Screening echocardiograms in athletes is assuredly cost-inefficient. People who want it should pay for it themselves.
Robert Centor argues otherwise.
Related posts:
- EKGs are not part of routine athlete screening
- X-Games athletes and anatomy
- Professional athletes going half-speed, and the dangers of overtraining
- Who’s not happy with the new prostate cancer screening recommendations?
- How screening for prostate cancer can be a gamble, and why either screening or not has consequences
- The unintended consequences of free HIV screening at hospitals
- Cardiac CT scans
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
Beyond whether it’s cost effective for the general population, for universities whose athletic programs are often their main way of showcasing themselves I think it’s a good idea.
An on-court death is not what you want fans and alumni to experience. College athletes often don’t get the greatest education, they’re hoping to hit it big in the pros, the least the universities who reap millions in TV money can do is assure that they won’t meet an early demise.
Plus – why invest in a player if he isn’t likely to be able to play the entire year/season?
I don’t see why cost-effectiveness has anything to do with who pays for it. Is there some sort of natural law that people should not have to pay for medical care that is actually indicated? I must have missed something in my upbringing because a lot of people think so but it makes no sense to me.
I pay for all of my medical care. Who else should?
Comments on this entry are closed.