Before the week wraps up, I want to draw attention to an important story in the Washington Post from the start of the week, “Doctor-owned centers spark criticism, scrutiny.”
It’s about urologists across the country opening centers that offer men with prostate cancer “an expensive, relatively new treatment known as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, or IMRT.” Further excerpt:
“Proponents of such centers argue that they bring together specialists to help patients make the best-informed decisions and that IMRT can be lifesaving. But the centers have become the focus of rising scrutiny. Critics charge that they are a disturbing development in an alarming trend: doctors in many specialties referring patients to facilities in which they have a financial interest, possibly leading to unneeded and sometimes dangerous procedures and adding to the nation’s bloated medical bill.”
Read the full story to hear more from both critics and defenders of the practice.
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Michael Franks
March 4, 2011 at 1:05 pmThis appears still to be legal under stark laws as put forth in recent NY times article about similar
scenario. Perhaps reduced reimbursements will reduce utilization – worked for Lupron/LHRH. In no way has the news article demonstrated any malice or overutilization by these guys, so the bias of this title as scandalous is misrepresentative
BTW: How is this any different than hospitals vertically integrating (which is the trend) and self referring to their radiation profit centers? This is what happens all the time, and large “independent” groups have then to compete. Welcome to America
Also, I suspect this reputable Baltimore group is still doing surgery and seeds or active surveillance in an individualized fashion as most of us do, without much financial gain
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