The latest issue of AARP Bulletin recommends against PSA testing (Part 2)

well...they can keep their "free" man purse because i'll not be a member

ed

I am with you Ed. Have never joined either. It came addressed to my wife.

Sonny

It comes in my wife's name too, I don't actively support them either. Sometimes there are interesting articles in their magazine.

in case anyone is wondering what I'm talking about, which is highly unlikely with this group

dealspl.us/Others_deals/p_aarp-membership-only-00-per-year-free-gift

ed

ha ha! they've been trying to lure me in with that man purse for over a year now !

ed

Same old story. I'm surprised that breast cancer screening for women in their 40's isn't on the list. I've been hearing a lot lately on this .
Bill

If I hadn't of had a PSA test when I did I would probably be dead by now.

They send me letters wanting me to sign up. I stuff it all back in their postage paid return envelope and send it all back to them with a note about what I think of their crap.

I have to agree with AARP because they are talking about people 75+.  And no, I'm not a member either.  I never would have found my PCa if it wasn't for diligence in being PSA tested regularly at a younger age.  This article doesn't apply to me.

Sonny, thanks for sharing this "interesting" article from the AARP. Perhaps it's just me with my New York paranoia, but I can't help but wonder who's holding the purse strings.

Don't get me started on the state of our new and improved healthcare system and its guidelines. All I know is that if my husband didn't have annual physicals with PSA tests, and if his terrific doctor hadn't been charting the PSA for years, the dramatic increase in John's PSA probably wouldn't have been noticed and his PCa might not have been diagnosed or wouldn't have been diagnosed in time.

Doctors may be reduced to fibbing in order to get their patients' the tests they believe are needed...this actually happened at my annual OB/GYN exam regarding a PAP test. My doctor actually ordered the test because I had abnormal readings in the past (which I've never had but he wanted me to continue with annual PAP tests). This stinks on so many levels.

I think we here have an obvious bias, being united by being the people who have been diagnosed.

Having studied statistics and game theory extensively in the past, I understand that the cost per life saved is tremendously high and the cost of over-treatment is also high.

And, I don't think anyone will disagree that the costs of healthcare in the US are out of control. The bill submitted to my insurance company for my RALP was $64K, although a lot less than that was actually paid.

But, when things are reduced purely to the numbers, there is that sacrificial lamb in the equation. We, as a group, are disproportionately made up of those lambs.

I met a guy at an Us TOO group meeting a few nights ago. Never tested at all until urinary troubles forced him to the doctor at age 56. G9, bone mets, and lymph nodes infected. Tell him he shouldn't have been tested earlier.

dmivt - that's it. To some it's about costs, about throwing a tiny percentage under the bus in order to avoid potential side effects in a number of people who potentially didn't need treatment.

I don't think you need to be a member of this board or fraternity to find that a policy to be frowned upon.

I went back and looked at the article again, and I don't see that it is talking only about men 75+ as was previously mentioned. It does make a comment about Medicare spending on men over 75, being 30% of the annual PSA testing cost in the last sentence.