Making money from the “more tests must equal better medicine” fallacy.
Related posts:
- Screening chest CTs don’t save lives
- How companies make money from unnecessary screening tests
- Motives behind CT screening
- Routine screening test recommendations, and how newspapers often get it wrong
- Screening for ovarian cancer redux
- Profiting from prostate cancer radiation therapy
- My response to "screening" EKG’s
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
Why do so many physicians propagate that fallacy, then? And agree to be reimbursed based on procedures?
What???The above comment suggests we Holy Physicians might be motivated by something other than the pure desire to see our patients be well? That a physician, ordained in the power of the mystery of diagnosis might have a self interest? No! No! No!
I’m sure physicians are BETTER than that…
Aren’t we? Hey, where is everybody?
Did I miss the Drug Rep?
Out of curiosity I took one of the tests – I think AAA screening – and looked up what USPSTF has to say for screening general population (not sick people, not over-65 crowd, healthy people). They said that there was little evidence of benefit and good evidence of harm.
Yet Happy Hospitalist is saying that from his point of view these ads sent to general public are perfectly fine ethically as long as people are paying. Never mind the scare tactic and total absense of any mention of potential harm in the brochure.
This brings two questions to mind
1. How is sending out advertising promoting tests that are more likely to harm someone than benefit him/her is ethically better than selling snake oil? Hint – snake oil can benefit some people too due to placebo effect, right? Consider also that the authors of the brochure are people with MD while snake oil salesmen usually aren’t, and most of us are more likely to listen to a health advice from someone with an MD.
2. Whatever happen with “first do no harm”?
Comments on this entry are closed.