Slashdot Mirror


Cancer in America Is Way Down, For the Wealthy Anyway (bloomberg.com)

The good news is that cancer in America was beaten back over the 25 years ending 2016, with death rates plummeting, particularly when it comes to the four most common types of the dreaded affliction. From a report: There's a caveat, however. Those gains have been reaped mostly by the well-off. While racial disparities have begun to narrow, the impact of limited access to treatment for the poorest Americans has increased wealth-based inequality, according to the American Cancer Society's annual update on trends and statistics. "Any time you have a disease as serious as cancer, when you have a substantial reduction in deaths, that's a notable achievement," said Len Lichtenfeld, the interim chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society. "But there are still a lot of areas for improvement."

Health insurance and access to care can be an issue in some poor and rural portions of the country, where there are higher death rates of colon, cervical and lung cancers, according to Cancer Statistics 2019. While poverty was actually associated with lower rates of cancer mortality prior to the 1980s, that trend has since reversed, due in part to changes in diet and smoking as well as screening and treatment rates, the health organization said.

7 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. True for all medical conditions by OffTheLip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am shocked that people with money get better services.

    1. Re:True for all medical conditions by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am shocked that people with money get better services.

      I'm planning on starting a meth lab in a camper if I get cancer so that I can afford the better services.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:True for all medical conditions by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Informative

      But will you actually get any care? I thought that to keep it affordable, you only get treatment if you meet certain criteria.

      You thought wrong.

      In other words, if you're 90 years old, no heart transplant for you, no matter how healthy you may otherwise be.

      Guess what? No heart transplant for 90 year olds in the US either. The eligibility criteria for getting on the transplant list would exclude an otherwise-healthy 90 year old.

    3. Re:True for all medical conditions by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Informative

      You've bought the anti-"socialized" medicine story. Most metrics, from longevity down, suggest that countries with modern health care systems (ranging from mostly public ones like in the UK and Canada, to the mostly private systems in Switzerland and Singapore) provide better care at a cheaper cost than does the US system.

      In public systems care is prioritized by need. You generally have to wait for elective procedures, unless they would resolve a problem related to mobility or employment, but you don't have to wait for emergency or time-sensitive problems (broken bones, fast growing cancer). There's also fairly little medical tourism to the US. If you want to pay, you can find a private clinic in Canada that will do the job, still cheaper than an American one would.

      Interestingly, mostly private systems ALSO seem to be more efficient than the US system, so it's not as simple as a public versus private system.

  2. Cancer going away for wealthy soon by monkeyxpress · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have a friend who works in oncology (he is a surgeon). He basically said that immunotherapy is incredible, and within 5 years he believes that those with enough money will be treated for many types of cancer by customised immunotherapy. They will go in every two weeks and a team will adjust the therapy based on the cancer's response until the cancer is gone. Add to this the work being done on early detection, and cancer could soon become nothing more than a strain on your bank account.

    Everyone else will continue to get cut, burn and poison. Having said that, this is how the economy has always progressed, and in 20 years when patents have run out and the treatments have become more mature, we can all look forward to this sort of thing.

    Certainly an exciting time to be alive.

  3. Re:Equality by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And highly trained medical staff shouldn't be forced into slavery, to take care of every health issue for people who can't or won't pay anything for it.

    If only there was some other entity that would pay those medical staff. You know, like the single-payer system in virtually every other developed country. Then it wouldn't be slavery.

    Honestly, I'm tired of people going on, constantly, about equality in America, as though it's something we're obligated to try to achieve, or even a worthy goal?

    Inequality is inefficient. You don't get the "best and brightest", you get the richest and most-connected. And >90% of the time, those rich people got their wealth from their parents, so they're not actually good at anything.

    For example, Trump. His dad made a crapload of money in NY real estate, because he was good at it. Trump has lost enormous amounts of money in NY real estate because he isn't any good at it. That's why he was on a TV show instead of doing more real estate.

    it's really all about giving people a framework of opportunities to better THEMSELVES, if they wish to make the effort.

    What you fail to understand is the effort to benefit from that framework is not equal. The wealthy give their children many advantages that put them ahead within that framework. Again, this means we get massive inefficiency because the person didn't actually make the effort, mom and dad bought their place. So they don't know what the hell they are doing and go bankrupt running a casino. Twice.

    Between doctors and dentists who willingly volunteer some of their time to provide these services

    The last Doctors without Borders event in the US had a line about 3x longer than they could serve. Many were turned away. Charity will not get this done.

    Also, did ya notice the irony of bemoaning "medical professionals working for free" at the start of your post, and "medical professionals working for free" as your preferred solution?

    Finally, Medicaid doesn't cover an enormous swath of uninsured people, thanks to Republicans blocking Medicare expansion from the ACA. Which means they don't get any insurance coverage and thus no medical treatment beyond Emergency Rooms.....which means you are paying a shitload more money in insurance premiums and taxes because the poor can't get preventative care.

    Single-payer is much cheaper than our current system. You would save a hell of a lot of money. Your taxes would go up, but your insurance premiums would disappear. Netting you a lot more in each paycheck. I don't know about you, but I really don't care if the deduction on my paycheck is labeled "Cigna premium" or labeled "Medicare". But some of those people might not suffer enough for your liking.

    Cancer treatment is HUGELY expensive, though - to the point where many insurance policies even put a "cap" on the amount they'll spend for it over your lifetime

    Nope. One of the things the ACA eliminated was lifetime caps.

    You can't just demand America provide the "best care possible" to everybody

    Sure we can. Every other developed nation pulls it off. Are you saying we can't do what the Canadians can?

  4. Re:Not possible by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Informative

    we had to pass the bill to see what was in it

    The bill was available and debated for almost a year.

    Obamacare fixed all of this

    The way the ACA would have fixed this particular problem is Medicaid expansion. Which Republicans sued over. And are blocking in every state they can.

    Why do they lie?

    Why do you?