A WSJ op-ed calls focusing on the uninsured “a waste of money“:
Sadly, these ads will waste money that should be used to continue the Society’s educational campaign about prevention and detection. The evidence shows that universal health coverage does not improve survival rates for cancer patients. Despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the U.S. are most likely to be screened regularly, have the fastest access to treatment once they are diagnosed with the disease, and can get new, effective drugs long before they’re available in most other countries.
Related posts:
- Joining the parade: The American Cancer Society blogs
- The US has the highest cancer survival rates
- What if Elizabeth Edwards was in Europe?
- Tradeoffs for covering the uninsured
- Medicaid cancer screening
- 15 cancer screening posts you may have missed
- Are whites more likely to be screened for colon cancer?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
Off-topic, but here’s an article on EMR pushback:
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/view_feature.cfm?content_id=92334
Well, it is certainly questionable for them to use their entire advertising budget on political advocacy rather than on, you know, cancer stuff.
I used to be a grad student in Atlanta, (ironically was housed in the ACS headquarters building), & this is analogous to graduate studies in public health.
What used to be investigation / tracking of disease & epidemics worldwide has gradually disintegrated into a vague mush of advocacy for everything liberal, from reduction of ethnic disparities in healthcare to socialized medicine to race relations to gun violence – definitely NOT why i went to get a master’s in statistics/ epidemiology. What a waste.
Comments on this entry are closed.