We always hear about the controversy surrounding giving the HPV vaccine to teen and pre-teen girls, but we never hear about the discrimination going on at the other end of the spectrum regarding this vaccine.

I am 30 and would like to get the HPV vaccine. I have wanted to get it since I was 27. My doctor recommends that I get it if I ever plan to have another sexual partner, since I may not have yet been exposed to certain problematic strains of HPV. I have fantastic health insurance. But if I get the vaccine it will cost me several hundred dollars. Insurance doesn't cover the HPV vaccine for women over the arbitrary age 26-because it's not approved by the FDA for women over the arbitrary age of 26. This arbitrary age was determined by pure discrimination against single women by the FDA, and by extension, the Bush administration.

26 is the cut off because the government believes that most women will be married by the age of 26, and therefore not be exposed to any new strains of HPV. Any woman still unmarried or "sleeping around" after this age is obviously promiscuous and therefore has already been exposed to all the potentially harmful strains of HPV and therefore cannot be helped.

The government's assumption that all women worth protecting are married by their mid-20s is ridiculous, outdated, and does not reflect any current demographic trends that suggest more and more people get married later or do not get married at all. It is discrimination.

Let's look at it this way. What if you are a 27 year-old woman who has never had sex but plans to in the future, perhaps even after waiting for marriage. You have to pay several hundreds to get this effective vaccine while your friend who is 26 gets it for free because she's at an age the government deems to be an acceptable age for being single. According to the government, at your 27th birthday you're either a spinster or a slut and don't deserve/need to be protected.

I never see articles about this but it enrages me. A 60 year old woman should be covered if she and her doctor agree the vaccine would be useful.

so pay in cash. I'd be willing to bet that if you get cervical cancer your out of pocket expenses, insurance copays, etc. are going to total a LOT more than a few hundred.

Pay the cash and get the shot.

that's not the point. Why do *I* have to pay cash but a 26 year old woman doesn't have to? That's discrimination. The vaccine wasn't even available when I and everyone older than me was 26.

I agree. If the shot is available and paid for by the insurance company to people under 26, then the doctor should be able to decide that someone over 26 is eligible

buggie:

that's not the point. Why do *I* have to pay cash but a 26 year old woman doesn't have to? That's discrimination. The vaccine wasn't even available when I and everyone older than me was 26.

What about someone who's 80 and wants it? The insurance company has to draw a line somewhere, and considering the recommendation to give it to Jr. High students, 26 seems pretty generous on that score. Just pay the money.

IOW, why can't a 20 year old buy alcohol?

Why can't my 15 year old get children's movie tickets?

There's always a cut off, and yes, it sucks if you are on the wrong side of it, but it's not THAT big a deal, is it?

um, an 80 year old should get it. what if her husband of 60 years was the only man she ever slept with and he just died and she just met a new hottie in the nursing home? You could sleep with 100 people and still not be exposed to the 4 types of HPV the vaccine covers. Article after article on the subject says that women up to age 55 can benefit from the vaccine and that older women have stronger immune systems and therefore have less risk. In fact, a vaccine under a different name was just approved in Australia for women of all ages.

It's not the insurance companies- they can't cover it because the FDA hasn't approved it for women over age 26. they haven't approved it for women over age 26 because they haven't tested it on women over age 26. they chose age 26 because they arbitrarily decided that all women have probably already slept with enough people to reduce the risk or they have settled down by then. I don't think it's right for the government to make assumptions about people's sexuality based on age when a drug can benefit them. There is no medical reason that the vaccine should be covered for a 26 year old and not for a 27 year old. There is only a sociological one, and huge amount of bias.

This has nothing to do with an 18 wanting to buy alcohol or whatever comparison you made- that's a completely useless analogy. This is about preventing cancer. Sure you say, just pay it. Do you have $400 you'd like give me then? I-and every other woman over the age of 26-walk into the doctor with great health insurance that I pay for and she says "I strongly advise you to get the HPV vaccine as it can prevent cervical cancer" and then you say sure and she goes "well, the government thinks you should be married now, so that will cost you $400." Where do you get this $400? It's like any other health care problem in this country, but the discrimination is blatant. You've got insurance, you think advancements in medicine can only help you, but no, you don't count because you're a single woman over 26 and you might- shocker of shocker- have sex at some point. It's disgusting.

I was an excellent and responsible teenage driver but I still paid through the nose for car insurance.

Insurance is about acutarial tables and statistical probablities--it's not about making sure that Every Single Person gets a Fair Shake.

Sorry about your situtation, but suck it up, dude! Life isn't always fair.

If we were to assemble a list of medical insurance injustices, I'm sorry to say your insurance not covering Gardasil is not exactly the most tragic thing we could come up with.

guamania:

If we were to assemble a list of medical insurance injustices, I'm sorry to say your insurance not covering Gardasil is not exactly the most tragic thing we could come up with.

Um...ok, but that was the topic of the article, so she's allowed to express an opinion about it. Amazingly enough, that's what this forum is for.

She wasn't saying her situation is tragic, she's saying that it's ridiculous, because it is not based on any facts at all. Yes, teenagers who drive well are getting screwed over because their cohort of peers doesn't drive well; this is not comparable. As far as we know, the FDA has not come up with equivalent statistics to show that women over 26 don't benefit from this vaccine (even as an average) as much as younger women do. So her point, as she stated, was not that insurance should automatically cover her, it was that the FDA should be testing the vaccine on all potentially applicable groups, not just an arbitrarily selected one.

From what I've read about the vaccine, it's just not as effective after age 26 as it is before that age. It's not as "arbitrary" as you want to believe. The vaccine doesn't "take" as well after a certain age. I'm sorry you're on the wrong side of the age limit, but it's like being a 22-year old after they change the drinking laws back to age 18. Yeah, it sucks for you a bit, but you're not "losing" anything by it. Boo hoo, you have to pay for something you want. At least you don't have HPV...pity those people that have the disease and would've gotten the vaccine if only it had come out a few years before they were exposed. Maybe they'll develop a vaccine that is more effective for older women in the future (and men too...complain about it all you want, there are NO vaccines for men...you're lucky -- all you have is a question of payment). Until then, either suck it up and pay for it, or be selective in your partners.

Buggie, I'm with you. I'm 41, and am interested in getting this vaccine too. It IS discrimination, and the age range is ridiculous. I also have insurance, and at my next check-up I'm going to talk to her about it. Good topic you brought up, BTW.

The vaccine has not been proven to work or be safe for those in your age bracket. Sorry, but it's the truth. You don't usually get vaccinated at (sorry, but it's true) middle-age. It's not discrimination, it's hedging risk by the insurance companies. Why SHOULD they pay for it? You haven't given them a reason why? You're at a much lower risk for cervical cancer (the reason you'd get the vaccine in the first place), so why should you get it for free? They're completely in the right to do so. This is NOT discrimination. They could've easily had everyone pay for their own, but they're using the vaccine as a potential cost savings down the road...pay a bit now for the vaccine, then save on unnecessary hospital visits in the future. I'm sorry you're too old for the vaccine, but it doesn't really benefit the insurance company's bottom line...you're not as much of a risk for them as a teenager is for developing this cancer.

If you want the vaccine, pay for it. You may not even be qualified...you may already HAVE the virus...who knows? You're old enough to protect yourself...teenagers are not. You're much lower in risk (right now) for developing cancer than those teens are. That's not discrimination, that's reality. Would you pay for a vaccine for a person who's 80, 90, 100 years old? They're not at as much of a risk to develop the cancer? If you won't pay, neither will the insurance company. Sorry, just the truth. Them paying for the vaccine for you doesn't benefit them. Paying for a teen does, because they're at a much greater susceptibility. It's just the way insurance companies are. If you want it so bad, pay for it and get it. Just don't expect us, as paying members of that healthcare plan, to pay for your vaccine.

I have the money to pay without the insurance but cannot find anyone to give me the vaccine. Because it is not FDA approved for women above the age of 26, all the doctors I have asked won't do it. I am in the Orlando Florida area. I was married later in life in my 30's to my husband who has HPV. I wish Gardasil would just raise the age limit on the vaccine so it can be FDA approved for all.