Lung Cancer Alliance Congratulates American College of Chest Physicians for Reaffirming Benefit of Lung Cancer Screening for Those at High Risk

WASHINGTON, May 7, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, Lung Cancer Alliance (LCA) congratulated the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) for reaffirming its support for lung cancer screening for those at risk. This is in response to ACCP's publishing of a special supplement to its May issue of CHEST, ACCP's peer-reviewed journal, which cites evidence that CT screening, through a structured protocol, can reduce lung cancer deaths among high risk individuals. 

In November 2010, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) announced that its National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was being halted because it had scientifically proven the mortality benefit of CT screening for those at risk for lung cancer. Since then, seven national medical societies have followed with screening guideline recommendations.  

In February 2012, LCA launched the National Framework of Lung Cancer Screening Excellence and Continuum of Care  to advise the public of its rights, to lay out the principles of responsible screening and commit to a continuous improvement process through the collection of data on outcomes.

To date, over 130 medical centers have adopted the National Framework or have been identified as following its best practices in cancer care including a multidisciplinary team approach. LCA is working to bring over 50 additional medical centers and their multidisciplinary teams into this network.

"This is not the time or place for fear mongering as lives hang in the balance," said Laurie Fenton Ambrose, President and CEO of LCA. "Medical professionals are doing their part and providing high quality responsible screening—some at little or no cost to help ease or eliminate barriers to access particularly for our most vulnerable populations."

"The federal government must now do the same. It is unconscionable that it has not acted with greater expediency given the strength of the scientific evidence and the magnitude of lung cancer's impact," she continued.

"We commit to remaining at the forefront in calling for responsible lung cancer screening and in securing coverage pursuant to the Affordable Care Act, by Medicare and Medicaid, and by commercial health plans," concluded Fenton Ambrose.

About Lung Cancer Alliance

Lung Cancer Alliance (LCA), www.lungcanceralliance.org, is committed to ending injustice and saving lives through an alliance of advocacy, education, and support. LCA provides live, professional support, referral and information services for patients, their loved ones and those at risk for lung cancer; advocates for multiple millions in public health dollars for lung cancer research; and conducts national awareness campaigns.

Follow Lung Cancer Alliance on Facebook: www.facebook.com/lungcanceralliance. Follow us on Twitter: @LCAorg.

Media Contact:
Kay Cofrancesco
202-742-1422
kay@lungcanceralliance.org

SOURCE Lung Cancer Alliance

View the original article here

Is 'being yourself' enough to get into college?

One scorned high schooler blasts the admissions process for false advertising

With every April comes a fresh batch of disappointed high school seniors scorned by the increasingly competitive college admissions process. Some take this in quiet stride. Others take to the pages of a major national publication.

Pittsburgh high school senior Suzy Lee Weiss has written an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal lashing out at the colleges that rejected her. Though she admits she is suffering from "sour grapes," she feels it is necessary to call out colleges for not being more honest about their acceptance criteria. Their crime? Telling applicants to "just be yourself."

SEE MORE: Do we really need an 'anti-drone hoodie'?

This advice only works, Weiss writes, when you have "nine extracurriculars, six leadership positions, three varsity sports, killer SAT scores, and two moms." She adds that she "would have gladly worn a headdress to school," and come out of the closet for the sake of fulfilling colleges' goal of "Diversity!" She also writes that she wishes she had mimicked some of her savvier peers who created a fake charity to become more appealing applicants. "As long as you're using someone else's misfortunes to try to propel yourself into the Ivy League," she writes, "you're golden."

"This piece is a good old fashioned spiteful rant," writes Caity Weaver at Gawker. But why did she accept the "be yourself" mantra literally? "Being yourself is not a talent," writes Weaver. "If you worked two full-time jobs all the way through high school and one of them was 'being yourself' and the other was 'trying your best,' you actually worked zero jobs." Weaver points out that Weiss' complaint about needing "killer SAT scores" is actually "a very reasonable requirement for college admission." Even more galling is that Weiss' lesson from the "failed 'que sera sera' method of college admission" is not to work harder or become more involved in extracurriculars. Rather, Weiss' message is that "'it is unfairly easy for minorities and gay people and Ke$ha to 'be themselves' on their way into college.'"

SEE MORE: Legendary film critic Roger Ebert dies at age 70

What's especially odd in a rant against the college admissions process is a failure to criticize the preference given to legacy applicants. However, that might be a purposeful move not to bring attention to her own privileged connections. "Perhaps," writes Weaver, "her sister, Bari Weiss, former Wall Street Journal editorial features editor, talked her out of it."

Others argue that Weiss' piece should not be taken literally (as Weiss herself has since said), but read for it's sharp critique of how subjective and unpredictable the college process has become. "Weiss' critics don't seem to understand her point," writes Christine Powell at Newsday. "She's not arguing that lazy teenagers who barely scrape by or show little potential should be handed to Ivy Leagues." Critiquing the "just be yourself" advice is more than fair, as is  "bemoaning the admissions process as misleading and skewed," says Powell. Weiss is highlighting that college admission "has become a game," writes Powell. "It's overly selective and seemingly random. For the mass of students who do well and take leadership applying to tough schools, there's little rhyme or reason to their acceptances and rejections."

SEE MORE: What would Ronald Reagan think about gay marriage?

It's not so much that college admissions have become a game, than that cynicism has seeped into the whole process, writes Alexandra Petri at the Washington Post. The way the admissions process currently works encourages students to approach learning, volunteering, and various other positive activities solely as a means to gain acceptance to an elite university. "There's a difference between living right on the hopes of getting into Paradise and living right because you believe it's the right thing to do," writes Petri. "And these days it's impossible to tell." As a result, says Petri, by the time kids arrive at these great universities, "everyone stares blankly and says 'What's my motivation? I'm already IN college.'" Weiss' essay raises the question: Is it "more dangerous to be rewarded or punished for what you did in high school?"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this section:

• My stepson is a porn star. Help!
• I took photos of a celebrity cheating on his wife. Should I sell them?
• My friends prefer smoking pot to talking to me. Help!

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Congressional inaction could cost college students

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional inaction could end up costing college students an extra $5,000 on their new loans.

The rate for subsidized Stafford loans is set to increase from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1, just as millions of new college students start signing up for fall courses. The difference between the two rates adds up to $6 billion.

Just a year ago, lawmakers faced a similar deadline and dodged the rate increase amid the heated presidential campaign between President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. But that was with the White House up for grabs and before Washington was consumed by budget standoffs that now seem routine.

"What is definitely clear, this time around, there doesn't seem to be as much outcry," said Justin Draeger, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. "We're advising our members to tell students that the interest rates are going to double on new student loans, to 6.8 percent."

The new rates apply only to those who take new subsidized loans. Students with outstanding subsidized loans are not expected to see their loan rates increase unless they take out a new subsidized Stafford loan. Students' nonsubsidized loans are not expected to change, nor are loans from commercial lenders.

But it translates to real money for incoming college freshmen who could end up paying back $5,000 more for the same maxed-out student loans their older siblings have.

House Education Committee Chairman John Kline, R-Minn., and the committee's senior Democrat, George Miller of California, prefer to keep rates at their current levels but have not outlined how they might accomplish that goal. Rep. Karen Bass, D-Calif., last week introduced a proposal that would permanently cap the interest rate at 3.4 percent.

Adding another perspective to the debate, Obama will release his budget proposal on April 10.

Neither party's budget proposal in Congress has money specifically set aside to keep student loans at their current rate. The House Republicans' budget would double the interest rates on newly issued subsidized loans to help balance the federal budget in a decade. Senate Democrats say they want to keep the interest rates at their current levels, but the budget they passed last week does not set aside money to keep the rates low.

In any event, neither side is likely to get what it wants. And that could lead to confusion for students as they receive their college admission letters and financial aid packages.

"Two ideas ... have been introduced so far — neither of which is likely to go very far," said Terry Hartle, the top lobbyist for colleges at the American Council on Education.

House Republicans, led by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., have outlined a spending plan that would shift the interest rates back to their pre-2008 levels. Congress in 2007 lowered the rate to 6 percent for new loans started during the 2008 academic year, then down to 5.6 percent in 2009, to 4.5 percent in 2010 and then to the current 3.4 percent a year later.

Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., say their budget proposal would permanently keep the student rates low. But their budget document doesn't explicitly cover the $6 billion annual cost. Instead, its committee report included a window for the Senate Health, Education and Pension Committee to pass a student loan-rate fix down the road.

But so far, the money isn't there. And if the committee wants to keep the rates where they are, they will have to find a way to pay for them, either through cuts to programs in the budget or by adding new taxes.

"Spending is measured in numbers, not words," said Jason Delisle, a former Republican staffer on the Senate Budget Committee and now director of the New America Foundation's Federal Budget Project. "The Murray budget does not include funding for any changes to student loans."

Some two-thirds of students are graduating with loans exceeding $25,000; 1 in 10 borrowers owes more than $54,000 in loans. And student-loan debt now tops $1 trillion. For those students, the rates make significant differences in how much they have to pay back each month.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that of the almost $113 billion in new student loans the government made this year, more than $38 billion will be lost to defaults, even after Washington collects what it can through wage garnishments.

The net cost to taxpayers after most students pay back their loans with interest is $5.7 billion. If the rate increases, Washington will be collecting more interest from new students' loans.

For some, though, the interest rates seem arbitrary and have little to do with interest rates available for other purchases such as homes or cars.

"Burdening students with 6.8 percent loans when interest rates in the economy are at historic lows makes no sense," said Lauren Asher, president of the Institute for College Access and Success.

View the original article here