Latest news with #U.S.PreventativeServicesTaskForce
Politico
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
10 years of marriage equality — and what's next
Ten years ago this week, the Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that the Constitution guaranteed gay people in all 50 states the right to marry. The White House lit up in Pride rainbow colors that night to celebrate the victory. After years of fierce and ugly debate, it seemed as though America could finally move on. And Obergefell, whose husband had died of ALS before their case reached the court, could finally begin to move on from his grief. But that's not how the following decade played out. Anti-LGBTQ+ politics has mounted a comeback in the GOP. Republican support for marriage equality has dropped to just 41 percent. And Obergefell has struggled to process his loss — and to keep certain promises he made to his late husband on his deathbed. 'The trajectory of his life and the trajectory of American politics would twist, turn, double back on themselves, like tree branches searching for light,' writes Dylon Jones in this week's Friday Read, an intimate profile of the man who brought marriage equality to America. How can he move forward at a time when he sees American politics moving backward? Read the story. 'Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: 'Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law.' That goes for judges too.' Can you guess who said this about Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson? Scroll to the bottom for the answer.** Yep, We Asked Bernie About It … Underdog Zohran Mamdani's stunning victory in the Democratic primary for New York mayor has kicked off a debate over what it represents about the state of the party — and where it goes from here. Holly Otterbein caught up with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a fellow democratic socialist who endorsed Mamdani in the race, to get his thoughts about what this means for the Democrats. 'I think they have a lesson to learn,' he said of the party establishment. 'Whether or not they will, I have my doubts.' Still reeling from the bucket of major decisions the Supreme Court just dumped? The lawyers at happy hour won't let you hear the end of it. Better drop these talking points into conversation so no one tries to cross-examine you. (From Associate Editor Dylon Jones) — Read Kyle Cheney so you can talk about how this shifts legal strategies like you passed the bar. 'The Court made it harder to block federal government policies, but not impossible,' you might say. 'They left open several avenues, one of which is class action lawsuits — and an organization representing immigrants has already refiled as a class action case.' — Point out the potential loss within the victory in the fight against HIV: 'The Court says it's perfectly constitutional for the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force to require insurers to cover drugs that prevent HIV. But the reason they say it's constitutional is that the Health and Human Services secretary has the power to sack the task force and appoint new members. RFK Jr., who has raised questions about whether HIV is the cause of AIDS (to state the obvious, it is), ain't exactly a comfort to public health advocates.' — One for your book group: 'Everyone, there's something of such great national importance that it has been recorded in Supreme Court opinion, and I think we should take part: Let's do a line-by-line analysis of Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' How Mamdani Would Change America … Mamdani's upset win isn't just a signal that change could be coming to New York politics — it's a sign that American politics writ large could shift, especially for cities and the Democrats that govern them. We reached out to current and former mayors, as well as politicos with a deep understanding of city politics, just how a Mayor Mamdani might shift the future of urban governance and the party itself. They disagreed about whether this could represent a broader surge of democratic socialism. But one thing they all seemed to agree on? 'People across America are voting for change.' 'Ohio's Anthony Fauci' Runs for Governor … During the Covid pandemic, demonstrators — some of them armed and carrying signs with antisemitic symbols — gathered outside the home of the state's health director, a Democrat named Amy Acton who'd been appointed by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine. Her family was harassed, and she said she faced political pressure to sign health orders she opposed, so she resigned. But now, Liz Skalka reports, Acton is using that experience in a way no other health director who found their job politicized by the pandemic has before: to attempt a political comeback. Acton is running to succeed DeWine as governor, and her background in the health department is a major part of her pitch. 'I saw under the hood during Covid,' she tells voters. 'I saw how fragile our democracy is.' Could Iran's Exiled Prodigal Prince Take Over? … For nearly 50 years, Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran's last shah, has been criticizing the Islamist autocracy from exile, mostly in the United States. He says that if the regime falls — a possibility Trump has raised on social media — he should be the one to remake the country into 'a free and democratic Iran.' Many in the Iranian diaspora agree — but others see him, after decades away, as too distant from the on-the-ground reality. Daniel Block, a senior editor at Foreign Policy, explores what his prodigal return would mean. From the drafting table of editorial cartoonist Matt Wuerker. **Who Dissed? answer: It was Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in her majority opinion curtailing the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against the White House. politicoweekend@ POLITICO Weekend will be off next week for July Fourth. Enjoy the holiday!
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
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
Yahoo
06-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Prostate cancer cases spike in this US state as doctors share likely reason
Cases of prostate cancer are on the rise in California, according to new research. A study by UC San Francisco (UCSF) included nearly 388,000 men who had prostate cancer between 2004 and 2021. The incidence rate of cases increased 6.7% per year on average between 2011 and 2021, the JAMA-published research revealed. Common Cancer Type Could Be Detected With New Blood Test Although cases rose, prostate cancer mortality rates declined 2.6% per year from 2004 to 2012, and plateaued from 2012 to 2021. These trends were similar across age, race, ethnicity and region, the researchers found. The rising cases correspond with a change in guidelines for PSA (prostate-specific antigen) testing, in which the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) stopped recommending the screenings in 2012, according to the UCSF press release. Read On The Fox News App The guidelines were changed in order to reduce the number of prostate cancer patients who were treated with "potentially harmful interventions" for non-threatening forms of the disease. Men's Cancer Deaths Expected To Spike More Than 90% By 2050, Study Finds According to UCSF, prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and the second-leading cause of cancer deaths. Most prostate cancer tumors, however, are low-grade and "never spread" — and the PSA screening "does not differentiate between aggressive or non-aggressive tumors, leading many men to be diagnosed with cancers that would not hurt them in the long run," the release stated. "On the other hand, if screening isn't done, timely diagnosis of more advanced cancers can be missed – those cancers might have been successfully treated if found early," UCSF noted. The freeze in screenings "unfortunately may have led to one of the largest subsequent rises in incidence of distant stage disease," according to the researchers. UCSF wrote that these findings "reinforce the need for screening that can identify potentially fatal tumors without raising false alarms about ones that pose no threat to the patient." "Figuring out the best way to screen for prostate cancer continues to be a challenge for researchers and doctors," lead study author Dr. Erin L. Van Blarigan, UCSF associate professor of epidemiology, biostatistics and urology, said in a statement. Click Here To Sign Up For Our Health Newsletter "Without screening, the number of men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer – when treatments are less effective – increases fast." Fox News senior medical analyst Dr. Marc Siegel, who was not involved in the study, also called out the need for regular screenings. For more Health articles, visit "[Screenings] decreased in many areas, including California, as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA as a regular screening tool, which I always disagreed with," he told Fox News Digital. "Especially as MRI advanced, so not all elevated PSA automatically meant a biopsy." Based on the increase in prostate cancer cases across all ages, Siegel emphasized the need to "diagnose it early for better outcomes." Siegel suggested that the increase in cases could also be due to a variety of factors, including the obesity epidemic, ultraprocessed foods and an increase in alcohol consumption and fatty foods. David R. Wise, MD, PhD, urologic oncologist and the service chief of the Genitourinary Medical Oncology Program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, also reacted to this rise in cases. "The increasing incidence of metastatic prostate cancer in California in the 2010s is consistent with reports by others, including the American Cancer Society," Wise, who was not involved in the research, told Fox News Digital. "It likely reflects the aftermath of diminished prostate cancer screening. A return to prostate cancer screening will likely reverse this effect." "Optimized screening, enhanced by MRI and novel blood-based biomarkers, is now available and is poised to spare men with low risk disease from unnecessary treatment while ensuring early detection for men with aggressive cancer," he article source: Prostate cancer cases spike in this US state as doctors share likely reason
Fox News
06-02-2025
- Health
- Fox News
Prostate cancer cases spike in this US state as doctors share likely reason
Cases of prostate cancer are on the rise in California, according to new research. A study by UC San Francisco (UCSF) included nearly 388,000 men who had prostate cancer between 2004 and 2021. The incidence rate of cases increased 6.7% per year on average between 2011 and 2021, the JAMA-published research revealed. Although cases rose, prostate cancer mortality rates declined 2.6% per year from 2004 to 2012, and plateaued from 2012 to 2021. These trends were similar across age, race, ethnicity and region, the researchers found. The rising cases correspond with a change in guidelines for PSA (prostate-specific antigen) testing, in which the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) stopped recommending the screenings in 2012, according to the UCSF press release. The guidelines were changed in order to reduce the number of prostate cancer patients who were treated with "potentially harmful interventions" for non-threatening forms of the disease. According to UCSF, prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men and the second-leading cause of cancer deaths. Most prostate cancer tumors, however, are low-grade and "never spread" — and the PSA screening "does not differentiate between aggressive or non-aggressive tumors, leading many men to be diagnosed with cancers that would not hurt them in the long run," the release stated. "On the other hand, if screening isn't done, timely diagnosis of more advanced cancers can be missed – those cancers might have been successfully treated if found early," UCSF noted. The freeze in screenings "unfortunately may have led to one of the largest subsequent rises in incidence of distant stage disease," according to the researchers. "If screening isn't done, timely diagnosis of more advanced cancers can be missed." UCSF wrote that these findings "reinforce the need for screening that can identify potentially fatal tumors without raising false alarms about ones that pose no threat to the patient." "Figuring out the best way to screen for prostate cancer continues to be a challenge for researchers and doctors," lead study author Dr. Erin L. Van Blarigan, UCSF associate professor of epidemiology, biostatistics and urology, said in a statement. "Without screening, the number of men diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer – when treatments are less effective – increases fast." Fox News senior medical analyst Dr. Marc Siegel, who was not involved in the study, also called out the need for regular screenings. For more Health articles, visit "[Screenings] decreased in many areas, including California, as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA as a regular screening tool, which I always disagreed with," he told Fox News Digital. "Especially as MRI advanced, so not all elevated PSA automatically meant a biopsy." Based on the increase in prostate cancer cases across all ages, Siegel emphasized the need to "diagnose it early for better outcomes." Siegel suggested that the increase in cases could also be due to a variety of factors, including the obesity epidemic, ultraprocessed foods and an increase in alcohol consumption and fatty foods. David R. Wise, MD, PhD, urologic oncologist and the service chief of the Genitourinary Medical Oncology Program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, also reacted to this rise in cases. "A return to prostate cancer screening will likely reverse this effect." "The increasing incidence of metastatic prostate cancer in California in the 2010s is consistent with reports by others, including the American Cancer Society," Wise, who was not involved in the research, told Fox News Digital. "It likely reflects the aftermath of diminished prostate cancer screening. A return to prostate cancer screening will likely reverse this effect." "Optimized screening, enhanced by MRI and novel blood-based biomarkers, is now available and is poised to spare men with low risk disease from unnecessary treatment while ensuring early detection for men with aggressive cancer," he added.
