July 29, 2009

Wide-eyed new-technology-in-town health care coverage

Posted By

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.

Patrick Driscoll

July 29, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Gary, Agreed. The adoption of new technology too often is accompanied by fixation on features rather than cost-effective benefits. Since I have been covering medical technology developments (too many years), I have harped on the idea that medical device solutions to healthcare problems are imperfect, but they are often available here and now while the “perfect” solutions offered by biotechs (e.g., “rational therapeutics”, gene therapies, etc.) continue to remain out of reach. My predilection is for solutions to disease where either no solution currently exists or where existing alternatives are inadequate. So, while I favor device technologies, and even some expensive ones involving capital equipment (e.g., gamma knife, laparoscopy systems, etc.), I do so out of the “lack of adequate alternative” consideration. When I see DaVinci systems discussed with wide-eyed infatuation, I am just flabbergasted that they aren’t recognized for what they are — big money pits draining the healthcare system. That isn’t to say that there aren’t clinical applications that meet the necessary criteria — no alternative treatment or offering a significantly improved outcomes that consider the added cost. There are complex procedures (mostly neuro, in my opinion) that seem to fit this.
Without producing clinical benefits that either don’t exist otherwise or are simply more cost effective than alternatives, expensive new technologies just don’t belong in this system.

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

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:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

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.