Maura Lerner of the Star Tribune newspaper is a veteran health care journalist.
But she ends the piece with important questions about competition among hospitals, resource allocation and the medical arms race. Excerpt:
At this point, only a small number of patients are likely to be candidates for the total artificial heart, said Dr. Peter Eckman, a heart transplant specialist at the University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview. “The market for this, so to speak, is limited,” he said.
Nevertheless, both the university and Abbott Northwestern in Minneapolis are gearing up to do the implants as well.
Hospitals are ready to go
“We’ve gone through all the training, we have it on the shelf,” said Eckman. “All three of these centers have been looking for patients. Mayo found the first one.”
Asked why Minnesota needs three centers, within 90 miles, implanting artificial hearts, Eckman laughed.
“That’s a bit of a hot potato,” he said. “I’ve obviously got a dog in the fight. We look at it as an extension of the program we already offer.”
This could have been just a cheerleading piece. Lerner made it something more by introducing this angle, one which we hope she and the newspaper continue to pursue.
Comments
We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.
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