Skip to content
Categories:

Uninsured Have Cancers Diagnosed Later, Reducing Survival

Post date:
Author:

Guest post by Ron Chusid

This study falls in the category of proving something most people probably already realized was true, but it is still useful to have the actual evidence. The New York Times reviews a study from the American Cancer Society which shows that people with insurance are more likely to have cancer diagnosed at an early stage. Those who are uninsured, or only have coverage through Medicaid, are more likely to have cancer diagnosed in later stages, reducing their chances of survival.

The widest disparities were noted in cancers that could be detected early through standard screening or assessment of symptoms, like breast cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer and melanoma. For each, uninsured patients were two to three times more likely to be diagnosed in Stage III or Stage IV rather than Stage I. Smaller disparities were found for non-Hodgkins lymphoma and cancers of the bladder, kidney, prostate, thyroid, uterus, ovary and pancreas.

When comparing blacks to whites, the disparities in late-stage diagnosis were statistically significant for 10 of the 12 cancers. Hispanics also had a higher risk but less so than blacks.

The study’s authors concluded that “individuals without private insurance are not receiving optimum care in terms of cancer screening or timely diagnosis and follow-up with health care providers.” Advanced-stage diagnosis, they wrote, “leads to increased morbidity, decreased quality of life and survival and, often, increased costs.”

For those who don’t want to go through the numbers, Dr. Otis W. Brawley, the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer, sums it up by saying, “There’s evidence that not having insurance increases suffering.” Again, not surprising, but here we get the hard evidence.

Cross posted from Liberal Values

Comments

  • RonChusid

    says:

    With evidence like this we should have programs to make insurance more affordable. While I certainly would not use this as enough to make an argument for or against mandates, this does provide arguments for people to obtain insurance even if they are healthy if the coverage includes cancer screening even if there is no mandate.

    While this study only involves cancer, there is strong reason to believe that the same arguments could apply to other problems. I bet those who have insurance are also more likely to have problems such as diabetes and hypertension found earlier. Earlier detection and treatment would result in a lower incidence of long term complications of these diseases such as heart disease, renal failure, and strokes.

  • Dennis_D

    says:

    Ron, I find it amazing that you would post:

    The only slime is being thrown by the Clinton supporters who have been subjecting us to a steady stream of such nonsense attacks like this.

    The real issue here isn’t the words that Obama used, or even how Clinton supporters choose to twist them. The real issue is the question which led to this answer and the fact that Clinton does quite frequently, launch attacks on Obama over nonsense.

    There is nothing wrong with Obama’s words compared to the vast number of dishonest attacks being launched by Clinton and her supporters.

    Right after saying:

    They may differ on some issues, but Bushes and Clintons are just the opposite sides of the same coin. After twenty years it is time to get rid of that coin.

    Talk like this from Obama supporters really pisses me off. If you can’t tell the difference between the Clintons and Dubya, you shouldn’t be posting on a blog like this.

  • Joey (bjobotts)

    says:

    Yeah, need to watch “Sicko” to see that even with ins., pre-existing conditions won’t get your treatment paid for. In many cases you can’t even get diagnostic procedures paid for if they are deemed unnecessary by ins. companies trying to increase their profit margins.

    That’s why the healthcare plans put forth by Obama and Clinton suck. Neither are Not For Profit systems which allows all the lobbyists in, buying and pressuring congressmen for laws to protect their corporate interests. Kucinich had the best plan and it was not for profit and could be implemented within three months of taking office with Medicaid and Medicare. It’s time we quit letting people profiteer off our health care but how do we get these two dem candidates to listen when they are too busy trying to prove each has the better healthcare plan. Both allow for the profiteering to continue and the people are the ones getting screwed.

  • Joey (bjobotts)

    says:

    btw Chusid*** here’s another take on your opinions: I truly thought Obama was saying this stuff in his speeches because he was creatively inspired and it was just flowing from his heart. Needless to say…what a let down…

    “…”yes we can” didn’t come from Obama either- read this

    During a conference call this morning, Howard Wolfson had this to say. Via Mark Halperin:

    “If you’re going to be talking about the value of words, the words ought to be your own.” – Howard Wolfson

    Rhetorical flourishes are inspiring, especially when they’re authentic. The problem comes when they’re canned. Jake Tapper has a good run down on Obama’s convenient oratory. It would be one thing if they came from the heart, or if what he was saying was actually original. Unfortunately, they don’t and they aren’t. They’ve all been said before. “Yes, we can reuse slogans!” says Ben Smith. “You bet your life we can,” quips Deval Patrick. Si Se Puede. The word bamboozled comes to mind.

    Deval Patrick in October, 2006:

    ” … All I have to offer is words, just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal.’ Just words. Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words. ‘Ask not what your county can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.’ Just words. ‘I have a dream.’ Just words.”

    Barack Obama in Wisconsin, February 16th, this past Saturday, as he tries to con Wisconsin voters in preparation for Tuesday’s primary:

    “Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream.’ Just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal.’ Just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words. Just speeches.”(plus he was reading from an index card)

    A reader from Massachusetts emailed me this last night:

    … Guess what the lead-off story was on the local broadcast news tonight? Yes, “Plagiarism?” It was all about how Obama’s “just words” riff was strikingly similar to Deval Patrick’s speech from 2006. The story included a grainy video of Patrick delivering his speech, and then the clip from Obama’s speech the other night. The reporter mentioned that the two shared campaign strategist, and that borrowing from others’ campaigns wasn’t that uncommon. However, it could cause a problem for Obama because it raises the idea that he may be just reading from a script. Then cut to the Hillary Clinton saying it’s going to take more than speeches, it will take hard work.

    It’s what the New York Observer wrote about earlier in January. Via writer Steve Kornacki:

    One small Obama-related detail from last night: The “Yes we can!” refrain that Barack Obama trumpeted in his concession speech was actually the campaign theme adopted by Deval Patrick, a top Obama supporter who rode the slogan to the Massachusetts governorship in 2006.”

    I thought he was making this stuff up…that it was coming from him…didn’t you? At least he didn’t record the speeches and then pantomime them.

  • D Pecan

    says:

    Joey;

    I concur. Both Obama and Clinton embrace ‘insurance’.

    Canadians, the French, the English, and almost all citizens of industrialized countries will be mystified by this reform when what is clearly needed is a mandate for a moral healthcare system.

    Doctors are currently working at the narrow end of the Hippocratic Oath – to do no harm. When does it become ‘do nothing at all’?

    We swim in a media environment that paints Clinton and Obama as choices. On Healthcare I find the choice to be less than the debate about the number of angels that dance on the head of a pin.

    Our only hope is that one of them will be able to move us in a positive direction and create enough momentum to discredit the crazies who shout ‘socialist’ at every hint of humanity.

  • Lex (jackpine savage)

    says:

    We’re going to use a post about cancer rates and the sleaziness of the insurance companies to right back into this debate over who’s plan is better?

    Maybe the time would be better spent not campaigning for our candidate of choice and discussing the real and underlying issues involved. Take a look at the California cancer incidence map…note that those who live next to freeways are far more likely to get cancer than those who don’t.

    Examine the correlation between Bt corn and the rise of non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Or the fact that most everything we eat and drink has genetically modified corn inside it somewhere; that is, we eat and drink a registered pesticide every day. Or the fact that we consume over a pound of pesticides per year (not counting Bt) on the surface of our foods…and no, you can’t wash it off.

    Let’s think about how our government promotes a slew of things that give us cancer, and then promotes the insurance companies who refuse to treat it.

    Or we can keep quibbling about how to treat the symptoms of our problems and ignore the actual problems…that’s worked pretty well so far, no?

  • Smith

    says:

    It is obvious that people who don’t have insurance are more likely to have cancer diagnosed in later stages. Since they wont go for a regular medical checkup and mostly peoples who don’t have a policies would be less care about their health.
    Fiat Used Car Parts

  • Ohioan

    says:

    My cousin’s wife died of late-stage-diagnosed cancer last week. She was only 42.

    She was insured, and was a hospital employee at that. So if it could happen to her, I’m not surprised that being uninsured makes it even worse.

  • John Barleycorn

    says:

    Wait until the rich have technologies to increase their life-span 15-20 beyond us poor folk , then their hold on wealth and power will never be lessened . They already rely on the stupidity of the american people who cant comprehend that these animals and their families ( cartels ) have had their plans in place for 100+ years , they rely on shortsighted , stupid , yellow piss swillin , idiot box watching
    morons to just continue on with the debt slavery they’ve become accustom to with no eye or thought to the past or the future .
    I’m going to start a syndicate , then again I could never harm someone for money so that wouldnt work too well , maybe it’s not too late to learn to be greedy and heartless , Liberty U probably has a program .

  • John Barleycorn

    says:

    Wait until the rich have technologies to increase their life-span 15-20 beyond us poor folk , then their hold on wealth and power will never be lessened . They already rely on the stupidity of the american people who cant comprehend that these animals and their families ( cartels ) have had their plans in place for 100+ years , they rely on shortsighted , stupid , yellow piss swillin , idiot box watching
    morons to just continue on with the debt slavery they’ve become accustom to with no eye or thought to the past or the future .

  • Raven

    says:

    My sister died of breast cancer 3 years ago, after over 15 years of fighting the inevitable. My sister-in-law died 2 years ago of breast cancer. My mother-in-law has breast cancer now.

    Whether you buy into the genetic connection or the environmental connection, I’m in a high risk group. I live in a county with the highest breast cancer rate in America. I could go on and on.

    But, with other chronic health care issues, it would be virtually impossible for me to get insurance coverage.

    So even though I have access to free mammograms in my community, I haven’t had one in years. I really don’t see any point in knowing.

    It’s not that I believe ignorance is bliss.

    It’s that I wouldn’t be able to do a damn thing about it if I was diagnosed with cancer. So what would be the point?

    Until we have Universal Healthcare, others like me will be out there. Waiting until there’s a possibility of taking action about a potential diagnosis before bothering to even find out if there’s reason for concern.

    That’s definitely not a good thing for my family. And it can’t be a good thing for our country.

  • A. Kersjy

    says:

    The uneducated tend to not seek health care.
    When they do see physicians, they are generally noncompliant with investigations and therapy.
    Therefore they tend to die faster.

    Darwin would have rejoiced.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    A. Kersjy

    That is not totally true. I’m sure that the educated are more likely to seek out preventative care on their own, but that doesn’t mean that all who are uneducated do not.

    I have plenty of uneducated patients. Many are noncompliant, but so are many educated patients. Many uneducated patients might have no idea about the science involved, but quite a few that I see have the mindset that their doctor is doing what is best for them and, whether or not they understand, many are excellent at following instructions and showing up for tests. Often they are the easiest to treat as they don’t show up with articles filled with misinformation from the internet.

    Often I’ve been surprised by how well some uneducated patients who can barely read can recite all the medications which are prescribed and how they take them religiously. Sometimes it is more of a challenge to present the instructions in a matter an illiterate patient can comprehend, such as by making boards with actual pills on it to provide instructions rather than a written list.

    Sometimes it is hopeless and patients will refuse to follow medical advice regardless of how much we try. However that is true both of the uneducated and the educated.