Our health care system is heading towards insolvency. The reasons are multifactorial, but one which many policy wonks and responsible physicians agree is characteristic of the high cost of care in the US is early, eager adoption of technology before thorough cost-benefit analyses. Professional organizations should be arguing more strongly in favor of evidence-based standards for the adoption of new technologies; but our fee-for-service systems and single-minded specialist fifedoms prevent this. Our central government (medicaid and medicare) could also play a key role in determining what technologies should be reimbursed from the pockets of taxpayers. But repeatedly the government has caved in to lobbying interests.
A new study in the New England Journal of Medicine regarding the use of a new CT technology to image the heart for narrowed coronary arteries address just this issue. The new scans are a prime example of this heady infatuation for new technologies regardless if it has shown to improve outcomes. Many doctors - primarily cardiologists and radiologists - who stand to benefit from the tests have been promoting CT angiography as a non-invasive alternative to conventional angiography. Sound good in principle, but that's not good enough when lives and billions of dollars on the line. We need sound, impartial judgment and objective evidence. Here is a brief comment on the same. The New York Times ran a good front page article on this issue a while back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)