Skip to main content

Most CT Scans are unnecessary

Most of you know, when it comes to the US health care system, I am not a big fan. Notably, it discriminates against the less fortunate, and in many cases does not work in the best interest of the patient.

I think the following article justifies many of my concerns, pointing out a huge flaw in the for-profit, fee-for-service health care model adhered to in the US, while highlighting the importance of being your own advocate, and approaching everything you do, especially regarding your health, with a bit of skepticism.
CHICAGO (Reuters) - More than half of patients receiving abdominal CT scans, an advanced type of X-ray, got them for tests they did not need, exposing them to excess radiation that could raise the long-term risk of cancer, U.S. researchers said on Monday.
.............................

The University of Wisconsin-Madison team led by Dr. Kristie Guite studied 978 CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis done on 500 patients that were sent to the university to be interpreted. They used American College of Radiology guidelines to determine whether they were appropriate.

They found that 52.2 percent of the patients were found to have had CT scans that were unnecessary. The average excess radiation dose per patient was 11.3 millisieverts, about the equivalent of 113 chest X-rays.

RAISING CANCER RISK

Some patients got a lot more radiation than others. In one in five patients, the dose was 50 millisieverts, enough to raise some concerns about health problems, Guite said. Seven of the 500 got 100 millisieverts of radiation, a level known to raise the risk of cancer.

"At the dose seen in our study, one in 1,000 patients could get a radiation-induced cancer," Guite told the meeting.

"This could lead to up to 23,000 radiation-induced cancers per year," she said.
.............................

Dr. Louis Hinshaw of the University of Wisconsin who worked on the study said many institutions may be doing the extra studies for good measure, ..............

But he said it was possible some centers were doing the extra scans because they may get paid more for them.
...........................

and being as cynical as I am [when it comes to the US health care system] I might also add:

to help recover some of the uncompensated and under reimbursed care health care providers are forced to provide, and at the same time increasing the risk of cancer for those that have the tests, creating potential new sources of revenue in the future.

That's how free markets work!

NOTE: Some [all] of the women may also be interested in this article on Mammograms.
Labels:

Comments

Becky said…
After John had cancer one of his requirements was to have a CT every year to check for cancer. He had an oncologist fresh out of school tell him that it wasn't necessary to do it every year as it increased his chance of cancer and that was over 25 years ago.
12:42 PM
Marc said…
That's not surprising! 25 years ago, health care was more patient focused, and doctors were more idealistic. And despite the fact one doctor suggested it every year, he was likely doing it, based on what he thought was a sound medical decisions.

Now health care is in the hands of big business whose main focus is profits. Patient needs only come secondary.
8:14 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The results are in

And I am iron deficient, big time. [Which would account for my low hemoglobin] Test Result Ref Range IRON 30 59-158 mcg/dL TOTAL IRON BINDING CAPACITY 231 250-420 mcg/dL IRON SAT 13 20-50 % My Ferritin levels were good, but that could be because Ferritin is also an "acute phase reactant", that is sometimes increased with acute or chronic disease. Folate and B12 levels were also within the normal range. The only problem now is determining what is causing the iron deficiency, which in the case of men, is [very] rare. My oncologist has given me a Globin Fecal test to perform, and has scheduled me for a consultation with a colorectal surgeon to discuss performing a colonoscopy, which could be problematic because of my large spleen. In the mean time, I've decided to start taking an iron supplement, it's only the quantity that is causing me some consternation. I've been told by a very knowledgeable person that to overcome an iron deficiency, I need to be taking 300 mg o...
5 comments
Read more

This is just one of those days

It's one of those days you just want to sit around the house and do absolutely nothing, or watch some movies you have recorded. It might even be a good day to read a book, if you were so inclined, which I am not. As you should be able to see from the view out my bedroom window, it is raining outside. The rain started last night, and hasn't let up since. I can't complain too much though, as this is the rainy season, and we do need the rain. Plus Monday's are typically my day off from exercise, so I will surprise everyone, and not complain. I just feel sorry for anyone who might be visiting from, say Argentina, like a friend of mine (fellow MCLer), who happens to be in Cambria today. He might be a little disappointed. Fortunately the rest of the week, when he will be in LA, will be nice, and the real intent of his trip was to visit his son in Tahoe, who works at one of the ski resorts, and ski, so I know he's not complaining too much either. This weather will actually...
6 comments
Read more

When is enough, enough?

Today I learned, Lance Armstrong, the most drug tested athlete in the history of sport, is being accused of doping, again . This time by the US Anti Doping Agency (USADA), who claim they have collected blood samples from him in 2009 and 2010 that were “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.” Really! What took them so long? The French have been trying to make allegations of drug doping stick for years, ever since he won his first Tour d'France, but to no avail. And now the USADA claims to have evidence to support that claim, and they've waited almost 3 years before releasing this evidence. Needless to say, I am skeptical. Then there's this from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO): Increasing the federal excise tax on cigarettes by 50 cents per pack eventually would increase Medicare and Social Security spending, slightly. Eventually? What is the CBO suggesting here? That we should encourage smoking, because if we don't, in...
11 comments
Read more