USPSTF- NO PSA Testing-here's something you can do..370 letters/all 50 states (AN UPDATE)

142, PDA,& Tud,
I understand and I was wrong as usual! You guys are not "a sleep at the wheel" and I apologize. You do so much more in your advocacy for men with PCa than I realize: night and day for minimal wages--nothing!
Paid for 2 memberships in the Chaseburg Rod & Gun Clubhouse yesterday, fired 2 magazines with my pistol in 2' of snow, and then took my wife to the fish fry there at night; it was a good day..My new normal now without lupron has me feeling my oats. May it continue...
Bill

Bill,

I re-upped for another year at my range. Wasn't even close to needing to, but it seemed just the thing to give myself more than a paper target to shoot at. Then spent just as much in ammo. But there was bulk at Wally World this morning, so I'm restocked.

2016, here I come!

There are a lot of points at which what I might say as a non-mod doesn't get separated in the fray, so I tend to just not comment.

Mrs WW,
WOW!! You Rock!
Bill

Hi Jerry,
just sent 2 letters to New York senators.
# people 2.

thanks for alerting us to this resolution.

I strongly support.   I will contact my state Senators (Ohio) in support of this resolution. But I don’t think it addresses the root of the problem. It may be worth the comment to highlight that nobody is encouraging a return to using PSA tests for mass annual screening in healthy men to identify their risk of prostate cancer.   The US Senate resolution does not support this idea (read point #2 in the resolution), nor does the Prostate Cancer Roundtable which focuses on policy issues on behalf of men with PC (read their letter to the USPSTF), nor do any of the professional physician associations (name ‘em) whom have taken issue with the USPSTF “grade D recommendation” for prostate cancer screening.   The Senate resolution says “prostate cancer screening decisions should be made by each individual patient and his physician.”   I couldn’t agree more. The PC Roundtable says that “healthy men should not be discouraged from getting a PSA test and should be able to use information associated with the outcome of that test to make an educated decision with their doctor in assessing their health care choices.”   I couldn’t agree more. The PC Roundtable also says that the USPSTF should have been more clear in “conveying the message that the choice to be tested for prostate cancer is an individual one that should be made between a man and his doctor.”   I couldn’t agree more. The PC Roundtable also says that the USPSTF recommendation fell short in addressing the potential benefits to the subset of men known to be at higher risk of aggressive PC, specifically veterans exposed to Agent Orange and African-Americans.   I couldn’t agree more. The Senate resolution asks that the USPSTF reevaluate it’s “grade D recommendation.” But as one politically active for change as I have been, I would say the more effective approach is to change from within via policy change, not just complain.   It is relevant to understand what options the USPSTF had to choose from at the time this recommendation was issued.   I would observe that “grade D” was the only choice that fit the data. The thought I’ve given to the present situation is that there needs to be policy change that allows recognition of a large amount of benefit to a small number of men (possibly a new "grade E recommendation").   At the present time, USPSTF is constrained to choose among recommendations which all require assessment of the “net” benefit to the set of all men.   In today’s overtreatment landscape, there is not a “net” benefit to the recently past approach of annual mass screening.   The USPSTF’s hands were tied by policy to the current five recommendation choices (A, B, C, D or I), and they gave the only one that was supported by scientific evidence. I voiced this observation in a letter to USPSTF months ago, but I wasn’t successful getting more volume behind my voice to address the root cause of the issue with the USPSTF "grade D recommendation" for PC.         Post Edited (JackH) : 3/17/2014 2:59:17 PM (GMT-6)

Jerry,
I submitted from Ohio, 1 person.

Bill, thanks for mentioning on the caregivers thread too. Keep your voices loud, your pens or keypads writing or voting. Let's get PC to the level of Breast cancer awareness, the same level of funding, of research, of events, of media time. How many false positive mammograms or sonograms or needle biopsies, or scans? How many questionable readings on PAP's, another annual testing for women, that caused needless surgeries and anxiety. Why is PSA screening so different for men? Could it be improved, sure. It is available today, use it, and hopefully early in the disease for better opportunity for cure.
Pat

STATUS REPORT- Week #1

• 21 states contacted
  
• 62 individual people sent letters to their US Senators for their state.
  
• 124 letters were sent
  
• Sent seperate letter to Senator Sessions, who sponsored bill
  
• I contacted my urologist and he said it was discussed at their annual
  JAC (joint advocacy mtg.)
  
• Talked to State Rep. about how she could help
  

Great Job so far everyone!!! Thank you so much!!!
Keep up the good work as we try to reach all states with a bunch of letters!!!

Post Edited (Jerry L.) : 3/22/2014 9:13:32 PM (GMT-6)

2more from WI with 4 letters--I'm trying!
Bill

Bill -- thanks...every bit helps.

Just to let everyone know that sent letters, I have received return responses from both my Idaho Senators, the second coming today from Senator James Risch. The jist of his response, he is "highly concerned about the impact this draft resolution will have on patients' access to preventative-care screenings". It's nice to get a response...

Lisa

Two from Illinois
Wampuscats