GPs ordered to ration cancer scans: Lives 'being put at risk' by bureaucrats' new cost-saving direct

On the one hand, there is far too much testing for maybe cancers being done and it has been shown that routine mammography is not effective or even a net benefit. It seems to result in unnecessary procedures and increased cancer incidence from X-rays.

I am always surprised to see the "cost" of CT scans (which should be used very rarely because of the relatively high X-ray doses involved) and MRIs (which are cheaper, surprisingly). The amount of radiologists time taken up is small so they must be adding in building costs and equipment amortization which is silly - the hospital's charge structure seems to be all wrong. If the hospitals are government run then they should be funded to fully utilize the equipment and then the GPs can get their patients in as needed - reduce the cost inhibition if the service is essential.
However, there are games going on as usual. The government wants to get rid of all the primary care trusts by 2013. They wanted to do it sooner but public pressure caused them to put the plan on pause. Some negative press about how the PCTs are getting in the way of your health is just what's needed to push the government plan along. The paper has been a supporter of the Conservatives since 2005 and I think this sort of agenda would be in line with their general philosophy.
 
I am always surprised to see the "cost" of CT scans (which should be used very rarely because of the relatively high X-ray doses involved) and MRIs (which are cheaper, surprisingly).
Click to expand...
I've actually spoken to my sis about this. She tells me that quite simply, expertise with older systems is just better then with the new MRIs. MRIs may be technically better, however when it comes down to it, it's all about how good the guy using the machine is. We have a brand new state of the art MRI here in Winnipeg, but physicians aren't all that trusting of the results. Yet. That will change with time. My own Dr who sent me for an MRI pretty much said the same thing, and sent me for a CT immediately afterwards to confirm the MRI results (although to be fair, MRI has some limitations that other systems don't).
 
Glaucus said:
My own Dr who sent me for an MRI pretty much said the same thing, and sent me for a CT immediately afterwards to confirm the MRI results (although to be fair, MRI has some limitations that other systems don't).
Click to expand...
At a cost of over $2000 if those British prices can be relied upon.
 
Actually, scratch that. It was an echo cardiogram that he sent me on, not a CT scan. Not sure that's any cheaper though. I have gone for CT scans in the past, but just 2 or 3. Echos I've had far more often and only once an MRI.
 
Cancer is one thing that it appears almost everyone gets. The body can and often does take care of it. Though sometimes it can't. Don't forget there's always a numbers game going on. One item is the costs of false positives. So, finding a 'cancer' doesn't mean that treatment is mandated. And certainly the costs are high economically and physically for those treated for cancer that end up being false positives and they never had it.

Oh and Phrayngula rocks. Everyone should read it.
 
faethor said:
Oh and Phrayngula rocks. Everyone should read it.
Click to expand...

I once had an amicable exchange with PZ back in the olden days on usenet before I knew he was anyone but just another guy on usenet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top