<p>You definitely need a prescription in New York. My doctor gave me a prescription in October so I could have a mammogram done in December, but I never got around to it, so now if I still want to get it done I’ll have to go through the embarrassment of calling her and asking her for a new prescription. If I could just schedule one without a prescription, it would make life easier.</p>
<p>I think I could get a mammogram without a referral, but I also think my insurance won’t pay for it unless I get a referral.</p>
<p>(On edit: DonnaL, pick up the phone tomorrow morning and call. Don’t be embarrassed; the nurse or receptionist who takes the call has heard the same story a zillion times, and will be glad you are actually going to get the mammogram.)</p>
<p>I get referrals updated every year for something or other that I let expire. The office workers don’t mind.</p>
<p>My mammogram referral didn’t have a date on it. It must have been nearly a year old when I used it. I dread having the tests, so I tend to stretch it to 1.5-2 years. Now they are recommending annual MRI’s as well, alternating with the mammograms. I don’t thing I’m going every six months to have someone poke and prod the barely existent gals ;).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right. And the radiology clinic has a couple of docs hangin’ around which can just add the order/script to your file.</p>
<p>I’ve seen some people talking about the fact that PP doesn’t provide mammograms directly, and implying this would be a reason to de-fund their service-- that only mammograms are a cancer detection service worth funding. </p>
<p>It is important to realize that manual breast exams by professionals are an important detection activity, and (especially) teaching young women how to do, and the importance of, self-exams. Plus most young adults of the ages commonly seen by PP do not need screening mammograms. They would only be referred if they had some reason to need one.</p>
<p>I can testify to the fact that many cancers are found by self-examination and missed by mammograms. So, yes, the cancer detection services directly provided by PP are a crucial part of the chain, as well as the mammogram referrals.</p>
<p>[Karen</a> Handel, Susan G. Komen’s Anti-Abortion VP, Drove Decision To Defund Planned Parenthood](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen's Anti-Abortion VP, Drove Decision To Defund Planned Parenthood | HuffPost Latest News) </p>
<p>Sounds like Komen walked into a buzzsaw. It may have been that Handel’s plan was more highly coordinated in advance - if she knew when the so-called “investigation” of PP was to be launched, she could time the suggested change in the grant approval process. In any case, they walked right into it. Their board really is a bunch of lightweights, and they got rolled.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Looks like the American public is not as stupid as she takes us for!</p>
<p>I still have Wednesday as the day Handel steps down.</p>
<p>Interesting that Bassett, the reporter, says that she herself saw internal Komen emails showing that Handel had her fingerprints all over this decision as many suspected, and that Handel herself trumped up the “investigation” excuse.</p>
<p>But the Board approved the plan. And then they were disappointed that Planned Parenthood made the decision public. They really are hopelessly naive.</p>
<p>I like what this board member had to say,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree, pugmadkate. They’d do well to have Brinker make an apology like that, dump Handel and try to put the whole episode behind them. People who have strong feelings on the Planned Parenthood issue (on either side) would still be mad-- but most people are in the middle and just want Komen to work on breast cancer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is true, and I can’t imagine that it isn’t, then it’s the nail on the coffin; SGK will forever lose all credibility unless the board and/or Brinker demand she step down.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the buck stops with Brinker. Handel was simply a new VP. Handel isn’t on the Board. Brinker is the President. The best that could be said about her is that she is weak. The worst is that she liked what she heard - after all, she likely hired Handel. Handel’s fingerprints aren’t news. Did she collude with the Congressman around the so-called “investigation”?</p>
<p>Isn’t it Brinker that should have to step down?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes and no. There is no doubt that health education is important, but that is not providing mammograms. And as you note, young women rarely need mammograms. In essence, you are supporting Komen’s decision to defund (since they are giving the money to PP for mammos, not health ed).</p>
<p>Which is why this is one of the stupidest decisions possible. Komen could have easily just let the PP grants run their course, and phase them out. The few hundred thousand is peanuts to PP.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That would be fine if Komen wanted to pay for teaching self-exams, but they apparently did not. Their money was supposed to be targeted to pay for actual mammos. And if PP was using the money for other things (health ed), that is inappropriate use of a restricted donation (since it does not follow the donor’s wishes).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but I think almost any young woman who goes in for an annual gyne exam is also given a breast exam. Especially given that so many of them are on BCP. Of course, breast exams are not 100% reliable (just as mammograms aren’t), but it’s a start, and in my opinion, it’s never too late to get young women in the habit of doing their own monthly exams. I think what PP does do is empower young women to learn more about their reproductive health needs (whether they’re sexually active or not) and breast screenings are just as important as pap smears. My very first contact with PP was when I was in college, before I was sexually active, and my last contact was when I went to them for a pregnancy test when I became pregnant with D1. I do remember them spending a lot of time with me, educating me about women’s health issues, including doing monthly breast self-exams. My pregnancy with D1 was very much wanted, and they were thrilled that I was happy with my results. I think they also gave me some pre-natal vitamins to get me going until I could research and decide what OB-GYN I wanted to take over my care. </p>
<p>I suspect that part of their mission includes being able to provide referrals for any medical issues that may present themselves during the course of an annual exam, whether it be a breast lump, abnormal pap smear, fibroids, etc. I’m sure they have other community resources they refer out to, to handle more complex health issues.</p>
<p>^^all of those are wonderful services provided by PP at no (or little) charge, teriwtt. </p>
<p>But health education is not what Komen provided the grants for. They provided grants to pay for mammos. It is a misuse of donor dollars to use them for any other purpose without the permission of the donor. The accountants even have to verify that such donated funds (“restricted” in IRS lingo) are used in the manner in which the donor specifies. The Board of PP cannot use the $ otherwise (again, without donor permission).</p>
<p>It would like donating money to a college scholarship fund for low-income kids and then the college takes that money and turns it into a merit program which benefits only one-percenters.</p>
<p>bluebayou-- Wikipedia says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously, I don’t have a copy of the contracts in front of me, but why do you think PP was funded only to do mammograms? And as far as the health education, doctors can teach you how to do self-exams while they are doing their own exam.</p>
<p>I expect that Komen funded PP for more than mammograms. Since they have been funding PP for many years, the use of funds had already been scrutinized for many years by their accountants so as not to fall afoul of IRS regs. I’m sure they know (and knew for many years) that PP (in many locations) doesn’t directly provide mammograms, but referrals, and that it wasn’t a problem. Komen made and makes no claim that PP used any of the funds for anything other than intended.</p>
<p>I don’t disagree mini. I have no doubt that Komen has been funding all types of breast care services to-date. But the press release * by PP* made it clear that Komen was gonna discontinue their support of PP so Komen could focus on mammos.</p>
<p>But yet many on this thread have extolled the virtues of all the wonderful services offered by PP. </p>
<p>My point is that any donor can add restrictions to their donations. The donors only want to fund what they want to fund. It’s their money and their right, as a private foundation. Thus, the other services offered by PP are no longer that relevant to the donor; at least Komen no longer wants to support them going forward. In essence, Komen is redirecting funding from health ed and putting more $ into mammos. Less health educ = more mammos. OTOH, continued health educ = less mammos.</p>
<p>You wrote: “But health education is not what Komen provided the grants for. They provided grants to pay for mammos.”</p>
<p>But my point was that Komen DID provide grants for health education/screening/referrals. They could decide to do differently in the future (and of course that’s their right). But there is no evidence whatsoever that PP did not use the grants as Komen intended, and Komen makes no such claim. </p>
<p>PP hasn’t had such good publicity about what they actually do (and new fundraising opportunities) in years. But I’m not gloating - I’m saddened about what happened at Komen, and don’t think they’ll be able to dig out except in a very weakened state.</p>
<p>And I don’t want to scapegoat Handel either (like much of the liberal media does). Komen knew what Handel was about before they hired her. Brinker is the problem.</p>