Urology Groups Support Bill to Reform the USPSTF

Letters/emails, in support of the USPSTF Transparency and Accountability Act of 2013, should be sent to the relevant agencies/people (elected officials).

Thanks for the heads up Yooper.

The existing American Urological Association (AUA) clinical guidelines recommend AGAINST performing all ROUTINE PSA-based screening for prostate cancer, as well as all screening in men older than 70.     This guideline update, published less than 2-years ago, brings the AUA much more in-line with the USPSTF and the AAFP (American Association of Family Physicians).   Most members of the USPSTF are, by the way, members of the AAFP—these are the doctors who are primarily responsible for ongoing monitoring of their male patients’ overall health and making referral recommendations to see urologists or other specialists.   When the AUA guideline was published, there was broad praise in the professional medical community for their (AUA’s) adoption of evidence-based decision making, despite the realization that they were “…buck[ing] common practice within your [their] own specialty.”    (see AAFP article HERE )    Quite naturally, the revised AUA guideline also caused widespread condemnation amongst the large PC patient community who largely felt that PSA screening "saved their lives," although data largely does not support that emotion-based belief.   But guess what has now risen to the top amongst the Urology groups?   You guessed right – money .   In supporting the USPSTF Accountability Act of 2015, it is noteworthy to highlight that the AUA is NOT lobbying to change the position on the “no mass PSA screening” guideline.   Rather, the AUA specifically has called out recommended changes to legislation which strikes language added by the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) that directly ties Medicare coverage of a particular preventative service to the grade given by the USPSTF.   They don’t want to get cut-off from the gravy train…!  

Wow! To think that these urologists would propose putting subject matter experts on the USPSTF rather than a bunch of statisticians and pediatricians. Clearly they're just a bunch of monegrubbers. :)

Seriously, I don't think it's fair or helpful to insinuate that the motives of these uologists are simply pecuniary. If the grade given to the PSA test by the USPSTF is a "D," yet the urological community clearly feels this is a wrong decision, why WOULD they agree with the ACA that Medicare coverage should be tied to a boneheaded decision? That would be illogical, and why would anyone support such a notion?

A Yooper said...
Just saw this out on Medscape: Urology Groups Support Bill to Reform the USPSTF

"The three largest urology associations in the United States have issued a joint statement in support of legislation that aims to transform the way decisions are made at the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

The American Association of Clinical Urologists, the American Urological Association (AUA), and the Large Urology Group Practice Association argue that specialists should be involved in the decision-making process.

The move is a reaction to the 2011 USPSTF recommendation against the routine use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer, which caused outrage among urologists at the time, and recently it has been suggested that it has had an adverse effect on the diagnosis of prostate cancer."

For those who subscribe to Medscape, this is more fully explained here:

www.medscape.com/viewarticle/841246?src=wnl_edit_tpal

You can also find details here if you're not subscribed to Medscape:

urologytimes.modernmedicine.com/urology-times/content/tags/aua/aua-throws-its-support-behind-uspstf-reform-bill?page=full


about dam time - maybe there is hope left for common sense left in this world. . . .

+1