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 green tea phenomenon

Despite being a heavy drinker of green tea since my diagnosis, mainly for its cancer prevention, and hopefully cancer curing qualities, I recently have developed a new found enthusiasm for green tea. Now whether it has been the green tea I have been drinking for the past 6+ years, my heavy exercise routine, or just pure chance that has kept my MCL stable, or at least [very] slow progressing, for the past 7+ years is certainly open to debate, but based on past research, I have chosen to believe green tea has at least helped to some degree. So what has given me this new found enthusiasm? Well, a friend of mine, and cycling buddy, was recently diagnosed with bladder cancer, and knowing my daily regimen called to ask my advice on green tea. He had already done a lot of research on the subject, so when I told him my obsession with green tea consisted principally of drinking the least expensive, decaffeinated green tea available (Trader Joe's brand of 18 tea bags for $3, and more recentl...
10 comments
Read more

Alternative treatment blowback

I received some interesting criticism the other day for my stance on alternative therapies. I ......... cannot for the life of me understand why you would not use supplementation and then use an over the counter poisonous liquid which has proven liver toxicity. Especially while taking a statin. She was referring to the use of an over the counter cough medication, I have been taking to help ease the symptoms of my upper respiratory infection. I did this once and vow to never use it again! I have gotten off Lipitor by using Nicotinic Acid and getting much better results but still use COQ10 to protect Liver as you must do while taking Statins. If you are not using CoQ10, I urge you to research this issue. MCL reduces your D3 and should be taken everyday! I use 5000mgs a day. I was sorta taken aback. She was partially correct. I'm against taking supplements, but when necessary I don't have a problem taking over the counter medication, when my ailments finally get the better of me. ...
7 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