They found that 5% of cancer-causing mutations can be linked to inherited genetic risk, such as the BRCA gene variants that dramatically increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer in women who carry them.
An additional 29% of malignancy-promoting mutations can be attributed to “modifiable” factors — things we can do something about, such as wearing sunscreen and vaccinating ourselves against cancer-causing viruses.
The remaining 66% of genetic mutations known to give cancer a foothold are random transcription errors in DNA, the pair concluded.
I read further though that if you can prevent ONE thing that IS modifiable, you may not give the cancers all the things they need to progress and can prevent the cancer. That ONE thing may be tobacco exposure, pollution, etc. To me we can only lead the best and healthiest life we can and hope for the best. I am grateful that even though I have a serious, progressive chronic health condition, it has baffled my docs by not progressing as they had feared and I am still leading a pretty great quality of life 17 years since diagnosis!
Curious to see if this just delays the inevitable. Providers pulling out left and right and unsustainable premium increases every year…it may very well go away on its own. Time will tell.
I was recently diagnosed with malignant melanoma. I work outside in the sun, in the summer. I am as careful as I can be, use sunscreen, try to stay under an umbrella for the bulk of the day…my cancer was in a place that was not exposed to the sun, and also other moles and growths that were suspicious , had irregular cells…not in the sun. I had to have surgery and unfortunately, I will be on the hook for most of it due to the high deductible of my already expensive monthly premium.
For those who have cushy plans via their employers, for those who were able to obtain Obamacare that gave them access to health insurance for the first time, how do you reconcile those who were left in the dust …dropped from their plans…dropped from their doctors with nowhere to turn ?
I equate it with the mentality that existed before the ACA was passed. I have mine, I don’t care about others who don’t
I wonder if there are two possibilities for tweaking the ACA: one would be to require insurers to cover the individual market if they are active in the group market in that area, or, create a public option for areas where there are less (or no) available individual coverage.
There are LOTS of opportunities for ACA to be improved, but the electeds and president have to work together to craft viable solutions and really try to work to improve things for the public rather than the special interests that provide huge campaign contributions and lobby heavily. I don’t know many people who would say that the insurance landscape in the US can’t be improved–I have federal insurance through my H who worked for the fed govt for 45 years, but I have been working (as a volunteer) to improve healthcare for patients for many, many years, locally and nationally.
The only people “left in the dust” were the working poor who were left out in non-medicaid expansion states – which was NOT the intent of the ACA and is completely the fault of the elected officials in those states and the US Supreme Court; and people whose household incomes are in excess of 400% of the poverty line who are unwilling to pay the premiums for available plans.
I understand the problems with the premiums and deductibles, but my individual-market premiums and deductibles were going up before ACA, and surely would have gone up significantly a few years back when I reached my 60th birthday. At least now I have the option to opt for a high deductible plan, knowing that if I develop a chronic condition I will have the option to select a lower deductible option during the next open renewal.
I am not unsympathetic to your position. But ACA didn’t require any insurance company to drop any doctor from their plan – that is the choice of the insurance companies, to save money. I have a choice of several plans – the one with the most choice for doctors is +$200 more a month than the lowest price plan in the same category (Bronze), which happens to be a Kaiser plan. But that’s simple mathematics – I’m guessing Blue Shield is paying my doctor more for services than Kaiser pays its doctors, and those numbers add up.
In our state, most providers still take most insurance–those who are Kaiser, take Kaiser and the rest take most insurance plans. The copays and deductibles vary widely, of course.
I don’t know the details about the ACA plans, as I have never had an ACA plan, nor have my kids. I do know that my D would not qualify for any subsidy because she earns nothing, so her only option if we were unable to keep her on our plan as a disabled dependent would be to pay whatever the premium is without any subsidy OR to go on Medicaid, IF she qualified (though she may not because she has assets we have gifted her). The options for folks who earn BELOW the amount that can receive subsidies are something that I had not read much about.
The ugly patchwork of different medical insurance coverage options for various categories defined by employment status and such seems to have come about by the desire to preserve “backward compatibility”, since most people with acceptable (to them) coverage are not that willing to change it, even if the replacement is likely to be better. But it makes implementing something that actually makes sense when viewed as a system difficult.
I just hope there is an individual plan for my kid to purchase next year. There is only one right now.
Seems like the state insurance commissions could do something to keep providers from pulling out like having them required to provide individual market policies IF they want to market group plans int he area.
@HImom – under ACA, in the medicaid expansion states, there is no asset tests – eligibility for medicaid is based on income only. So even if your DD had $50,000 in the bank, she would qualify for Medicaid as long as her income is less than 133% of the poverty line. That’s true if she remains in California or if she returns to your home state of Hawaii. (Assets would only come into play if they were substantial enough to produce a disqualifying income – that is, if your daughter could draw $20K a year from investment income, then she would be outside of the scope of Medicaid and instead be eligible for subsidies).
The failed bill had as one small facet a stabilization fund that would have been doled out to states to reinsure nongroup insurance plans, to lower premiums for all subscribers by covering some of the health costs of the most expensive subscribers. That could be something both sides could get behind.
Another idea from the bill that would be popular was giving premium subsidies to people a bit higher up the income scale. The subsidy cliff at 400% of the federal poverty line is a bad policy and an error, and has hurt people. Maybe that could be fixed too.
@lje62 sorry about your difficult diagnosis. We rolled the dice with ACA and at least last year, won our bet. I think we had a $7,000 (each) deductible, and since we stayed healthy we only had to pay for a few minor doctor visits. Insurance paid for annual physicals (no cost, not even a copay), and my colonoscopy. Monthly premiums on this high deductible bronze plan were fully covered by our subsidy. To answer your question, I am greatly bothered, mainly by the lower income folks in states like NC that get NO subsidy and no health insurance. I am also troubled by people who make too much for a subsidy but really arent wealthy and have to pay $1500/month or more for a policy like the one I have, and then must pay the first $7,000 if they end up in the hospital! [So for the year that would be $18,000 in premiums plus $7,000 deductible! Premiums not included in out of pocket max] This is the insurance that critics say is like not having insurance at all.
So what my wife and I have done, is we identified a local health clinic in our town that only deals with people who have no health insurance (no people on Medicaid, no VA, no Medicare) and we support this clinic financially.
My D would NOT get any subsidies to help pay her insurance as her income would be too low (pretty much no income). We didn’t want her to be on Medicaid and are grateful she’s able to remain as a disabled dependent.
It is good to know that she could get Medicaid if she loses her insurance under our family plan. Thanks for deciphering and sharing that.
I don’t think extending the income-based subsidies makes much sense, but maybe that is where the tax credit or deduction that the Republicans liked could come in. So if an older, single taxpayer earning $60K was faced with a $12000 annual insurance cost, maybe that person would be eligible for a $3000 tax credit.
While I understand your preference for a private policy, Medicaid is not all bad. My grandson got excellent care when he broke his leg while on Medicaid, and my disabled ex-husband is probably getting better care now that he is on Medicaid then he did while on Blue Cross – at least he no longer is running into the problem of having needed surgeries cancelled because his insurance company won’t authorize them.
I’m not suggesting that you change what is currently working for you, just that you understand that your D does have a reasonable fallback option, at least under current laws.
It’s good to know and I’m glad to know D has at least an alternative, @calmom. So far, we’ve had great coverage and are grateful she’s able to continue it.