The Star Tribune offered a business section feature yesterday on local doctors finding new uses for the $1.2 million Da Vinci robotic surgery devices.
At $1.2 million, you bet they want to and need to find new uses.
The story explained that the robotic device came on the market just 8 years ago, that Minnesota hospitals started using it just three years ago., and that there are already nine da Vincis in the state.
But the story failed to address the obvious followup questions: how many does a state or a community need? Who’s asking these questions?
The story was also completely devoid of any performance data on risks and benefits.
Finally, the story included a quote from a urologist using the device, who said
that getting the da Vinci was “physician driven,” as doctors saw its benefits. Then its use became “patient driven,” as people went to the Internet and discovered there was another way to have their surgeries done.
Such a comment can’t go unchallenged. If physicians and hospital marketing folks weren’t pushing the expensive devices, there would be no “patient driven” move.
Medical technology assessment in the U.S. is a huge question. This story didn’t deliver many answers.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like