Log in

No account? Create an account
Doctors nationwide refusing to stock new cervical cancer vaccine - Princess
Doctors nationwide refusing to stock new cervical cancer vaccine
[...] insurers paying their executives millions won't give [doctors] $25 to cover [their] costs, but will spend tens of thousands if a patient develops cervical cancer.
3 comments or Leave a comment
felicialee1 From: felicialee1 Date: February 5th, 2007 07:19 pm (UTC) (Link)
I believe it. For years I've been staving off pre-cervical cancer with a shot I get every three months. Recently, I was considering changing my insurance policy to one that is a little more basic. This was the conversation I had with the BCBS rep:

Her: "All preventative care and medications are included."
Me: "Okay, so this shot that I get every three months for pre-cervical cancer will be covered?"
Her: "No, that is considered a contraceptive. But you can have as many mammograms as you need."
Me: "Um, I had my boobs cut off, didn't you just hear me about that?"
Her: "Okay, but if you need another mammogram, it will be covered."
Me: "I told you, I have no boobs, hence no reason for a mammogram. What I do need, however, is this PREVENTATIVE shot for pre-cervical cancer."
Her: "That is a form of birth control. BCBS wouldn't consider that preventative."
Me: "So you'll pay $100,000 for surgeries and chemo if I actually DO lapse into cervical cancer, but you won't pay $6 (what BCBS pays) for a shot to prevent it?"
Her: "Exactly. And of course all of your mammograms are completely covered..."
From: good43 Date: February 12th, 2007 04:30 am (UTC) (Link)
This treatment is new. I think that eventually all the insurance companies will cave to pressure and cover it at appropriate rates, or state government will step in a pick up the tab. In the mean time, if you're in the approved age range, cough up the money and get the shots ladies.

Then write a letter to you're insurance company, legislator, someone.

I have only heard the faintest of rumblings, but wait for the religious right to come out against public funding on the grounds that this will encourage promiscuity. Even though a married woman who only ever had one partner and never outside of wedlock could still be saved with these shots.
From: sdrone Date: February 13th, 2007 02:35 pm (UTC) (Link)

I think we're already

past that point. It came up in a few schools via protests last year, but it quickly went off the front page and I haven't seen a thing about it in a long time. It's hard to generate positive press by being against a cancer vaccine.
3 comments or Leave a comment