California Dreamin' (More Like a Nightmare)

Being diagnosed with cancer of any form is hard. You feel violated and helpless. And scared. Most cancer treatments require removal of the affected area, and in many cases, the affected areas are internal or otherwise unnoticeable to the naked eye. But just imagine if you had to have an arm removed... How much more devastated would you be? Sure, you could cover it up with a sleeve, get a prosthetic limb... who would know the difference? YOU WOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. The lasting effects of cancer treatments leave far more emotional scars than physical ones. In my opinion, breast cancer leaves the deepest emotional scars because it attacks one's very womanhood. That reason is exactly why I was so upset by a recent article I read in WebMD Health News. The study basically said that fewer than one in three women eligible for breast reconstruction surgery following mastectomy for breast cancer undergo the procedure, according to a small snapshot from four counties in California. It further stated that women with private insurance were nearly eight times more likely to have reconstruction than women with Medi-Cal insurance, California’s Medicaid program, mostly due to the shortage of plastic surgeons willing to accept Medi-Cal’s lower reconstruction reimbursement rate.

EXCUSE ME?

So, in essence, California is saying that cancer doesn't discriminate, but they do? I'm not certain, but I imagine this snapshot is indicative of the national picture as well.

Reconstruction is an important part of the healing process, in my opinion. I have not yet undergone reconstructive surgery, but view it in my mind as a sort of "rite of passage" from victim to survivor. Allowing the cost of the surgery to deter a woman from feeling whole again is adding insult to injury, and is particularly offensive to me. Cancer doesn't pick and choose it's victims by their economic demographic, and surgeons who perform reconstructive surgeries shouldn't choose their patients that way either. New York State law mandates that health insurance policies providing medical and surgical coverage are required to pay for costs of breast reconstruction after surgery for breast cancer. That's the way it should be. Wonder why that isn't yet a nationally adopted policy? Ask any Health Insurance Provider. I'm sure the response will be... interesting, to say the least.

Early Detection and the Business of Health Insurance

I heard a commercial on the radio this morning touting the benefits of early detection in breast cancer. It said "early detection saves lives". That is very true. I am living proof of that catch-phrase. The commercial went on to say that it is "recommended that women over the age of 40 have yearly mammogram screenings".

WAIT!

If I had waited until I was 40 to have my first mammogram... well, I wouldn't have made it to 40. I, more than likely, would not have made it past 36 years old. I was diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer at the age of 33. I remember joking with my doctor when he prescribed the mammogram after manually discovering the mass in my left breast. I told him, "I'm too young for a mammogram! I'm not going to be 40 for another 7 years!" The results of that mammogram started the process of saving my life. Thank you Dr. Cooper.

Waiting until the age of 40 to recommend yearly mammogram screenings works against the theory that early detection of breast cancer saves lives, especially when women are being diagnosed younger and younger all the time. I have met women 10 years younger than myself who were being treated for breast cancer. The mystical age of "40" seems an unfair target (and much like a death sentence) for the younger spectrum of those suffering with the disease. Last month, I had a follow-up appointment, in which a mammogram of my right breast was required. The Explanation of Benefits I received for the visit showed that the cost of the mammogram would not be covered by my provider because my "policy provides coverage for mammography screening for women age 35 or over". At the time I received the mammogram, I was exactly 34 years and 329 days old. Considering that my provider knows full well that I have been tested, diagnosed, and treated for breast cancer, it seems ludicrous that coverage of the mammogram would be denied because of my age. That, sadly, is the business of Health Insurance and a very good example of why this country needs Health INSURANCE Reform. I have yet to dispute this ridiculous matter with my insurance provider, but I plan to. I just can't get past the absurdity of the circumstances.