Oklahoma women die of breast cancer at high rates, yet Gov. Kevin Stitt rebuffed access to screening
A nurse provides assistance to a patient undergoing a mammogram in a medical facility. (Photo by)
In February, my health care provider reached out with some bad news — my annual mammogram had an 'area of concern,' that required me to return for additional screening.
An abnormal test result is always terrifying, but somehow Oklahoma's health care system made the uncertainty infinitely worse. I found out it would be 54 days between receiving my results and the first available appointment at Mercy's renown breast center in Oklahoma City. That location had the ultrasound technology necessary to provide the specialized followup needed to determine if the unexplained masses were cancerous or benign.
Thinking the scheduler had made a mistake, I called the clinic directly. The woman who answered was shocked — shocked that I had gotten in that quickly.
Usually, she told me, it takes longer.
So the agonizing wait for answers began.
To put this timeframe into perspective: It took so long that nearly half of Oklahoma's four-month legislative session ticked by. Seven-figure pygmy gobies – tiny fish that live among coral in the Indian Ocean – had almost lived an entire life cycle. Red foxes had completed gestation and given birth. People had applied for and received their U.S. passports.
That delay is probably why I found myself so irked earlier this month by Gov. Kevin Stitt's decision to veto bipartisan legislation that aimed to increase women's access to diagnostic mammogram testing. The bill, had Stitt signed it, would have required insurance companies to foot the bill for two additional tests. In short, it would have eliminated copays and deductibles.
The proposal passed overwhelmingly through both legislative chambers and seemed like an easy win for Stitt and his fellow Republicans trying to signal that they actually care about women's health outcomes.
After all, breast cancer is a disease that disproportionately affects women, and ours is a state where women die from the disease at higher rates than the national average. In Oklahoma, an estimated 22.4 per every 100,000 women die compared with 19.3 nationally, according to the National Cancer Institute. In rural McCurtain County, the death rate is a staggering 36.4 women per 100,000 – almost double the national rate.
The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, which advocates for evidence-based medicine and prevention, notes that Black women are 40% more likely to die from the disease than their white counterparts, and that it is critical that patients 'receive equitable and appropriate follow-up.' The task force recommends women have a biennial mammogram for over three decades — from age 40 until 74.
Breast cancer is a disease where the odds of surviving are significantly improved by early detection, so it boggles the mind that Stitt would reject legislation that removes a cost-barrier that might prevent Oklahomans from getting screened.
But with the stroke of a pen, our male governor demonstrated that he doesn't understand — or even care about — the struggles we women face to access what should be a routine health care procedure. And, he showed that he's fine with women being forced to disproportionately bear those testing costs. Because how many men do you know who pay for biennial mammograms?
And as icing on the already unsavory cake, Stitt vetoed this legislation authored by a lawmaker fighting breast cancer, experiencing first hand the struggles that Oklahomans face.
In 2022, legislators passed a law requiring coverage of diagnostic mammograms, but Melissa Provenzano, the bill's author, said access to mammogram machines depends on where you live. She also said that women report their insurers are pushing back on the copay protections despite the law.
In his veto message, Stitt wrote that he was 'deeply sympathetic' to women who have bravely fought the disease. He noted that he was aware that early detection and access to care are critical priorities. But, Stitt said, the legislation 'imposes new and costly mandates on private health insurance plans' that will raise premiums for 'working families and small businesses.'
Stitt is clearly more sympathetic to health insurers who often charge 'working families and small businesses' large monthly insurance premiums and then continue to collect even more from them in copays and deductibles.
Like most businesses, insurance companies aim to make money. It often takes legislative action to force them to waive copays or deductibles, which chip away at their profits.
It remains to be seen whether lawmakers will let Stitt's veto stand. If every lawmaker who supported it initially stayed the course, they'd have the two-thirds of votes needed to override it.
While they're mulling it over, perhaps they should consider that ours is a state that has some of the worst health outcomes in the country. Maybe it's time to worry less about hurting insurers' feelings, put on their big girl pants and champion policies that will make lifesaving testing easier to access and more affordable — for Oklahomans of any gender.
Because while the masses in my breast were determined to be benign, nobody should have to wait months for those answers or be required to pay for a doctor-recommended screening that could save her life.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4. It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators. Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise. 'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure. 'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent. When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged. 'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition. Sen. Jim Justice ( said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline. 'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.' Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016. Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes. 'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.' Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap. 'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters. Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included. 'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Some early-onset cancers are on the rise. Why?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Some early-onset cancers — those that occur in people under age 50 — are on the rise in the United States. This overall increase is due to a rise in 14 different types of cancers in younger people, according to a new analysis. The largest increases have occurred in breast, colorectal, kidney and uterine cancer diagnoses. While the overall incidence of early-onset cancer is still low, these small increases could add up over time. A rise of a few percent per year is "not a huge change in the number of diagnoses, because cancer is still rare at these ages," Miranda Fidler-Benaoudia, a cancer epidemiologist at Alberta Health Services and the University of Calgary, told Live Science. "But it's when it's happening over two, three decades that it really leads to a meaningful increase in that period." The reasons behind these increases are complex and manifold, and many are probably specific to each type of cancer, experts say. To tease out trends in early-onset cancer diagnoses and the myriad reasons behind them, National Cancer Institute epidemiologist Meredith Shiels and colleagues compiled data on cancers diagnosed in 15- to 49-year-olds between 2010 and 2019 in the U.S. In a study published May 8 in the journal Cancer Discovery, the team broke down changes in the rates of different cancers in three age groups: 15 to 29, 30 to 39, and 40 to 49. Breast and uterine cancer rates increased in every early-onset age group, while rates of colorectal and certain kidney cancers increased among 30- to 39-year-olds and 40- to 49-year-olds, the team found. More than 80% of the additional cancers that occurred in 2019 compared with 2010 were one of these four types. Other diagnoses that increased in at least one early-onset cohort included melanoma, cervical cancer and stomach cancer, though incidences of these cancers remained low overall. Many factors could contribute to these observed increases. Research suggests that obesity is a risk factor for colorectal, kidney and uterine cancers, all of which are rising in younger people. Globally, the percentage of adults who are overweight or obese has increased significantly since 1990. Although most studies linking cancer and obesity were conducted in older adults, it's possible that higher rates of obesity in younger people could also increase the rates of early-onset cancer, the researchers wrote. One 2024 study suggests that more than half of uterine cancers diagnosed in 2019 might be linked to obesity. Changes in reproductive patterns over the years could also be contributing to the increased incidence of early-onset breast cancers, Fidler-Benaoudia said. Girls are getting their periods earlier, and women are having fewer children, and having them later in life, than they did a few generations ago. Being younger at first menstruation, giving birth fewer times, and giving birth for the first time later in life have all been linked to a higher risk of developing certain types of early-onset breast cancer, the researchers wrote. Other research suggests that using oral contraceptives (birth control pills) might also slightly elevate the risk of early-onset breast cancer, though it may also protect against ovarian and endometrial cancers. Earlier detection of cancers in people with genetic risk factors may also play a role. For instance, those with certain BRCA gene variants have a higher risk of breast, ovarian or prostate cancer, while those with Lynch syndrome face an increased risk of myriad cancers, including colon cancer, stomach cancer and brain cancer. I think that we need large studies that follow individuals over the life course, including at younger ages, to be able to identify risk factors for early-onset cancers. Meredith Shiels Newer screening guidelines recommend people with these genes start screening for cancer earlier than those with an average risk of the disease. Even a small increase in the number of early-onset cancers detected via these new recommendations could trigger an uptick in diagnoses. Screening for other, unrelated issues could also help identify certain cancers earlier. For example, changes in imaging procedures for MRIs and CT scans mean that health care professionals are catching more instances of renal cell carcinoma, a type of kidney cancer, during other tests. This incidental detection has led to an increase in kidney cancer diagnoses in almost all age groups, the researchers wrote. People's prenatal or early-life exposures to certain compounds may also fuel specific early-onset cancers. Researchers reported in April in the journal Nature that childhood exposure to a chemical called colibactin, which is produced by certain E. coli strains in the colon, causes DNA mutations observed more frequently in early-onset colorectal cancers. Showing that an exposure directly causes a certain type of early-onset cancer — or even pinpointing which types of exposures might pose a risk — is no easy feat. "I think that we need large studies that follow individuals over the life course, including at younger ages, to be able to identify risk factors for early-onset cancers," Shiels told Live Science in an email. RELATED STORIES —Gut bacteria linked to colorectal cancer in young people —BRCA only explains a fraction of breast cancers — genes tied to metabolism may also up risk —Black patients may need breast cancer screenings earlier than what many guidelines recommend Even with these sorts of extended studies, though, it can be challenging to pin down the exact causes of early-onset cancer. "The issue with cancer at young ages is, whilst it's increasing, it's still relatively rare [compared] to those older age groups," Fidler-Benaoudia said. "To have enough people develop cancer to then identify risk factors in this prospective way is incredibly challenging, because you need huge, huge numbers." While it's impossible to eliminate your individual risk of getting cancer, there are some things that reduce the overall risk at the population level. For instance, wearing sun protection and getting vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV) can help protect against certain cancers, Fidler-Benaoudia said. Similarly, limiting alcohol and smoking can reduce the odds of a person developing cancer at any point in their life, not just before age 50, Tomotaka Ugai, a cancer epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women's Hospital, told Live Science.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Oregon Democratic state Rep. Hòa Nguyễn returns to House following cancer diagnosis
Rep. Hòa Nguyễn, D-Portland, speaks on the House floor on June 20, 2025, her first day back in the Capitol since leaving to undergo cancer treatment in February. (Screengrab from Oregon legislative broadcast) Rep. Hòa Nguyễn, D-Portland on Friday returned to the Oregon House in her first official public appearance since announcing she was undergoing treatment for advanced cancer in February. 'I felt like I have a second chance at life now, by some miracle, whatever, all the prayers and affirmations really help,' she said on the House floor on Friday, surrounded by many of her colleagues and staff wearing face masks. 'I think it's the community, it's all of you here and the support that really, really pushed me through.' The representative comes back to the Legislature at a critical moment for Oregon Democrats, who are working with slim margins in both legislative chambers to pass a transportation package in the face of staunch opposition from Republicans and some Democrats concerned about the tax increases and scope of the proposed measure. In its latest form, the proposal would raise an estimated $14.6 billion over the next 10 years. Any tax increases require 36 votes, and Democrats need Nguyễn if they're not able to sway any Republicans. Nguyễn's seat came under the spotlight in February after she revealed that she was beginning chemotherapy treatments for stage 4 cancer, an explanation for why she had already missed weeks of legislative business. A stage 4 diagnosis is the most intense stage of cancer, when the disease has spread to other parts of the body and is harder to treat. During her remarks, Nguyễn thanked her colleagues for the courtesies they had extended to her aunt, brother and sister when they were recognized on the House floor in May. She called herself 'a fighter' and said she is ready to get back to work at some point, but didn't say for how long she would return or the extent to which she had recovered. Nguyễn was excused for the House's afternoon session on Friday. 'She is taking the session day by day at this point, and we're focused on her health above anything,' said a spokesperson for the House Majority Office in a Friday statement. Nguyễn in a February statement said her staff would provide critical constituent services, vowing to continue her efforts to address chronic absenteeism and improve child care access. She previously served as vice chair of the House Early Childhood and Human Services Committee and a member of the House Education Committee and Ways and Means subcommittee on education, but Speaker Julie Fahey gradually removed her from those rules during her treatment. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX