Why isn't prostate cancer screening covered by OHIP?

[cybercoma]

Why doesn't Ontario, British Columbia nor Québec cover prostate cancer screening even though they cover breast cancer screenings? Prostate cancer is more prevalent and kills nearly as many people as breast cancer, yet these three provinces do not cover screening for it. Meanwhile, Ontario (I'm not sure about the others) covers breast cancer screening under OHIP. For more information see: http://www.psatestsforontario.ca.

As an aside (because inevitably the thread will end up going there), this right here is what irks me about so-called Men's Rights Activists (MRAs). Instead of being inflammatory anti-feminist morons, MRAs should be focused on real issues like this one. This uniquely men's issue is about access to proper life-saving healthcare. While MRAs are busy complaining about women's groups and feminists, they're ignoring real issues that they should be addressing.

[On Guard for Thee]

I haven't heard ot these MRA's to tell you the truth. I live under a bush I guess. You know of course BC '04 will be all over this. My understanding is that as a man if you live long enough eventually prostate cancer will get ya. I'm quite happy I survived putting a new roof on the garage. I guess we take it as it comes.

[Michael Hardner]

BREAST CANCER...

Affects 1 in 9 Canadian women

9,300 diagnosed every year in Ontario

1,950 annual deaths in Ontario

OHIP covers cost of screening test

PROSTATE CANCER...

Affects 1 in 7 Canadian men

9,600 diagnosed every year in Ontario

1,500 annual deaths in Ontario

OHIP does not cover cost of screening test

Very interesting find. I suspect/hope that the this will take off soon, thanks to the complimentary powers of the web and of human reason. Thanks for posting this.

[Smallc]

Apparently, the test given as a screening produces too many false positives. It's much better used as a diagnostic tool when there is already an issue.

[cybercoma]

So yeah, here's the thing. My concern is with the government deciding for doctors what procedures should and should not be done by determining what they will fund. That's my concern.

It's a non-starter here since this procedure is covered when it's ordered by a doctor, but not covered when it's used as a screening.

[Smallc]

Because recent studies show that it's not a valuable screening tool. The government had always determined what is and isn't covered.

[cybercoma]

Like I said, it's not up to the government to decide what's medically valuable and what isn't. If it's not valuable, doctors won't order it. In this case, it is covered when a doctor orders it. It's not covered for people who just want to go get screened though.

[Michael Hardner]

The government had always determined what is and isn't covered.

Of course, they set the budgets so that's got to happen. But the decision making process should be transparent, guided by experts, and open to feedback from a public IMO.

Apparently some of these decisions come from something called the Citizen's Council:

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/programs/drugs/councils/

I've never heard of it before, maybe you have. It seems like a prototype for what should be happening - an inclusive and moderated online discussion explaining the policies and the criteria.

[segnosaur]

Why doesn't Ontario, British Columbia nor Québec cover prostate cancer screening even though they cover breast cancer screenings?

Because boobies are of interest to both men and women, and no woman gets turned on by looking at a prostate.

As an aside (because inevitably the thread will end up going there), this right here is what irks me about so-called Men's Rights Activists (MRAs). Instead of being inflammatory anti-feminist morons, MRAs should be focused on real issues like this one.

Keep in mind that the term 'feminist' is an extremely broad term, and it covers everything from those making reasonable demands (eg. end to sexual harassment, improved educational opportunities, etc. both things I completely agree with) all the way through feminists like Andrea Dworkin, who was making claims about pornography and violence towards women. People like Dworkin should be challenged.

Frankly, i'd be quite happy paying for my own PSA tests, if it meant I got to keep watching my pornography.

[Shady]

So yeah, here's the thing. My concern is with the government deciding for doctors what procedures should and should not be done by determining what they will fund. That's my concern.It's a non-starter here since this procedure is covered when it's ordered by a doctor, but not covered when it's used as a screening.

Sounds kinda like rationing. But like I've said before, OHIP would be considered sub-standard health insurance by Obamacare and would be cancelled. Oh wait, but only junk plans got cancelled right?

[Shady]

The reason why it's not covered though is because women's health groups have much more influence in their lobbying elected officials. There's more women's groups and they're more powerful.

[Smallc]

It's not that simple:

http://healthland.time.com/2012/07/30/prostate-cancer-screening-why-cant-doctors-agree/

This is part of a wider trend among public health experts.

[Michael Hardner]

OHIP would be considered sub-standard health insurance by Obamacare and would be cancelled. Oh wait, but only junk plans got cancelled right?

Really ? Where did you get that from ?

[Big Guy]

With the spiralling coats of health care I assume that someone has to draw a line somewhere. The question is where to draw that line as to screening processes. Even in Ontario with our OHIP plan, those with sufficient capital decide on their own what screening processes they require. I know that anecdotal evidence is not very good cite for stating an opinion but I shall continue.

I have a very good friend who received a full body scan as a birthday present. He took advantage of this gift, travelled to Buffalo, and had his scan. The cost of this gift was about $2,000 including one over night. It resulted in indicating a potential problem. He went to his doctor in Ontario with the results, specific tests were ordered and a cancerous growth was identified. It was caught in time. He still believe that the full body MRI saved his life. Should a full body scan be part of OHIP paid screening test. Too expensive!

I have spoken to members of the profession and some have advised that a full body MRI, if you can afford one is a very good idea. If nothing else, the results can work as a baseline to compare with in later years.

I assume that somewhere somebody had tried to compare the costs of screening tests, what was discovered and how much was saved because a particular ailment was discovered before it led to very expensive medical procedures. The efficient screening tests were then chosen to be acceptable.

I am beginning to trend towards a two-tier public medical insurance plan where those who can afford it get the tests that they want and get out of the growing lines of those waiting for public financed procedures like joint replacements.

[Shady]

Really ? Where did you get that from ?

Because there are things that aren't covered by OHIP that are minimum standards under Obamacare. Plans that don't meet the minimum standard are illegal, even if you like them.

[monty16]

Because there are things that aren't covered by OHIP that are minimum standards under Obamacare. Plans that don't meet the minimum standard are illegal, even if you like them.

This is the direction in which you must move in the US. People telling their doctors what's good for the doctor to prescribe is a lot to do with your problems. For example, in the US the people are bombarded by pharma advertising and it's effective enough to cause the people to go to their doctor and ask for the product. They tell the people to do just that! The only reason why that's being allowed is because it's the extremist capitalist way to sell these expensive pharmas regardless of whether it's good for the person. In a normal socially responsible society the doctor is making these important decisions and the decisions are ten times more likely to be the right ones.

Here's the parallel to bad insurance coverage that the ACA won't tolerate any longer. The right's agenda is to help sell the crap, be it insurance coverage or pharmas, and they're pretending that the ACA took away from the people what they really wanted. Instead, it's nothing but politics and stubbornness, all motivated by continuing to prop up a failed heath care system.

Progress is slow Shady but in time you and your cohorts will get over it and flow with the tides of change. Liken it to your resistance to any forced changes you had to make for your own good. I'm sure you wear your seatbelt now and don't object to having airbags in your car.

[Michael Hardner]

Because there are things that aren't covered by OHIP that are minimum standards under Obamacare. Plans that don't meet the minimum standard are illegal, even if you like them.

Did not know that. I tried Googling but couldn't find examples though.

[monty16]

Did not know that. I tried Googling but couldn't find examples though.

Don't be taken in by politically motivated lies, take a chance and go with your gut and you'll be right 9 out of 10 times. Move directly to a direct challenge of something that just doesn't feel right. It isn't!

[gunrutz]

I think it is in part because men care more for the health of thier wives/families than they do for themselves, most of us are still trained, rightly or wrongly to be the protector, i think we end up neglecting issues that effect us as a result, though that is changing.

[Michael Hardner]

Don't be taken in by politically motivated lies, take a chance and go with your gut and you'll be right 9 out of 10 times. Move directly to a direct challenge of something that just doesn't feel right. It isn't!

Well, the challenge is for the claimant to support their claim. Trust me, it works.

[Bryan]

Part of the issue too, is that there is probably isn't a useful reason to be screened for prostate cancer anyway. Knowing doesn't change the outcome all that much in most cases. The difference in the survival rates for those who get treatment and those who don't is quite often negligible. "Watchful waiting" is increasingly being preferred.

After approximately 10 years of follow up the risk of dying from prostate cancer was small (less than 10%), and was essentially the same whether a man chose surgery or observation

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/expertvoices/post/2012/01/18/to-treat-or-not-to-treat-prostate-cancer-that-is-the-question.aspx

Edited May 25, 2014 by Bryan

[Smallc]

Yes as I've already shown the benefits are questionable...but apparently that isn't important to the discussion.

[cybercoma]

It is important, that's why I changed my original opinion on the matter. It's ineffective as a screening tool and it's covered as a test when ordered by a doctor (just not as a routine screening measure). Seems fine. My biggest exception was the government deciding not to cover doctor-ordered treatments and diagnostics. I believe anything a doctor deems necessary ought to be covered by the medicare.

[Smallc]

Sorry I guess I misunderstood.

[guyser]

It's ineffective as a screening tool and it's covered as a test when ordered by a doctor (just not as a routine screening measure).

That seemed to escape many on Page 1.

I have had it, paid for many but some were free.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Guyser2