Interesting review of cancer screenings by Consumer Reports

[Catherine Poole]

I was disappointed they didn’t think skin screening was worthwhile!

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/consumer-reports-tackles-cancer-screening-tests/story?id=18359910

[cohanja]

I think a lot of healthcare is about doing what works for the majority. So, if you give every smoker a chest xray, you might detect something in 1 out of 1000 people. . it’s worth it for that 1, but that rate doesn’t push the system to do it, recommend it, it’s not cost-worthy, etc… So if doing skin screenings might catch something for that 1 out of 100 people or whatever, it’s worth it for them, but for the system as a whole it’s not. I hate that’s how the system works. In 2007 when my wife was pregnant, had they measured cervical length, they might have found that it was shortening and something was going to go wrong; but, they don’t do that as a matter of practice because for 99 out of 100 people, it wouldn’t show anything. For the 1, it stinks, but the system seems to do what works for the majority.

[Catherine Poole]

They don’t measure the cost of a life it may save!

[Laurie]

As a person at risk (blue-eyed, fair skinned, multiple sunburns when young); I am very discouraged that Consumer Reports does not think highly of skin screening. I know it saved my life.

First of all, it really isn’t a test – it is a visit with a dermatologist who can look at your skin and even if there are NO spots or moles to biopsy; the derm can also give you very good advice about how to take care of your skin. Just saying!

[Author]

Posts