“When it comes to reining in health care spending, it still seems like each hospital administrator thinks the guy at the other hospital should do it.” That was the lead, as Jenny Gold of Kaiser Health News reports that two Washington,DC hospitals – three miles apart – are building expensive proton beam radiation centers for cancer treatment. The two – Johns Hopkins’ Sibley Memorial Hospital and MedStar Health’s Georgetown University Hospital – will also compete with another new facility in downtown Baltimore – about 40 miles away. She explains:
“While the treatment has shown promise for treating brain and spinal tumors in children, the Hopkins facility is explicitly banned from treating pediatric cancers. That’s because Sibley Memorial Hospital doesn’t have a pediatric unit, nor does it have a permission from the city to build one.
(The 3 centers) will all have to turn to treating adult cancers — largely prostate cancer, for which proton therapy hasn’t been proved to improve results for patients or to reduce side effects — to stay profitable.
…
“Neither [Hopkins nor MedStar] should be building,” says Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former health care adviser to the Obama administration who is now at the University of Pennsylvania. “We don’t have evidence that there’s a need for them in terms of medical care. They’re simply done to generate profits.”
The higher costs of proton services ultimately trickle down to taxpayers, employers and consumers in the form of higher health insurance premiums.
“It’s hard to bend the cost curve when you’re spending a lot of money,” says Emanuel. “These are tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatment for interventions that do not improve survival, improve quality of life, decrease side effects or save money.”
There are already 11 proton therapy centers in the U.S., and the Maryland Proton Treatment Center in Baltimore is one of 17 more on the way.
Former Boston medical center CEO Paul Levy wrote on Twitter, “Here they go again.”
In a New York Times editorial last year, Ezekiel Emanuel and Steven Pearson referred to the proliferation of proton beam therapy facilities as “crazy medicine and unsustainable public policy.”
If you missed it, Johns Hopkins Medicine also this week sent out a news release about its robotic surgery system.
We’ve written many past posts about questions of “the medical arms race” concerning both robotic surgery and proton beam therapy.
—————————
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Comments (4)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Leonard Arzt
June 1, 2013 at 11:27 pmGary, guess what? The “medical arms race” is over. Proton therapy won. So did cancer patients in
the greater Washington, D.C. area (actually the folks in Baltimore prefer not being used in the same sentence as Washington), so did cutting edge radiation technology and medical innovation. I know it may be unsettling to you, including the idea that the nation needs a medical “arms race” to beat cancer, but physicians have always looked for ways to use radiation to treat cancer for more than 100 years. It’s a medical arms race we can not afford to lose.
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