Latest news with #USPSTF
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Lung Cancer Screening Market to Reach USD 7.44 Billion by 2032, Driven by LDCT Adoption and Growing High-Risk Population
Global Lung Cancer Screening Market Forecast (2025–2032) Shows 9.32% CAGR, U.S. Market to Hit USD 2.21 Billion by 2032 Amid Early Detection Demand and Technological Advancements. Austin, Aug. 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Lung Cancer Screening Market Size & Growth Analysis: According to SNS Insider, The Lung Cancer Screening Market was estimated at USD 3.66 billion in 2024 and is expected to reach USD 7.44 billion by 2032, at a CAGR of 9.32% during the forecast period of 2025-2032. The global lung cancer screening market growth is driven by the increasing prevalence of lung cancer and growing adoption of screening, initiatives to increase awareness about lung cancer, and the introduction of new and advanced products. Favorable governmental policies, rising healthcare infrastructure, and technological advancements are other factors driving Free Sample Report of the Lung Cancer Screening Market: The U.S. lung cancer screening market was estimated at USD 1.12 billion in 2024 and is expected to reach USD 2.21 billion by 2032, at a CAGR of 8.89% during the forecast period of 2025-2032 The U.S. dominated the North American lung cancer screening market, driven by robust policy support and early uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) among the eligible high-risk population of 50 to 80-year-olds with a smoking history of 20+ pack-years under updated USPSTF guidelines. Segmentation & Regional Highlights By Modality, the LDCT Segment Dominates the Lung Cancer Screening Market in 2024 The low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) segment held the largest share of the lung cancer screening market in 2024 with a 61.2% market share owing to high accuracy, non-invasive nature, and support by such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and other major health societies. LDCT allows early lung cancer diagnosis in high-risk patients and dramatically improves survival. Incorporation of cancer screening and insurance coverage has facilitated adoption, particularly in the developed world. By Cancer Type, the Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Segment Dominates the Market and is Witnessing High Growth Over the Forecast Period Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) segment held a major share of the lung cancer screening market in 2024 as a result of the high prevalence of NSCLC among the population, which accounts for nearly 85% of all lung cancer cases around the globe. NSCLC is slow compared to small cell lung cancer, making it possible for more cases to be found early and diagnosed during screening. The demand for NSCLC screening has also increased with the development of targeted therapies and biomarkers for NSCLC. The 60–69 Years Segment Dominated the Lung Cancer Screening Market by Age Group The 60–69 years age group dominated the Lung Cancer Screening Market in the year 2024, owing to the higher prevalence of lung cancer in this age group. Members of this group are usually longer-term smokers or have had more exposure to carcinogens, and are therefore at higher risk, justifying the need for regular screening. Many countries' medical guidelines give this age range priority for low-dose CT screening, which has driven an increase in use. Lung Cancer Screening Market in North America Led in 2024 with a 40.3% Market Share, APAC Poised to be the Fastest-Growing Regional Market. The lung cancer screening market in North America is driven by the well-developed healthcare system, early uptake of advanced screening technologies such as LDCT, and favorable reimbursement scenarios. Marked awareness of lung cancer, full-scale enforcement of national screening guidelines, and a strong position of key players provide additional prospects for regional supremacy. Screening programmes promoted by governmental institutions such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) have increased the screening rates, especially in high-risk individuals, and the region has evolved into a global market leader. The Asia-Pacific lung cancer screening market is estimated to register the highest CAGR, on account of a rise in the incidence of lung cancer, increasing awareness, and the increasing healthcare expenditure in the region. China, India, Japan, and other countries are enhancing early cancer screening initiatives, expanding access to LDCT and biomarker testing. For a Personalized Briefing with Our Industry Analysts, Connect Now: Key Lung Cancer Screening Companies Profiled in the Report GE HealthCare Siemens Healthineers Philips Healthcare Canon Medical Systems Corporation Fujifilm Holdings Corporation Samsung Medison Co. Ltd. Carestream Health Shimadzu Corporation Vuno Inc. Zebra Medical Vision Aidoc Riverain Technologies Lunit Inc. Roche Diagnostics Illumina Inc. Guardant Health Exact Sciences Corporation Bio-Rad Laboratories CT Screening International and other players. Lung Cancer Screening Market Report Scope Report Attributes Details Market Size in 2024 US$ 3.66 billion Market Size by 2032 US$ 7.44 billion CAGR CAGR of 9.32% From 2025 to 2032 Base Year 2024 Forecast Period 2025-2032 Historical Data 2021-2023 Regional Analysis North America (US, Canada, Mexico), Europe (Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, Turkey, Rest of Europe), Asia Pacific (China, India, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, Rest of Asia Pacific), Middle East & Africa (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, South Africa, Rest of Middle East & Africa), Latin America (Brazil, Argentina, Rest of Latin America) Key Growth Drivers Growing incidence of lung cancer worldwide Increased public awareness and government-led screening programs Advancements in imaging technologies (e.g., AI-enabled CT scans) Rising demand for non-invasive and early-stage cancer detection Supportive reimbursement policies in the U.S. and Europe Unique Selling Propositions (USPs) of the Report: Country-level eligibility for the screening landscape Assists your company in prioritizing markets that have high potential opportunity by comparing age, risk, and reimbursement criteria for screening across countries. Adoption curves comparison: LDCT vs. new technologies Facilitates strategic planning by identifying lung cancer screening early adopters vs. laggards for LDCT and next-gen technologies, and helps to launch market entry timing. Biomarker Inclusion in Lung Screening Helps companies make R&D and partnership decisions by monitoring how molecular diagnostics are supplementing or undercutting traditional screening. RoS (Return on Screening) Modelling Measures the cost per site of value of your screening programs to enable XYZ Company to create a persuasive business case for customers or reimbursement agencies, or health authorities. Buy the Full Lung Cancer Screening Market Report (Single-User License) Now: About Us: SNS Insider is one of the leading market research and consulting agencies that dominates the market research industry globally. Our company's aim is to give clients the knowledge they require in order to function in changing circumstances. In order to give you current, accurate market data, consumer insights, and opinions so that you can make decisions with confidence, we employ a variety of techniques, including surveys, video talks, and focus groups around the world. CONTACT: Contact Us: Jagney Dave - Vice President of Client Engagement Phone: +1-315 636 4242 (US) | +44- 20 3290 5010 (UK) Email: info@ in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
6 days ago
- Health
- USA Today
There's a war brewing between medical groups and RFK Jr. It's about to explode.
Dr. Beth Oller is no stranger to answering questions about COVID-19 and flu shots. As a family physician in Stockton, Kansas, she's fielded many questions over the years about vaccine safety and effectiveness. But lately, there are new questions that stump her: Can I get the shot this fall and will my insurance cover it? 'I legitimately don't know and that's why it's so confusing,' said Oller, who is also a clinical instructor at the University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita. While Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. changed guidance recommending the COVID-19 shot for healthy people, medical groups representing doctors have publicly rejected those changes. RFK Jr. and ultra-processed foods: What does it mean for your diet? The constant back-and-forth between the department and the nation's top doctors is creating confusion and sowing distrust among patients and providers, said Dr. Stephen Patrick, chair of health policy and management at Emory University's Rollins School of Public Health. As new developments emerge, policies impacting patients and their healthcare hang in the balance. "At the root level, these actions affect people and children,' Patrick said. 'Each of these things are linked to what we do (as doctors) and often linked to what states do and what insurance companies do and that's where a lot of these things can be worrisome.' What has happened so far? In the span of just a few months, Kennedy has made monumental changes to a longstanding system that crafts health policy and recommendations. In June, the Health Secretary fired an entire vaccine panel and hired eight new members, including some vaccine skeptics. In its first meeting later that month, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted to remove a controversial ingredient that was largely phased out of influenza vaccines. On July 9, Kennedy also postponed another health committee meeting hosted by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), sparking concerns that the Health Secretary may be planning to fire task force members. Medical groups pushed back immediately. The American Academy of Pediatrics refused to attend the ACIP meeting. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists announced it was no longer accepting federal funding. And the American Medical Association sent Kennedy a letter urging the Health Secretary to retain the USPSTF's original members. Several organizations have also sued Kennedy over HHS guidance that no longer recommended the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children and pregnant women, a move that broke with previous expert guidance and bypassed the normal scientific review process. The Health Department announced on August 5 that it was winding down development activities for mRNA, the vaccine technology behind the COVID-19 shot, according to a video posted on X. Liaisons that represented these professional organizations were banned on July 31 from ACIP work groups that would typically assist with vaccine reviews and craft recommendation language, according to media reports. What does this all mean? Although many of the policies have yet to take effect, 'all the noise' in Washington has already impacted Americans, Patrick said. A new survey from Emory University shows how most of the policy decisions haven't been widely popular and sowed more distrust and doubt in health systems. About 85% of Americans who voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election reported decreased trust from the ACIP firings, while only 34% of those who voted for President Donald Trump reported increased trust, according to the survey published August 6. Similarly, about 65% of Harris voters reported decreased trust due to the COVID-19 vaccine recommendation changes, while only 35% of Trump voters reported increased trust. About half of Trump voters reported that ACIP and vaccine changes did not affect their trust. So, while many of the changes from HHS were made in the name of improving trust and reducing bias, it seems to have had the opposite effect, Patrick said. 'Many of these changes are not rooted in evidence and not rooted in public support, either, and that's worrisome,' he said. Otter urges patients to continue depending on their family doctors for trusted information. She keeps up with the developing news and tries to parse out the 'squabbling' and 'infighting' to help her patients make the best decisions for their health. 'That's the best we can do as medical organizations,' she said. 'Push out there what the truth is and keep encouraging patients when there are things that are confusing.' Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@
Medscape
05-08-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Younger Adult CRC Still Rising: Time for That Colonoscopy?
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Welcome to Impact Factor , your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I'm Dr F. Perry Wilson from the Yale School of Medicine. I am 45 years old. And I have been 45 years old for 8 months now. And I'm a doctor. A doctor who prides himself on being up to date on medical guidelines, practices, and evidence. And you know what I have not done yet? Not even made an attempt to do yet? Scheduled my screening colonoscopy. Let me be clear, this is not out of some high-minded concern for overdiagnosis or the issue of false positives in screening exams. This is pure, unadulterated, laziness. Or perhaps, if I'm being generous, I simply have too many other things going on in my life to take the 20 minutes to get this thing scheduled. I probably should, because the rate of colorectal cancer among people ages 45-49 has been going up steadily since at least the mid-90s and dramatically over the last few years. We need to figure out what's going on. We're going to dig into the rising incidence of so-called 'early onset' colon cancer in a minute, but let me point out that, in recognition of the changing demographics of the disease, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (yes, that same USPSTF that may soon be fired en masse by RFK Jr) changed their recommended starting screening age from 50 to 45 years of age in 2021. With a stroke of a pen, 45 million Americans were suddenly eligible for colon cancer screening, typically through colonoscopy or a fecal immunochemical test: that's the one you do at home that lets you know if there is microscopic blood in your stool. And now, 4 years later, we can look back and see the effect that change in screening criteria had. In fact, appearing this week in JAMA, we have a trio of papers looking at the issue of early-onset colorectal cancer from a few different angles: How to get younger people like me to screen, how much younger people like me are screening, and how much new colon cancer we are detecting. Let's start with the screening numbers. In Trends in Colorectal Cancer Screening in US Adults Aged 45 to 49 Years, Jessica Star at the American Cancer Society and colleagues used a nationally-representative health survey to look at screening across various age groups and over time. The primary results are here. You can see that screening is pretty rare among 40–44-year-olds and hasn't changed much over time. That seems right; guidelines currently suggest to start screening at 45, not 40. Moving into my age group, you see a dramatic increase from about 20% screening in 2019 and 2021 to 35% screening in 2023. This is about a 60% relative increase in baseline screening rates. It's not perfect, of course. People like me who haven't gotten around to screening yet are still in the majority, but it shows how guideline changes can move the needle on this stuff. Of course, it's worth noting that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) mandates that insurers cover any screening test recommended by the USPSTF. Paying for screening also increases screening. One concern people had about the change in guidelines was that all this new screening in younger people would crowd out screening in older people. The data, fortunately, doesn't show this. Screening rates were high and stable in the over 50 crowd over the past 5 years. If you're a believer in screening, you probably want to know how to improve rates among younger people like me. In another article in this week's JAMA , researchers led by Artin Galoosian at UCLA report out results from a randomized trial that tried four different strategies to increase the screening rate in people aged 45-49. A bit more than 20,000 individuals were randomized. A quarter of them were invited, via an online patient portal, to use the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for screening. Another quarter were invited to do a screening colonoscopy. A quarter were invited to do either; they could choose which they preferred. And, finally, a quarter were simply mailed a FIT. Of the people invited to do FIT testing, 18% got some kind of screening, mostly colonoscopy. Of those invited to colonoscopy, 15% were screened. Of those given the choice between the two, 18% picked one or the other. But in those who just had the test show up in the mail, 28% completed screening. This is pretty powerful data. It confirms a fundamental principle of behavioral economics: People will do something if you make it easy for them. Anecdotally, if I opened the mail tomorrow and a FIT test was in there, I'm pretty sure I would do it. Since that isn't standard of care (yet), I need to call my PCP (who I haven't seen in like 5 years) and go through the rigamarole. But I'll do it. I will. I think. Now, I opened this commentary by mentioning that all of this research is driven by the simple observation that colorectal cancer rates are increasing in young people. A third paper in JAMA this week, Colorectal Cancer Incidence in US Adults After Recommendations for Earlier Screening, from Elizabeth Schafer and colleagues at the American Cancer Society, tracks those rates for us from 2006 on using the SEER database. There are some really interesting findings here. Let me start with this picture, the rate of any colon cancer diagnosis in individuals aged 45-49. You see a steady uptick, about 1% per year from 2006 on, and then a dramatic increase (about 12%) in the past few years. That's a scary graph. But I'll de-scare it a bit for you. Here is the graph for local colorectal cancer over that time period. These are early cancers that have not yet spread. It looks very similar. In fact, according to the paper, nearly all of that accelerated increase in the past few years is driven by early, local cancers. That is a strong signal that it is the increased screening that is leading to increased diagnosis, as opposed to some new environmental or other exposure. And, since early cancers are more treatable, we can potentially argue that this increase is actually a good thing. Better to detect now than later. But the rise in [colorectal cancer] in young people is not all due to screening. Here is the graph showing the rate of colorectal cancer with distant metastases over time. You see a steady increase — no big inflection that we can attribute to more screening. Nor would you expect there to be, as screening is really optimized to catch early cancers, not metastatic ones. Bottom line: If you hear headlines about a startling rise in colorectal cancer in young people, realize that there is nuance here. Yes, there has been a dramatic rise in the last few years, mostly because we are catching early cancers through screening. But there has also been a slower rise over a much longer time period. Over decades. Which leaves the question of… why? Why is colon cancer affecting younger and younger people over time? What has changed in our lives during the past 30 years? There is no smoking gun, but there are an awful lot of possibilities. I think the obesity epidemic is a big one here, and it will be interesting to see if these curves flatten in the GLP-1 era. But there are other possibilities: microbiome changes, ultraprocessed foods, even microplastics. It will take a bit more detailed epidemiology to get to the bottom of the increased risk in younger people. But, given the data, well, I should probably call my PCP and get that damn colonoscopy scheduled.
New York Post
04-08-2025
- Health
- New York Post
A key habit boosts colorectal cancer survival rates — as docs see ‘tremendous increase' in young people with the disease
Don't stall — your butt is on the line. Nearly 53,000 Americans are expected to die of colorectal cancer this year, making it one of the deadliest cancers in the US. Though the death rate has been declining in older adults, it has been steadily rising among people younger than 55 since the 1990s. Because of this worrisome trend, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered its recommendation for starting colorectal cancer screening from age 50 to 45 in 2021. The American Cancer Society (ACS) made the same suggestion in 2018 for people at average risk for the disease. 4 Though the colorectal cancer death rate has been declining in older adults, it has been steadily rising among people younger than 55 since the 1990s. ryanking999 – New research out Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows the guidance is working. Colorectal cancer screening among Americans aged 45 to 49 rose by 62% from 2019 to 2023. 'It's not only thrilling to see the increase in colorectal cancer screening among younger adults, but also how it likely ties into rises in earlier stage diagnosis as noted in the other ACS-led paper,' said lead study author Jessica Star, an ACS associate scientist for cancer risk factors and screening surveillance research. The increase in screenings appears to have paved the way for an uptick in diagnoses of early-stage colorectal cancer among 45- to 49-year-olds. Early stage typically means the disease hasn't spread beyond the colon or rectum. Early-stage diagnoses in 45- to 49-year-olds rose from 11.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2021 to 17.5 cases per 100,000 people in 2022, according to a study also published Monday in JAMA. 4 Because of this concerning trend, the US Preventive Services Task Force lowered its recommendation for starting colorectal cancer screening from age 50 to 45 in 2021. A colonoscopy, a popular screening method, is shown here. ShvedKristina – Early detection can significantly improve survival rates and treatment outcomes. 'We still have a long way to go,' Star said. 'Screening for colorectal cancer in ages 45-49 remains suboptimal and has not increased equitably by both educational attainment and insurance status.' Colonoscopies, when a doctor uses a long, thin, flexible tube to examine the colon for abnormalities, spiked 43% and stool-based testing jumped more than 5-fold from 2019 to 2023 in the 45 to 49 group. Every racial and ethnic group underwent more screenings, as people without a high school diploma and uninsured people sat on the sidelines. ACS warns that screening is more important than ever. Advanced-stage colorectal cancer has risen 1.7% to 2.9% annually since 2004 among adults younger than 45 and even more sharply in the past decade in people 45 to 54. 4 Scientists aren't exactly sure why colorectal cancer patients are getting younger. Several factors could be to blame. Nadzeya – 'I've been in practice for 25 years, and I can tell you over the last 10 years and particularly over the last five years, we have seen a tremendous increase in cancer in young patients,' Dr. David Rivadeneira — director of the Northwell Health Cancer Institute at Huntington Hospital and a colorectal cancer specialist, who was not involved in the new research — told The Post. 'We never used to see this,' he added. 'This used to be a diagnosis you give to someone in their mid-50s, 60s, 70s or 80s.' Scientists aren't exactly sure why colorectal cancer patients are getting younger. They have pointed the finger at the prevalence of obesity, sedentary lifestyles, the Western diet, excess sugar consumption and environmental factors such as pollutants in the air, soil and water. Rivadeneira noted that he now recommends a colonoscopy for people with any concerning symptoms, no matter their age. Common colorectal cancer symptoms include changes in bathroom habits, blood in stool, stomach pain or cramping, unexplained weight loss and fatigue. Surgery is the primary treatment for most colon cancers, with survival rates influenced by the stage of the disease. 4 Common colorectal cancer symptoms include changes in bathroom habits, blood in stool, stomach pain or cramping, unexplained weight loss and fatigue. ryanking999 – Stage 1 colon cancer is curable 90% of the time with just surgery and no other treatment, Rivadeneira said. Stage 2 — when the tumor is larger and has grown through the bowel wall but has not spread to nearby lymph nodes — has a survival rate of 80% to 85%. 'When you go to Stage 3, now it's spread to the lymph nodes, it drops down to the 60% mark,' Rivadeneira said. 'So the sooner the tumors are detected, the higher the cure rate and again, no need for chemotherapy or any additional treatment besides the surgery.'
Yahoo
02-08-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
RFK Indefinitely Postponed A Critical Meeting — And It Could Have 'Devastating Effects' On All Of Us
It's hard to keep track of the funding cuts, layoffs, vaccine recommendation changes and other major shake-ups happening within the country's federal public health organizations at the hands of the Trump administration and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary. One of the latest changes is RFK Jr's postponement of a preventive health panel meeting by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which was scheduled for July 10 and the rumored dismissal of all task force members, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. The USPSTF sets guidelines for preventive health screenings for conditions such as diabetes, depression and cancer in children and adults. Insurance companies are then required to cover these screenings based on the USPSTF's guidelines. This news comes not long after Kennedy postponed the meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which sets vaccine recommendations, and replaced the entire committee with individuals known to spread vaccine and health misinformation, according to earlier HuffPost reporting. The changes to the USPSTF meeting and task force members is worrisome for a few reasons and could directly impact your health. Here's what doctors want you to know: This task force sets preventive screening recommendations. Changes or delays to the meeting schedule can mean missed diagnoses or changes to what insurance companies cover. The United States Preventive Services Task Force, which was formed in 1984, is a group of non-partisan volunteers who are 'nationally recognized experts' in the fields of primary care, prevention and evidence-based medicine, according to the USPTF website. All members are screened for biases, are chosen through public nomination and appointed by the Health and Human Services secretary. They serve four-year terms with new task force members rotating in each year. 'The cancellation of this specific task force ... is going to affect every American if [Kennedy and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services does] what they did to the ACIP and fire or remove the 16 independent medical experts who really scour the literature and then grade the evidence for each of their recommendations,' Dr. Anita Patel, a pediatric critical care doctor in Washington, D.C., told HuffPost. Once again, this hasn't been done yet, but it is allegedly in the works. One of the significant roles of the task force is to make recommendations and guidelines for preventative care services such as mammograms, colonoscopies, depression screenings and more, said Patel. Insurance companies are then required to cover these screenings and services as part of the Affordable Care Act. Doctors across the country also follow these guidelines when recommending health services for patients. In response to the reports of the dismissal of current task force members, the American Medical Association sent a letter to RFK Jr. in support of the task force in which they said, 'USPSTF plays a critical, non-partisan role in guiding physicians' efforts to prevent disease and improve the health of patients by helping to ensure access to evidence-based clinical preventive services.' Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) also backed the task force by introducing a resolution that underscores the importance of the group, according to NPR. 'If the [task force] is unable to continue its work, this could have devastating effects on access to preventive services,' Dr. Oni Blackstock, a primary care physician and executive director of Health Justice, a racial and health equity consultancy, told HuffPost via email. 'We [already] know millions of Americans are at risk for losing their Medicaid,' Blackstock said, referring to the nearly $1 trillion cuts in Medicaid as part of the so-called Big, Beautiful Bill. 'Now, many others who have insurance coverage will be at risk for losing no-cost coverage of preventive care services,' added Blackstock. It's worth knowing that the meeting is currently postponed; it's not clear when it will happen instead, and who will be part of the task force when that time comes. But, as of now, what the task force recommends hasn't changed. 'Canceling the USPSTF meeting without a clear plan to reschedule puts essential, evidence-based health guidance at risk, including continued access to preventive services that millions of Americans rely on, from cancer and diabetes screenings to depression checks to support for breastfeeding,' Dr. David Higgins, a pediatrician and preventive medicine specialist at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, told HuffPost via email. Any delays to the task force's meeting schedule can also cause issues. 'Delays or disruptions can mean delayed diagnoses, missed opportunities for early treatment, and ultimately, worse health outcomes,' added Higgins. Not only do these changes threaten the guidance from the task force, but they 'affect whether a patient catches their cancer early enough or a person with chronic heart disease gets optimal treatment,' he noted. The task force was recently criticized for being 'woke,' which some experts think is why it's being targeted now. 'Unfortunately, this [postponement] fits a troubling pattern of political interference in scientific and public health processes,' Higgins said. Just a few days after Kennedy told panel members that the preventive health meeting was postponed, 'The American Conservative' published an essay titled 'Time for Kennedy to Kill the USPSTF.' The article claimed the task force is 'woke' and follows 'left-wing ideological orthodoxy' and is part of the 'deep state,' among other things. 'The claim that the task force is driven by 'woke' ideology is a political talking point, not a reflection of how the USPSTF actually operates,' said Higgins. 'Their work is based on a rigorous review of scientific evidence. Identifying and addressing disparities in health outcomes is part of delivering high-quality care,' Higgins added. It's well-established that certain demographics do have worse health care outcomes; Black people have higher rates of maternal mortality than other groups, upward of 50% of Latinx folks are predicted to be diagnosed with diabetes, Black people are 30% more likely to have asthma than white people and the list goes on. The task force should be considering how race and gender impacts health outcomes. Blackstock noted that USPSTF hasn't always done this, but that is changing. 'It's lacked community voices and, for a long time, didn't focus on health equity or racism's impact on health and was not focused on ensuring diverse representation among its members,' Blackstock said. Recently, though, this has changed, and the task force has worked to address these issues, Blackstock added. 'It has taken steps to formalize the use of inclusive language, and to flag if data is missing for a population, particularly those that are minoritized,' Blackstock said. The group is also piloting an equity checklist that helps integrate equity throughout the screening recommendation process, Blackstock noted. These recent steps put a target on USPSTF's back, she said. 'I believe this is why the [task force] is being targeted, because it is paying attention to health inequities and racism's harmful effects on health,' Blackstock said. Patel added that USPSTF isn't taking care away from white Americans. Instead, it's 'trying to level the playing field so that everyone got equal care,' Patel noted. 'But, of course, [critics of the task force] saw the term 'diversity' or 'equity' and really tried to blow up one part of a much larger organization to play to their base and say, 'Hey, these guys are woke idiots,'' Patel said. USPSTF is now trying to advance medicine and make sure everyone, no matter where they live or what they look like, has access to preventive health screenings. The task force is here to 'take out the inherent racism that we've had in medicine for decades that has been really unduly perpetuated,' Patel noted. While racism does certainly still exist in medicine, awareness allows medical professionals to address any biases and make sure everyone gets the care they deserve regardless of their race, socioeconomic background or ethnicity, Patel noted. 'It's an evil thing to walk back all of these medical and diversity advancements that we've made in the past decade just because they want to pander to their base. It's unconscionable,' Patel said. Related... Experts Say Trump's Big Bill Will Shut Down This 1 Type Of Hospital — And It'll Impact Multitudes COVID Cases Are Rising This Summer, But Not All The Data Shows It — Here's Why RFK Jr. Keeps Telling A Flat-Out Lie About Childhood Vaccines — And Doctors Are Sick Of It Solve the daily Crossword
