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

New Yorkers’ Health Costs Spiral as Officials Take Credit for ‘Savings’

The latest round of health insurance premium hikes announced by New York regulators adds to evidence that state policies are drowning consumers instead of helping them. Late last mo Read More

What Paul Francis Got Wrong About the Empire Center’s Nursing Home Research

In February 2021, the Empire Center published the first independent analysis of the Cuomo's administration much-debated directive ordering Covid-positive patients into nursing homes. The report found that the directive was associated with a statistically significant increase in resident deaths in the homes that admitted the  infected patients. Read More

Internal Cuomo Administration Documents Showed Evidence of Harm from Nursing Home Order

State Health Department documents from June 2020, newly unearthed by congressional investigators, appear to show harmful effects from a controversial order requiring nursing homes to admit Covid-positive patients. Read More

On Covid in Nursing Homes, There’s No Comparison Between Cuomo and Walz

Former Governor Andrew Cuomo and his political critics have something in common: They're both trying to drag Minnesota Governor Tim Walz into Cuomo's nursing home scandal. Cuomo’s attempt to hide behind Walz, li Read More

How 1199 Earns its Reputation as Albany’s No. 1 Labor Power Broker

For the fourth time in six years, the president of New York's largest health-care union, George Gresham of 1199SEIU, has won the top spot on the "Labor Power 100" list from City &am Read More

New York Runs Away from the Pack on Medicaid Spending

New York's per capita Medicaid spending jumped 14 percent in 2023, moving it further ahead of the rest of the country, recently released nationwide data show. In the federal fiscal year that ended last September, New York spent $95.6 billion on Medicai Read More

State Offers Taxpayer-Funded Health Coverage to Unionized Home Care Workers

In a new subsidy for the health-care union 1199 SEIU, the Hochul administration is allowing the union's benefit fund for home care aides to shift some members into taxpayer-funded health coverage through the Essential Plan. Read More

A Closer Look at $4 Billion in State Capital Grants to Health Providers

[Editor's note: This post was corrected after it came to light that records supplied by the Health Department gave wrong addresses for 44 grant recipients. The statistics and tables below were updated on July 18.] Read More