or about 7 per day. 50% of the radiologists interpret less than 2,000 cases per year. Please find a radiologist who does more cases per year.
In the most expert of hands, mammograms are 85% accurate - yes some cancers can be missed by experts -
Never ignore a mass that you or your doctor feels and make sure that mass is followed further - it should never be ignored even if the mammogram is normal.
On the average, with screening exams, there are between 2-4 cancers found per 1,000 - if you get routine yearly exams after 40 years old. Detection is 5-7 cancers per 1,000 for the first time screen.
Mammograms are THE most difficult x-ray exam to read-- therefore -- think of trying to find Waldo if you were given a 1,000 page Waldo book and Waldo was only on 5 pages of the 1,000 pages. Not easy but when found early .... that's the reason for having a routine annual mammogram!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mammograms are disease recruitment
Posted by: verb8m on Dec 8, 2008 1:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Given mammograms endanger women's health this is the best news I've heard all week. Mammograms flood sensitive breast tissue with radiation.They are no more than an effective disease recruitment tool. Ask yourself - why has screening (which serves only to return profit to pharmas)become synonymous with prevention. Screening is NOT prevention. It is recruitment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]