0 Followers
0 Following
6 Posts
Me: https://mgraczyk.com

My github: https://github.com/mgraczyk
This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.

Officialhttps://
Support this servicehttps://www.patreon.com/birddotmakeup
Yes that is my point. It's about cost

Right, the problem in your model is that the doctors do! I am pointing out that this is a problem with the doctors, not the scan.

Scans are a tool, doctors are not allowed to use them rationally because it would be too expensive, so they don't use them. With an ideal doctor, patient outcomes would be better with a scan than without one, but my claim is that doctors are not ideal.

No doctor would order a full body MRI just to throw out the result in 99% of cases, because *it's too costly*

How can you trigger an invasive procedure if nobody learns the result of the scan?
I have, it's the fault of how medicine is practiced to reduce cost. It's completely avoidable, you can just not tell people their scan results if they have no symptoms and the detection is less than 95% likely to be cancer. This is strictly better than the status quo because the only difference is some people who almost certainly have cancer learn that they have cancer and nothing else changes
And yes getting frequent full body MRIs is still overwhelming the right thing for the patient.
But unfortunately it does sometimes work, for example in Yugoslavia. And it would have worked in Iraq if we hadn't dismantled the entire civilian infrastructure.