Letters to the Editor - American Family Physician

May 1, 2002 Table of Contents

Letters to the Editor

Am Fam Physician.�2002�May�1;65(9):1742-1752.

Cervical Cancer Screening

to the editor: The debate over implementing new tests for cervical cancer screening parallels the controversy over legislating a patients' Bill of Rights for persons covered by health maintenance organizations. Proponents of both pursue questionable improvements in services that, if they materialize at all, may come at the expense of the most vulnerable segment of the population.

It is unclear whether a patients' Bill of Rights would benefit or harm the patients it appears to protect, but it is obvious that all the current proposals neglect persons without the means to obtain health care in the first place. Likewise, since the newer tests for cervical cancer screening presuppose a Papa-nicolaou (Pap) smear as an initial screen, they will provide no benefit to patients at highest risk for cervical cancer—women with inadequate health care access that seldom or never receive Pap smears.

Whereas the cost of a patients' Bill of Rights is unknown, the cost of supplementary cervical cancer screening ranges from $7,777 to $166,000 per life-year saved.1Marginal cervical cancer reductions gained from employing these expensive tests potentially displace substantial reductions in cervical cancer rates that could be achieved by using routine Pap smears to screen the uninsured.

These debates, profound in appearance, distract us from the problem at hand—providing proven, cost-effective care to the patients who need it. Let us recapture our priorities. We should turn our attention from proposing legislation and pursuing new technologies that might guard the privileged, to legislating basic health promotion and disease prevention that will protect the vulnerable.

PETER TEICHMAN M.D., M.P.A.

West Virginia University

Harpers Ferry Rural Family Practice Residency

31 Taylor St.

Harpers Ferry, WV 25425

REFERENCES

1. Brown �AD, Garber �AM. �Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. �JAMA. �1999;281:347–53.

Send letters to Kenneth W. Lin, MD, Associate Deputy Editor for AFP Online, e-mail: afplet@aafp.org, or 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211-2680.

Please include your complete address, e-mail address, telephone number, and fax number. Letters should be fewer than 500 words and limited to six references, one table or figure, and three authors.

Letters submitted for publication in AFP must not be submitted to any other publication. Possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed at time of submission. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting the American Academy of Family Physicians permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. The editors may edit letters to meet style and space requirements.

Copyright � 2002 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact afpserv@aafp.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.