pink-ribbon-14306811601dc-222x300-5897610State legislators have taken their mania for insurance mandates to a new extreme: They’ve passed a bill that arguably accomplishes nothing other than covering unnecessary mammograms.

Unless vetoed by Governor Andrew Cuomo, this mandate would not only waste millions, but possibly do more harm than good for the women it’s supposed to help.

The bill in question, sponsored by Senator Joseph Griffo of Rome and Assemblywoman Rebecca Seawright of Manhattan, adds “breast tomosynthesis,” a high-tech form of mammography, to the long list of procedures that state-regulated health plans must pay for.

Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011, the technique generates a 3-D X-ray image of the breast, and shows promise of more accurately identifying signs of cancer, especially in the roughly half of women who have dense breast tissue.

However, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and other experts say there is not yet enough clinical evidence to show that the technique improves health outcomes in women of average risk, as has been proven with traditional mammograms.

In the face of this scientific uncertainty, Governor Cuomo announced in February that regulators at the Department of Financial Services were ordering health plans to cover tomosynthesis “when medically necessary.” The order seemed largely symbolic, since the state Health Plan Association said its members already covered tomosynthesis when medically necessary.

But the DFS rule left plans with sensible discretion to limit coverage – such as covering the procedure only for women with dense breast tissue or a family history of breast cancer, or simply requiring a doctor’s recommendation.

Had the Legislature simply codified the same rule as law, that would be bad enough. Writing medical guidelines into statute is a dangerous business, especially when the science remains unsettled.

But the Griffo-Seawright mandate bill goes well beyond the DFS rule. It includes no mention of medical necessity, family history, dense tissue, or a doctor’s recommendation. Instead, it expands the state’s existing mammography mandate to include tomosynthesis, effectively adding it as a routine procedure for all women.

Since the DFS has previously mandated coverage of medically necessary tomosynthesis screens, the only practical impact of Griffo-Seawright is to require coverage, by law, for unnecessary ones.

Already, the state’s existing screening law, written years ago, goes beyond the current guidelines of expert organizations. For women of average risk, it requires coverage of a baseline mammogram as young as 35, then yearly screens starting at 40 with no upper age limit.

The Preventive Services Task Force, by contrast, recommends every-other-year mammograms from 50 to 74 for average women, and starting at age 40 for women at high risk.

The task force based its guidelines not on cost, but on the potential harm of excessive screening – including the anxiety and unnecessary biopsies and treatments that result from false alarms.

But of course mammograms of all kinds cost money, and requiring payment for unnecessary procedures will only add to the high cost of healthcare in New York State.

Despite these concerns, the Assembly approved Griffo-Seawright unanimously on March 30, and the Senate did the same on Thursday.

As Trudy Lieberman of Health News Review wrote earlier this year, regarding the DFS order: “Breast cancer is good politics, and when votes are at stake, inconvenient or nuanced science gets overlooked.”

About the Author

Bill Hammond

As the Empire Center’s senior fellow for health policy, Bill Hammond tracks fast-moving developments in New York’s massive health care industry, with a focus on how decisions made in Albany and Washington affect the well-being of patients, providers, taxpayers and the state’s economy.

Read more by Bill Hammond

You may also like

How Washington’s Budget Bill Will Affect Health Care in New York

UPDATE: The final version of the federal budget bill omitted a handful of provisions that had been included in earlier drafts. One would have penalized states that use their own money to provide coverage for undocumente Read More

Even With Federal Cuts, New York’s Health Funding Would Remain High

New York's health-care industry stands to lose billions of dollars in federal funding under the major budget bill being debated in Washington – a rare and jarring turn of events for a sector accustomed to steadily increas Read More

As Albany’s Session Ends, Watch for Rising Health Costs

Every session of the state Legislature brings a fresh crop of proposals that would drive up health-care costs, and 2025 is no exception. Here is a sampling of pending bills that, if Read More

House Budget Would Burst New York’s Essential Plan Bubble

The extraordinary cash bonanza associated with New York's Essential Plan – which has generated billions more than state officials were able to spend – would come to a crashing end under the budget bill advancing in Cong Read More

The House GOP’s Shrinking Budget Plan Could Still Cost New York Billions

The likely impact of federal health-care cutbacks has diminished in recent days as House Republican leaders backed away from some of their bigger-ticket proposals, reducing the estimated savings to $625 billion from previous figures of $715 billion and $8 Read More

Highlights of Albany’s Bloated and Belated Budget

The state Legislature approved the last of nine budget bills Thursday evening, 38 days after the start of the fiscal year. Here are some highlights of the fiscal impact of final spending plan: Top lines Read More

How Medicaid ‘Expansion’ Changes Could Affect New York

As House Republicans consider cutbacks to federal Medicaid funding, their focus has turned to the so-called expansion population. Although the details of remain undetermined, the s Read More

New York’s Home Health Workforce Jumps by Another 10 Percent

New York's home health employment is continuing to soar, growing by 57,000 jobs or 10 percent from 2023 to 2024, according to newly released data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Read More