Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comNew government statistics show the rate of high-tech diagnostic imaging has dramatically increased since the mid-1990s.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Colon cancer test may not require laxatives: studyâÂÂBeauty machineâ makes everyone prettyU.S. launches ambitious Alzheimer's plan with research pushScientists build world's first artificial stomachFirst Alzheimer's prevention study launchedGet the scoop on smoothiesThe dirtiest clean places â and how to clean them upWhy isn't HIV testing routine yet?Flesh-eating germ rare, especially for the healthyOklahoma City mayor puts city on a diet
Leave a Comment:
Diagnostic Imaging Technology is more advanced than ever before, allowing better visualization of even the tiniest of body parts, which leads to more accurate and earlier diagnoses, thus saving costly treatment down the road. Exploratory surgery is all but in the past because of these advances. Furthermore, because of the litigious nature of today's society, doctors must be a bit more liberal in prescribing advanced imaging to be on the safe side. Doesn't that ultimately save money by slowing down the frivolous lawsuits and malpractice insurance costs?
You are 100% correct.
The technology is less invasive and less expensive than before.
And, fear of malpractice litigation is forcing practitioners to do 'just in case' diagnostic testing.
Are you the PR person for the Society of Radiologists, compensation section? Get a grip on reality.
I'm not a PR person for Radiologists. I have, however, had several friends diagnosed early with cancer who have been able to successully complete treatment and thus not burden society with the costs of raising their small children. I also know of more than one person whose family was unable to file a frivolous wrongful death lawsuit because this person was diagnosed early but refused treatment, opting instead for holistic therapy.
Gee I wonder why with an MRI costing about $2500 and everyone who writes for it getting a piece of the pie...I'm surprised every person who walks in the er doesn't get one..perfect example...I have damage to my veins..but my insurance made my doctor do an xray first...he knew and I knew the xray would be negative but insurance said it had to be done in order to get the MRI..out come..xray negative..cost of xray $75 more unnecessary, radar to me..all to tell me ...um no broken bones..but we already knew that.
Remember the days (not long ago) when EVERYONE entering the hospital got a chest x-ray; needless to say 99.99999% were negative. But the hospital had to pay for those machines they bought and pay those radiologists they hired! Now the machines and the radiologists cost even more, SOOOOOO, order those scans Mr. ER Doc, the more the merrier! Don't worry about the cost (insurance or the USA will pay) or safety (radiation problems won't show up for years AND they can't be PROVED to be your fault Mr. ER Doc). Maybe some scans will even be positive for something.
One of the most profitable procedures in the shop! Obscenely costly! The machine pays for itself quickly and it is all profit thereafter (minus small maintenance costs!)
Those chest x-rays still get ordered and done. These days, the doctors (radiologists, who don't order the test) just don't get paid for reading most of them. The ER docs that order them don't make any money for ordering them either.
That, kdoc... is a crock! Having gone through this financial wringer at a Florida ER while visiting a relative. When they found I was well covered, they hit me for in excess of 20K plus there is an business called ..(blank)... Emergency Physicians who billed me directly. They didn't/wouldn't file Medicare nor to my HMO. I was in the ER for two and a half hours and it was diagnosed as gall stones. I got X rayed and CAT scanned and screwed. This is how they pay for all the patients who have no insurance and their shiny new equipment.
It's not a crock.
$$$ turns the world.
I'm not a PR person for Radiologists. I have, however, had several friends diagnosed early with cancer who have been able to successully complete treatment and thus not burden society with the costs of raising their small children. I also know of more than one person whose family was unable to file a frivolous wrongful death lawsuit because this person was diagnosed early but refused treatment, opting instead for holistic therapy.
@Bechtel-1397456
You must have never been under the knife.
Lung damage is one of the most common problems with surgery that is not related the the surgery procedure itself.
Like the first poster stated it is a CYA required on 21 Dec 2009 when I have my surgery.
They also did a somewhat but enough cardio test.
My doc mentioned before they took me out of the room to OR that he saw something that concerned him but it must not have been that bad - end of conversation.
Layers have been the biggest cause of the health crisis with mega-million dollar suits that do nothing but line there pocket.
Sign on black board of Law 101 at college said "it is not whether or not you win or lose but how long you can drag it out on billable hours."
Go figure how their 40-60% "cut" comes out. It works out to hundreds of dollars per word typed on the papers and most of it is legal "word salad" just to make it look good.
I'm an FP doc who has ordered more scans through the years for the 'just in case' factor. Even if the odds are 1:1000 that the kid who whacked his head has a subdural hematoma, I'm getting the scan because if that kid is the 1 in 1,000 and I didn't order the scan that would have picked it up, then the parents own me. I practice purely to cover my ass sometimes. And, until that changes, I'll continue to cover my ass and not be a bit sorry for it because it's my career and my family's well being on the line.
And for those who think the docs that order the tests make a bunch of money off of them, we don't get a dime. There are laws against referring patients to your own facilities (I.e. I can't own part of a radiology office and send patients there). Don't make money off immunizations, either. I bill what it costs me to purchase, and I pretty much break even. For those who think this is some vast conspiracy among the primary care docs, specialists, and pharmaceutical companies to make money, I wish someone would clue me in how to do it b/c I haven't figured it out yet.
It's only the good old insurance boys making money. By denying care or making you jump through hoops to get care, and still denying payment on some technicality that no one understands.
problem is that all the little kids you mri have to be sedated with barbituates to get it done. studies have been done by reputable scientists suggesting that knocking out children under 3 probably kills brain cells that don't regenerate (it does so with young rats). my toddler was "sedated" and made to hallucinate with other drugs that were supposedly necessary for a head mri that i knew would show nothing wrong (at a super-top hospital). sure enough, after tests for everything that anyone could possibly imagine she might have, she was found to have nothing wrong. i have a problem with "sedating" (which is nothing like sedate to watch) kids much more than is necessary to preserve the financial safety of doctors. why is it that my pediatrician would not let me sign something to absolve him of legal responsibility? i kept asking him for that and i changed pediatricians... but to no avail. i was driven crazy and harassed until i would consent to the needless mri.
also, the kids maybe don't necessarily have to be knocked out with barbituates to get them to be still for the test. some say it is possible to do the tests if the child is sleeping but virtually no hospitals/mri places are willing to do it that way.
doctors constantly do the MRI thing because they "don't trust the previous doctor's MRI"that was done on the patient. It's a money maker for the doctors. So they order their own and charge the insurance company again. The sad thing is they will cut off the use of MRI's and people that truely need one for diagnosis will get turned down.. and others who do not need them will get them...
it would be nice if, under certain circumstances, patients (or their parents/guardians) were given the option of a mri. it would also be nice if those people could sign something if they declined the tests, to absolve their doctors of responsibility in case they have problems that were not detected because the tests were not done. maybe such a way of doing things would help the entire health care system in this country immeasurably.
Good point.