“…radiation treatment centers… cost millions of dollars to build and have been the subject of fierce debates in Minnesota about where they should be located and who should be allowed to operate them.
…a moratorium blocks construction of new radiation centers in 14 Minnesota counties, primarily in the metro area.
…
The ban serves an important purpose, supporters say, in helping the state avoid unnecessary duplication of costly services that might ultimately drive up health costs and the premiums people pay for health insurance.
“Everyone within the metro area is within 20 minutes of a cancer treatment facility,” said Todd Freeman, an attorney who represents Minneapolis Radiation Oncology, a physician group that supports the moratorium and provides radiation services at many hospitals in the metro. “The Twin Cities metro area itself has excellent geographic access for patients as well as excess capacity.”
In a debate that never seems to end – and where most parties have a significant financial interest in its outcome – some think the federal overhaul of the health care system could finally start to change the terms of the discussion in 2014. At that point, operating radiation treatment machines could become much less lucrative.
“Radiation is an important source of revenue for people who own the devices,” said Dr. Timothy Sielaff, president of the Virginia Piper Cancer Institute at the Allina health system. “But the reimbursement paradigm is changing pretty significantly.”
This is vital local and regional health policy journalism. Kudos to Snowbeck and the Pioneer Press for tackling the topic.
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