Mammography AI Can Cost Patients Extra. Is It Worth It?

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

As I checked in at a Manhattan radiology clinic for my annual mammogram in November, the front desk staffer reviewing my paperwork asked an unexpected question: Would I like to spend $40 for an artificial intelligence analysis of my mammogram? It’s not covered by insurance, she added.

I had no idea how to evaluate that offer. Feeling upsold, I said no. But it got me thinking: Is this something I should add to my regular screening routine? Is my regular mammogram not accurate enough? If this AI analysis is so great, why doesn’t insurance cover it?

I’m not the only person posing such questions. The mother of a colleague had a similar experience when she went for a mammogram recently at a suburban Baltimore clinic. She was given a pink pamphlet that said: “You Deserve More. More Accuracy. More Confidence. More power with artificial intelligence behind your mammogram.” The price tag was the same: $40. She also declined.

In recent years, AI software that helps radiologists detect problems or diagnose cancer using mammography has been moving into clinical use. The software can store and evaluate large datasets of images and identify patterns and abnormalities that human radiologists might miss. It typically highlights potential problem areas in an image and assesses any likely malignancies. This extra review has enormous potential to improve the detection of suspicious breast masses and lead to earlier diagnoses of breast cancer.

While studies showing better detection rates are extremely encouraging, some radiologists say, more research and evaluation are needed before drawing conclusions about the value of the routine use of these tools in regular clinical practice.

“I see the promise and I hope it will help us,” said Etta Pisano, a radiologist who is chief research officer at the American College of Radiology, a professional group for radiologists. However, “it really is ambiguous at this point whether it will benefit an individual woman,” she said. “We do need more information.”

The radiology clinics that my colleague’s mother and I visited are both part of RadNet, a company with a network of more than 350 imaging centers around the country. RadNet introduced its AI product for mammography in New York and New Jersey last February and has since rolled it out in several other states, according to Gregory Sorensen, the company’s chief science officer.

Sorensen pointed to research the company conducted with 18 radiologists, some of whom were specialists in breast mammography and some of whom were generalists who spent less than 75% of their time reading mammograms. The doctors were asked to find the cancers in 240 images, with and without AI. Every doctor’s performance improved using AI, Sorensen said.

Among all radiologists, “not every doctor is equally good,” Sorensen said. With RadNet’s AI tool, “it’s as if all patients get the benefit of our very top performer.”

But is the tech analysis worth the extra cost to patients? There’s no easy answer.

“Some people are always going to be more anxious about their mammograms, and using AI may give them more reassurance,” said Laura Heacock, a breast imaging specialist at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York. The health system has developed AI models and is testing the technology with mammograms but doesn’t yet offer it to patients, she said.

Still, Heacock said, women shouldn’t worry that they need to get an additional AI analysis if it’s offered.

“At the end of the day, you still have an expert breast imager interpreting your mammogram, and that is the standard of care,” she said.

About 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer during their lifetime, and regular screening mammograms are recommended to help identify cancerous tumors early. But mammograms are hardly foolproof: They miss about 20% of breast cancers, according to the National Cancer Institute.

The FDA has authorized roughly two dozen AI products to help detect and diagnose cancer from mammograms. However, there are currently no billing codes radiologists can use to charge health plans for the use of AI to interpret mammograms. Typically, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would introduce new billing codes and private health plans would follow their lead for payment. But that hasn’t happened in this field yet and it’s unclear when or if it will.

CMS didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Thirty-five percent of women who visit a RadNet facility for mammograms pay for the additional AI review, Sorensen said.

Radiology practices don’t handle payment for AI mammography all in the same way.

The practices affiliated with Boston-based Massachusetts General Hospital don’t charge patients for the AI analysis, said Constance Lehman, a professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School who is co-director of the Breast Imaging Research Center at Mass General.

Asking patients to pay “isn’t a model that will support equity,” Lehman said, since only patients who can afford the extra charge will get the enhanced analysis. She said she believes many radiologists would never agree to post a sign listing a charge for AI analysis because it would be off-putting to low-income patients.

Sorensen said RadNet’s goal is to stop charging patients once health plans realize the value of the screening and start paying for it.

Some large trials are underway in the United States, though much of the published research on AI and mammography to date has been done in Europe. There, the standard practice is for two radiologists to read a mammogram, whereas in the States only one radiologist typically evaluates a screening test.

Interim results from the highly regarded MASAI randomized controlled trial of 80,000 women in Sweden found that cancer detection rates were 20% higher in women whose mammograms were read by a radiologist using AI compared with women whose mammograms were read by two radiologists without any AI intervention, which is the standard of care there.

“The MASAI trial was great, but will that generalize to the U.S.? We can’t say,” Lehman said.

In addition, there is a need for “more diverse training and testing sets for AI algorithm development and refinement” across different races and ethnicities, said Christoph Lee, director of the Northwest Screening and Cancer Outcomes Research Enterprise at the University of Washington School of Medicine. 

The long shadow of an earlier and largely unsuccessful type of computer-assisted mammography hangs over the adoption of newer AI tools. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, “computer-assisted detection” software promised to improve breast cancer detection. Then the studies started coming in, and the results were often far from encouraging. Using CAD at best provided no benefit, and at worst reduced the accuracy of radiologists’ interpretations, resulting in higher rates of recalls and biopsies.

“CAD was not that sophisticated,” said Robert Smith, senior vice president of early cancer detection science at the American Cancer Society. Artificial intelligence tools today are a whole different ballgame, he said. “You can train the algorithm to pick up things, or it learns on its own.”

Smith said he found it “troubling” that radiologists would charge for the AI analysis.

“There are too many women who can’t afford any out-of-pocket cost” for a mammogram, Smith said. “If we’re not going to increase the number of radiologists we use for mammograms, then these new AI tools are going to be very useful, and I don’t think we can defend charging women extra for them.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Take These To Lower Cholesterol! (Statin Alternatives)

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Dr. Ada Ozoh, a diabetes specialist, took an interest in this upon noting the many-headed beast that is metabolic syndrome means that neither diabetes nor cardiovascular disease exist in a vacuum, and there are some things that can help a lot against both. Here she shares some of her top recommendations:

    Statin-free options

    Dr. Ozoh recommends:

    • Bergamot: lowers LDL (“bad” cholesterol) by about 30% and slightly increases HDL (“good” cholesterol), at 500–1000mg/day, seeing results in 1–6 months
    • Berberine: prevents fat absorption and helps burn stored fat, as well as reducing blood sugar levels and blood pressure, at 1,500mg/day
    • Silymarin: protects the liver, and lowers cholesterol in type 2 diabetes, at 280–420mg/day
    • Phytosterols: lower cholesterol by about 10%; found naturally in many plants, but it takes supplementation to read the needed (for this purpose) dosage of 2g/day
    • Red yeast rice: this is white rice fermented with yeast, and it lowers LDL cholesterol by about 25%, seeing results in around 3 months

    For more information on all of the above (including more details on the biochemistry, as well as potential issues to be aware of), enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Why Do Americans Pay More for Prescription Drugs?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Drug companies in the U.S. face few restraints on what to charge for their products. A bipartisan bill would penalize those companies that sell their drugs at higher prices than the average of the prices in other wealthy nations.

    In the U.S., the price of Revlimid, a brand-name cancer drug, has been increasing for two decades. It now sells for nearly $1,000 a pill. In Europe, the price has been consistently lower — in some countries by two-thirds.

    I started reporting on Revlimid after I was prescribed the drug following a diagnosis of multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer. Stunned by the high price, I found that the drugmaker, Celgene, had used Revlimid as its own personal piggy bank for more than a decade, raising the price in the U.S. whenever it saw fit.

    Even with lower prices in Europe, Celgene still made a profit there, a former executive told Congress. That added to the more than $21 billion in net earnings the company made after Revlimid was introduced in 2005.

    Of course, Revlimid isn’t the only drug with a price disparity. Americans pay more in general for prescription drugs than people in other wealthy countries. And costs keep going up, saddling patients with crippling debt or forcing them to choose between filling prescriptions or buying groceries. So why do we pay so much more? And is anything being done about it?

    In most other wealthy countries, governments set a single price for a drug that is usually based on analysis of the therapeutic benefit of the medicine and what other countries pay. In the U.S., drug companies determine what to charge for their products with few restraints. Insurance companies can refuse to cover a drug to try to negotiate a lower price, but for some diseases like cancer, that poses a risk of public backlash. Cancer is a “very politically charged disease,” said Dr. Aaron Kesselheim, a Harvard Medical School professor who studies drug pricing and regulation. Some states also mandate that insurers cover certain cancer drugs.

    Pharmaceutical companies have consistently argued that American drug prices reflect the cost of research and development. Americans may pay more, but they also benefit from having first-line access to cutting-edge treatments. (Celgene has since been acquired by Bristol Myers Squibb, which says its price for Revlimid, which it increased in the U.S. last year by 7%, “reflects the continued clinical benefit Revlimid brings to patients, along with other economic factors.”)

    Dr. Hagop Kantarjian, a leukemia specialist at MD Anderson Cancer Center who studies drug pricing, said that pharmaceutical companies often overstate the cost of developing drugs and that many drug discoveries originate in hospital and academic labs funded through government grants. Funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health contributed to all but two of the 356 drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010 to 2019, according to a Bentley University study. Companies also don’t spend all their profits on innovation: The 14 largest drug companies in the world spent more on stock buybacks and dividend payments to investors than on research and development, according to a 2021 analysis by the U.S. House Oversight Committee.

    One possible solution to bring down costs: tie American prices to what drugmakers charge in other wealthy countries. The Congressional Budget Office found last year that this would have the biggest impact on reducing costs of seven proposals it studied. It’s an idea with bipartisan support.

    Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Peter Welch, D-Vt., introduced a bill this week that would penalize pharmaceutical companies that sell their drugs at higher prices than the average of the prices in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and the United Kingdom. Companies that sell above the average would face civil penalties equal to 10 times the difference between the U.S. list price and the average price in those other countries.

    President Donald Trump has advocated for similar actions. During his first term, he issued an executive order directing the Medicare program to employ a “most favored nation” approach in paying for drugs. The administration later developed a rule directing Medicare to select the lowest price from a basket of similar countries and make that the maximum amount the agency would pay for 50 drugs administered by doctors. A court blocked the rule from being implemented in the last days of the first administration.

    Now, according to reports this week, the administration is pushing plans to tie Medicaid and Medicare prices to lower prices charged in other countries.

    Linking U.S. prices to those in other countries is opposed by industry groups who say it would leave decisions on medications to the government rather than doctors and patients.

    “Government price setting in any form is bad for American patients,” said Alex Schriver, a spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry group. He said efforts should be focused on fixing “the flaws in the U.S. system,” including money that flows to intermediaries such as pharmacy benefit managers.

    Some critics also warn so-called international reference pricing can be gamed and allows foreign governments to essentially set the value of medicines sold in the U.S.

    The Trump administration is expected to announce drug pricing plans as early as next week, according to a report. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

    Share This Post

  • Beta-Blockers: Useless vs Heart Attacks & Worse For Women?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Currently, more than 80% of uncomplicated heart attack patients are discharged on beta-blockers—this has been the go-to standard of care for the past 40 years—notwithstanding that there are common side effects such as bradycardia (slow heart rate), and resultant fatigue and sexual dysfunction.

    However, researchers (Dr. Borja Ibanez et al.) have turned that on its head with a sweeping study involving 8,505 patients enrolled across 109 hospitals in Spain and Italy, randomized to receive or not receive beta-blockers, with a median follow-up of a little under 4 years.

    What they found

    In few words: overall, there was no significant differences between groups in death, recurrent heart attack, or hospitalization for heart failure.

    However, for women specifically, they did find that there was (in the beta-blocker group), a slightly higher absolute risk of death over 3.7 years, plus higher rates of heart attack or heart failure hospitalization—specifically, they more often had heart attacks without obstructive coronary arteries.

    Some of this disparity may be explained by the fact that women were less often prescribed recommended secondary prevention therapies (e.g. antiplatelet therapies, ACE inhibitors/ARBs, and cardiac rehabilitation) despite high overall prescription rates, but not all of it, because those receiving higher beta-blocker doses also saw a correspondingly higher risk.

    You can find the paper itself here: Beta-Blockers after Myocardial Infarction without Reduced Ejection Fraction

    And further modelling of more or less the same data here: Beta-blockers after myocardial infarction: effects according to sex in the REBOOT trial

    You may be wondering: why “more or else”? Because they are both running numbers from the same trial, but the latter used only the intention-to-treat population, which was 8,438 out of the 8,505 patients.

    One more thing…

    While beta-blockers are generally considered “calming” (indeed, historically they’ve sometimes been prescribed for anxiety; less so nowadays), hence the bradycardia we mentioned in the introduction, this does mean that they can also promote depression—without actually alleviating anxiety:

    ❝At baseline, 27% of patients were possible cases of anxiety (m, 5.6; SD, 3.9) and 14% were possible cases of depression (m, 3.9; SD, 3.2). Beta-blocker treatment had a [worsening] effect on depressive symptoms at both follow-ups 1 (β = 0.48; 95% CI 09–0.86; P = 0.015) and 2 (β = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.01–0.81; P = 0.047), but no effect on anxiety.❞

    Read in full: Short- and long-term effects of beta-blockers on symptoms of anxiety and depression in patients with myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular function: a pre-specified quality of life sub-study from the REDUCE-AMI trial

    Want to learn more?

    For more on sex differences in this matter, see:

    And for why a lot of this kind of medical disparity occurs when it comes to outcomes:

    Unwell Women: Misdiagnosis and Myth in a Man-Made World – by Elinor Cleghorn

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • How Does Alcohol Cause Blackouts?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Sometimes people who have never experienced an alcoholic blackout wonder “is it real, or is it just a convenient excuse to avoid responsibility/embarrassment with regard to things done while drunk?”

    In 1969 (so, still in the era of incredibly unethical psychological experiments that ranged from the 50s into the 70s), Dr. Donald Goodwin conducted a study in which intoxicated participants were asked to recall an object they had just seen. Most succeeded initially, but half were unable to remember the object just 30 minutes later, demonstrating alcohol-induced memory blackouts.

    But, is it any different from regular forgetting? And the answer is: yes, it is indeed different.

    The memories that never got stored

    Ethanol, the active compound in alcohol, is lipophilic, enabling it to cross the blood-brain barrier and disrupt brain function. It impairs all kinds of things, including decision-making, impulse control, motor skills, and, notably, memory networks—which is what we’re looking at today.

    Memory formation (beyond “working memory”, which is the kind that enables you to have an idea of what you were just doing, and carry out simple plans like “pick up this cup, raise it to my mouth, and take a sip”, without forgetting partway through) relies on a process called long-term potentiation (LTP), which strengthens neural connections to store information. Ethanol disrupts this process, preventing memory storage and causing blackouts.

    In effect, this means you didn’t just forget a memory; you never stored it in the first place. For this reason, experiences from during an alcoholic blackout cannot be retrieved in the same ways we might retrieve other memories (e.g. in regular forgetting, it’s possible that a context clue jogs our memory and then we remember the experience—because in regular forgetting, the memory was in there; we just didn’t recall it until we were reminded).

    Blackouts (in which the memory is never stored in the first place) typically occur when blood alcohol concentration (BAC) exceeds 0.16, while lower levels can result in partial memory loss (brownouts) in which some things may be recalled, but not others. Factors such as dehydration, genetics, medications, food consumption, and age influence the likelihood of complete blackouts.

    While alcohol’s residual effects typically subside within a day, repeated over-drinking can cause permanent neuron damage, as well as of course plenty of damage to other organs in the body (especially the liver and gut).

    For more on all of this, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Drinking Alcohol

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Your Brain On (And Off) Estrogen

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    This is Dr. Lisa Mosconi. She’s a professor of Neuroscience in Neurology and Radiology, and is one of the 1% most influential scientists of the 21st century. That’s not a random number or an exaggeration; it has to do with citation metrics collated over 20 years:

    A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field

    What does she want us to know?

    Women’s brains age differently from men’s

    This is largely, of course, due to menopause, and as such is a generalization, but it’s a statistically safe generalization, because:

    • Most women go through menopause—and most women who don’t, avoid it by dying pre-menopause, so the aging also does not occur in those cases
    • Menopause is very rarely treated immediately—not least of all because menopause is diagnosed officially when it has been one year since one’s last period, so there’s almost always a year of “probably” first, and often numerous years, in the case of periods slowing down before stopping
    • Menopausal HRT is great, but doesn’t completely negate that menopause occurred—because of the delay in starting HRT, some damage can be done already and can take years to reverse.

    Medicated and unmedicated menopause proceed very differently from each other, and this fact has historically caused obfuscation of a lot of research into age-related neurodegeneration.

    For example, it is well-established that women get Alzheimer’s at nearly twice the rate than men do, and deteriorate more rapidly after onset, too.

    Superficially, one might conclude “estrogen is to blame” or maybe “the xx-chromosomal karyotype is to blame”.

    The opposite, however, is true with regard to estrogen—estrogen appears to be a protective factor in women’s neurological health, which is why increased neurodegeneration occurs when estrogen levels decline (for example, in menopause).

    For a full rundown on this, see:

    Alzheimer’s Sex Differences May Not Be What They Appear

    It’s not about the extra X

    Dr. Mosconi examines this in detail in her book “The XX Brain”. To summarize and oversimplify a little: the XX karyotype by itself makes no difference, or more accurately, the XY karyotype by itself makes no difference (because biologically speaking, female physiological attributes are more “default” than male ones; it is only 12,000ish* years of culture that has flipped the social script on this).

    *Why 12,000ish years? It’s because patriarchalism largely began with settled agriculture, for reasons that are fascinating but beyond the scope of this article, which is about health science, not archeology.

    The topic of “which is biologically default” is relevant, because the XY karyotype (usually) informs the body “ignore previous instructions about ovaries, and adjust slightly to make them into testes instead”, which in turn (usually) results in a testosterone-driven system instead of an estrogen-driven system. And that is what makes the difference to the brain.

    One way we can see that it’s about the hormones not the chromosomes, is in cases of androgen insensitivity syndrome, in which the natal “congratulations, it’s a girl” pronouncement may later result in a surprise if it turns out she had XY chromosomes all along, but the androgenic instructions never got delivered successfully, so she popped out with fairly typical female organs. And, relevantly for Dr. Mosconi, a typically female brain that will age in a typically female fashion, because it’s driven by estrogen, regardless of the Y-chromosome.

    The good news

    The good news from all of this is that while we can’t (with current science, anyway) do much about our chromosomes, we can do plenty about our hormones, and also, the results of changes in same.

    Remember, Dr. Mosconi is not an endocrinologist, nor a gynecologist, but a neurologist. As such, she makes the case for how a true interdisciplinary team for treating menopause should not confined to the narrow fields usually associated with “bikini medicine”, but should take into account that a lot of menopause-related changes are neurological in nature.

    We recently reviewed another book by Dr. Mosconi:

    The Menopause Brain – by Dr. Lisa Mosconi

    …and as we noted there, many sources will mention “brain fog” as a symptom of menopause, Dr. Mosconi can (and will) point to a shadowy patch on a brain scan and say “that’s the brain fog, there”.

    And so on, for other symptoms that are often dismissed as “all in your head”, as though that’s a perfectly acceptable place for problems to be.

    This is critical, because it’s treating real neurological things as the real things they are.

    Dr. Mosconi’s advice, beyond HRT

    Dr. Mosconi notes that brain health tends to dip during perimenopause but often recovers, showing the brain’s resilience to hormonal shifts. As such, all is not lost if for whatever reason, hormone replacement therapy isn’t a viable option for you.

    Estrogen plays a crucial role in brain energy, and women’s declining estrogen levels during menopause increase the need for antioxidants to protect brain health—something not often talked about.

    Specifically, Dr. Mosconi tells us, women need more antioxidants and have different metabolic responses to diets compared to men.*

    *Yes, even though men usually have negligible estrogen, because their body (and thus brain, being also part of their body) is running on testosterone instead, which is something that will only happen if either you are producing normal male amounts of testosterone (requires normal male testes) or you are taking normal male amounts of testosterone (requires big bottles of testosterone; this isn’t the kind of thing you can get from a low dose of testogel as sometimes prescribed as part of menopausal HRT to perk your metabolism up).

    Note: despite women being a slight majority on Earth, and despite an aging population in wealthy nations, meaning “a perimenopausal woman” is thus the statistically average person in, for example, the US, and despite the biological primacy of femaleness… Medicine still mostly looks to men as the “default person”, which in this case can result in seriously low-balled estimates of what antioxidants are needed.

    In terms of supplements, therefore, she recommends:

    • Antioxidants: key for brain health, especially in women. Rich sources include fruits (especially berries) and vegetables. Then there’s the world’s most-consumed antioxidant, which is…
    • Coffee: Italian-style espresso has the highest antioxidant power. Adding a bit of fat (e.g. oat milk) helps release caffeine more slowly, reducing jitters. Taking it alongside l-theanine also “flattens the curve” and thus improves its overall benefits.
    • Flavonoids: important for both men and women but particularly essential for women. Found in many fruits and vegetables.
    • Chocolate: dark chocolate is an excellent source of antioxidants and flavonoids!
    • Turmeric: a natural neuroprotectant with anti-inflammatory properties, best boosted by taking with black pepper, which improves absorption as well as having many great qualities of its own.
    • B Vitamins: B6, B9, and B12 are essential for anti-aging and brain health; deficiency in B6 is rare, while deficiency in B9 (folate) and especially B12 is very common later in life.
    • Vitamins C & E: important antioxidants, but caution is needed with fat-soluble vitamins to avoid toxicity.
    • Omega-3s: important for brain health; can be consumed in the diet, but supplements may be necessary.
    • Caution with zinc: zinc can support immunity and endocrine health (and thus, indirectly, brain health) but may be harmful in excess, particularly for brain health.
    • Probiotics & Prebiotics: beneficial for gut health, and in Dr. Mosconi’s opinion, hard to get sufficient amounts from diet alone.

    For more pointers, you might want to check out the MIND diet, that is to say, the “Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay” upgrade to make the Mediterranean diet even brain-healthier than it is by default:

    Four Ways To Upgrade The Mediterranean Diet

    Want to know more from Dr. Mosconi?

    Here’s her TED talk:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Enjoy!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Creamy Fortifying Cauliflower Soup

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    As delicious as it is super-easy to make, this one is full of protein, fiber, healthy fats, and some of the most health-giving spices around.

    You will need

    • 1 quart low-sodium vegetable stock
    • 1 large cauliflower, cut into florets
    • 1 large onion, finely chopped
    • 2 cans cannellini (or other white) beans, drained and rinsed
    • 1 cup raw cashews, soaked in hot water for at least 5 minutes, and drained (if allergic, substitute chickpeas)
    • 1 bulb (yes, a whole bulb) garlic, roughly chopped
    • 5 tbsp nutritional yeast
    • 10 fresh sprigs of thyme (keep them whole!)
    • 1 large fresh sprig of rosemary (keep this whole too!)
    • zest of 1 lemon
    • 1 tbsp red chili flakes
    • 1 tbsp black pepper, coarse ground
    • 1 tsp MSG or 2 tsp low-sodium salt
    • ½ tsp ground turmeric
    • Extra virgin olive oil

    Method

    (we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)

    1) Tightly tie up the sprigs of rosemary and thyme with kitchen twine (shining a bright light on it and asking it invasive questions is optional)

    2) Heat some olive oil to a medium heat in your biggest sauté pan or similar. Add the onions, and cook for about 10 minutes, stirring as necessary. We are not trying to outright caramelize them here, but we do want them browned a little.

    3) Add the garlic and cook for another 2 minutes, stirring frequently.

    4) Add the vegetable stock, and stir, ensuring no onion is stuck to the base of the pan. Add the cauliflower, cashews, beans, nooch, pepper, turmeric, and MSG/salt, stirring to combine. Don’t worry if the cauliflower isn’t all submerged; it’ll be fine in a little while.

    5) Add the herbs, submerging them in the soup (still tied up bouquet garni style).

    6) Bring to a boil, reduce to a simmer and cook for 15–20 minutes; the cauliflower will be soft when it’s ready.

    7) Remove the bouquet garni, and blend the soup until thick and creamy. You can do this with an immersion blender, but to get the smoothest soup, you’ll need to use a stand blender. Either ensure yours is safe for hot liquids, or else allow to cool, blend, and reheat later. This is important, as otherwise your blender could explode.

    8) Serve, using the lemon zest and chili for the garnish:

    Enjoy!

    Want to learn more?

    For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: