Dow+150.25up+1.52%
10,058.64
Nasdaqunch0.00%
2,150.87
S&Punch0.00%
1,070.52

MSN Money video

Video on MSN Money
This video player requires the installation of the free Adobe Flash Player
More video on MSN Money
health care costs © Creatas Images/JupiterImages Corporation

Extra9/23/2009 12:01 AM ET

The machine that's ruining health care

The US has more and better medical equipment than any other country. But reliance on technology like MRI scanners is a big reason why costs are so much higher here.

By Mark Gimein, The Big Money

The main question of the national debate on health care has been who should pay for it, but lurking behind it is another one: Why does American health care cost so much in the first place? If you want an answer to that question, there's no better place to start than the proliferation of the gleaming new magnetic resonance imaging machines filling U.S. hospitals.

According to the latest data, the United States has just over one MRI scanner for every 40,000 people. That number that may not sound high, but it means that we have more than three times as many devices per person as you will find in the United Kingdom or France, and almost four times as many as in Canada. Only Japan, an MRI-happy outlier, has more.

Obviously, the MRI is an extremely useful tool, giving doctors an ability to see inside the body and diagnose conditions that would otherwise require them to probe and cut into their patients' bodies. It is also expensive to buy -- at about $2 million -- and expensive to operate. Worse, the machine is used aggressively for tests such as breast-cancer screening and yields a high rate of false positives that lead, in turn, to unnecessary surgeries.

Although MRI scanning has obvious advantages over invasive procedures, its use on the very sick is also not cost-free. When my own father was dying of cancer last year in one of New York's best hospitals, he was subjected over a period of weeks to a battery of scans. While the healthy may think of MRIs as an almost entirely benign procedure, it is not at all the same for a patient whose spine is fractured in several places from bone marrow cancer, who cannot easily lie flat, and who is hallucinating from morphine. My father came down with pneumonia from complications involving sedation for what should have been a harmless scan. In these situations, even noninvasive, seemingly harmless procedures come with risks and difficulties.

The physician and writer Atul Gawande, in an extraordinary article in The New Yorker, detailed how doctors with a financial interest in expensive cardiac procedures have driven skyrocketing medical costs in McAllen, Texas.

Gawande demonstrates how the financial interests of doctors push patients into expensive operations of questionable usefulness. As Gawande shows, even for doctors who do not consciously seek to profit from pricy procedures, the emphasis on expensive treatments changes the norms of medical practice. And we can almost certainly add to this that it changes the expectations of patients, who come to believe that more treatment equates with better treatment.

Video: Paying for services, not results

The MRI data are a good proxy for the much more general tendency of U.S. physicians and patients to count on expensive technologies and operations.

In case after case, however, the confidence in this approach to medicine turns out to be misplaced. Whether it is the latest artificial hip, which then needs replacement itself, or an elective full body CT scan that exposes patients to radiation and leads to treatments of uncertain benefit, the reliance on technology leads to medicine that is more expensive without being better.

Continued: Worried about rationing

 1 | 2 | next >

Rate this Article

Click on one of the stars below to rate this article from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). LowRate it 1Rate it 2Rate it 3Rate it 4Rate it 5High
Fund data provided by Morningstar, Inc. © 2009. All rights reserved.
StockScouter data provided by Gradient Analytics, Inc.
Quotes supplied by Interactive Data.
MSN Money's editorial goal is to provide a forum for personal finance and investment ideas. Our articles, columns, message board posts and other features should not be construed as investment advice, nor does their appearance imply an endorsement by Microsoft of any specific security or trading strategy. An investor's best course of action must be based on individual circumstances.
Join the discussion!
Sort by:
1 - 10 of 648
Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:57:38 PM

I get so tired of stupid statements like: almost every other industrialized country gets by with less than 11%, for equally good (and usually better) care.

 

A major difference is lifestyles.  In our country the "poor" are obese and the "rich" are thin!  We eat too much and exercise too little.  We die by too many accidents and violence.   And then we expect the best of health care to heal us.  If we did not have the best health care system on earth, we would really have problems!

 

Another difference is that the USA is the leader in developing health care.  It costs money to develop new health care techniques, drugs, equipment, etc.   We pay for it, and the rest of the world is just riding on our coat tails. 

 

I really get tired of stupid articles like this.

 

 

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:42:56 AM

The American consumer is too isolated from the true cost of our health care.  Health care is th eonly industry in which insurance is expected to pay the majority of routine expenses.  Does your car insurance pay for gas or tires?  Does your home owner insurance pay to fix your lights or and your house?  Of course not.  Why should health insurance pay for a doctors visist if you get the flu?

   The result is that we are insulated from the medical costs and have lost all negotiating power and even the desire to negotiate or shop for routine health care.  David Goldhill has written an excellent analysis of this isolation in the ATLANTIC.  Check it out and then contact your congressman.  Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:12:46 AM

This is an excellent article that addresses the crux of the healthcare crisis.   Just what IS the annual cost of medical procedures ordered because physicians have to worry about lawsuits, and/or because they are reimburseable, regardless of the likelihood of a positive outcome?  Cost/benefit has to apply to healthcare, too, or we run the risk of jeopardizing healthcare for all.   

#4
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:49:13 AM
One of Obama's first "cost cutting suggestions" was to limit access to MRI's and Cat scans.  Why can't we just go back to using leeches and blood lettings?  Then we'd really save money!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:07:33 AM

Two excellent points by Sailor and UF. We can't afford our health care so we are trying to use insurance to make up for our reduced purchasing power.   The real problem we are facing is falling income for the middle class.

    Rather than require everyone to purchase health coverage, it would be better to outlaw health insurance for any health expenses below some high catastrophic level. Insurance is a defect in capitalism. It disconnects buyer from seller, preventing natural market forces from arriving at an efficient price. Before auto insurance became universal, the cost of repairing a crumpled fender was in the 3 to 5 hundred dollar range. Now it's 3 to 5 thousand. An insurance co. has a perverse incentive to make the cost of the underlying product or service unaffordable to the average customer. This favors both the insurance co and the service provider at the expense of the insurance customer... who then feels compelled to buy insurance to cover something that was once affordable. It’s a cancer eating away at our economy.  

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:13:40 AM

"ThThe physician and writer Atul Gawande, in an extraordinary article in e New Yorker, detailed how doctors with a financial interest in expensive cardiac procedures have driven skyrocketing medical costs in McAllen, Texas."

Now we seem to be finally getting to one of the major reasons why health care cost are up....very good article to me with some truths about the common practices of what really goes on with doctors that I have witnessed. My father age apprx 80 going for his SECOND hip operation, why, first one didn't work so try another. Remember he is on Medicare. Mother in-law, same stuff about her hip. Remember she is on Medicare and in her 80's. Both have to sign papers that only a medical lawyer can begin to understand before the operations. Also my mother in-law later died from some form of cancer that couldn't be found but the hip sure was a problem wasn't it? Both got the MRI's. My wife and I were told at our last doctors visit that they could only spend 5 minutes with their patience for a visit....why....toooo much paper work after to take care of after the visit...but....my premiums keep going up and the doctor gets the same if not more for the visit taking less time to see me.

IF HEALTHCARE REFORM is meant only that WE pay higher cost for insurance so the those in the business of health care can make more money....where the heck is the health care reform and for who?

 

 

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:18:05 AM

I wonder how much law suits drive unnecessary tests. In Calif. and Texas when they passed Tort Reform health premiums dropped 40% and 30% respectively.

 

Yet no one is talking about TORT REFORM, a major driver of medical costs.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:32:43 AM
I am a paralegal and I can tell you from experience, MRI's and other diagnostic tests are WAY overused.  I do a lot of work with motor vehicle accidents and worker's comp.  Every doctor wants his own MRI or CT-scan, even when they are negative.  They are so afraid that if somewhere down the line something shows up, the person will sue for malpractice.  Even though they did nothing wrong, the costs of defending a malpractice suit make it cheaper to settle for nuisance value.  There was one person that was just sure something was wrong with him after being involved in a 15mph bump that he demanded CT scan and MRI after CT scan and MRI, each in the neighborhood of $2000-3000. He had 3 to 4 scans a month because he demanded them, and the doctors were afraid to cross him because he threatened them with malpractice.  This went on for 2 years.  I am surprised he does not glow in the dark!  Now some poor schmuck who hit him from the rear at 15mph will get his insurance jacked up because his car insurance will have to pay for this idiot.  It happens in almost every case I have.  They want to do something to help contain costs--TORT REFORM!!!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 7:45:37 AM
Hear ye, hear ye the honorable 4CYFI commenter above.  Is that true?   Then we truly are barking up the wrong tree in Washington.  I for one will verify and if it is on the money, I will be sending numerous emails to my elected officials in Georgia.

#10
Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:11:18 AM
Re:  Previous post of olrowe; I submit the following:

STATE TORT REFORM LAWS

California and Colorado

Tort reform in California and Colorado primarily focused on capping victim compensation for noneconomic damages, also known as "pain and suffering" awards. Unlike economic damages, which include lost wages and medical costs, noneconomic damages are subjective and difficult to quantify. Both laws limit noneconomic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits to $ 250,000, but Colorado also imposes a total noneconomic damage cap of $ 500,000. If the court finds clear and convincing evidence of "derivative noneconomic loss or injury," it may award up to an additional $ 250,000. Derivative noneconomic loss or injury is nonpecuniary harm or emotional stress to people other than the person suffering the direct or primary loss or injury (Cal. Civil Code § 3333. 2 and Col. Stat. Ann. § 13-21-102. 5).

California additionally limits the amount attorneys in medical malpractice cases can collect under a contingency fee arrangement to 40% of the first $ 50,000, 331/3% of the next $ 50,000, 25% of the next $ 500,000, and 15% of any amount that exceeds $ 600,000. These limits apply regardless of whether the recovery is by settlement, arbitration, or judgment. If the contingency fee arrangement is based on an award of periodic payments, the court must place a total value on the payments based on the projected life expectancy of the claimant, and then calculate the contingency fee percentage (Cal. Bus and Prof. Code § 6146)

Colorado requires the trial judge to enter judgment that awards future damages in all tort civil actions for damages against health care professionals or institutions in periodic payments rather than by lump sum if the award exceeds the present value of $ 150,000 (Col. Stat. Ann. § 13-64-204).



1 - 10 of 648
To add a comment, pleasesign in