newjerseynewsroom.com

Share this Twitter Myspace Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot Furl Yahoo Technorati Newsvine Facebook Export PDF Print E-mail

The implications of imaging cuts have been getting little attention in the health care reform debate. Although almost everyone knows about the 5% tax on cosmetic procedures (or lack thereof), almost no one knows about the drastic cuts in imaging and the consequences this could have on patients nationwide. In addition, almost everyone has heard about the dangers of radiation from radiological procedures, but no one has heard about the benefits radiology has had on millions of patients. There is countless data demonstrating how effective radiology has been in early disease diagnosis, monitoring cancer treatment, changing/guiding medical management, etc, but that never makes the press. This is exactly why people who know the benefits of radiology and follow the health care debate are outraged. No one denies that radiology is over-utilized nationwide. But the way to address this is notto reduce reimbursements all together which could have detrimental effects on patient access. Rather, Congress must get to the sources of the problem which include: 1) self-referral by physicians (non-radiologist physicians mostly) who have a clear financial incentive to order as many studies as possible on their patients, and 2) applying appropriateness criteria (as outlined by the American College of Radiology) in ordering studies so that ordering physicians can have guidance in applying the most effective and safest study for their patient. Instead, the media and un-read physicians focus on arguments such as the dangers of CT radiation. Indeed, CT has a lot of radiation and has the potential to cause harm. But what people (including the above poster) have to recognize is that these studies (like ALL studies) have to be read with a critical eye. Just because an article is published in the New England Journal of Medicine or Archives of Internal Medicine doesn't mean that it's without it's flaws. For example, these studies use data from atomic bomb survivors form Japan and make the assumption that this same data can be used to those exposed to radiation from diagnostic studies. These studies also assume that those patients getting CT scans are of the same health as those in the general population. Lastly, almost all these studies that outline the almost certainly overstated risks of diagnostic radiation acknowledge that there is no evidence and no identifiable case that radiologic studies ever caused a cancer. Ever. It's one thing to acknowledge the problems of overutilization and radiation dose, but to sensationalize an unproven risk that overshadows the proven benefits of radiology is unfortunate. The debate must be more balanced. More attention needs to be put on the benefits of radiology and on the dangers of taking radiology away as Congress is planning to do.