2 ms·

Andy Grove would completely disagree: https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1996/05/13/212394/index.htm https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu

by 1970-01-01 4y ago

Andy Grove would completely disagree: https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1996/05/13/212394/index.htm https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1996... MY FIRST PSA. It all started about a year earlier when my family doctor of 20 years retired. In the fall of 1994, my new doctor gave me a physical exam to establish a new baseline. The physical involved an assortment of blood tests, all of which were in the normal range, with one exception. The test called PSA came back with a result of 5. The acceptable range, according to the lab computer, was 0 to 4. I didn't know what this test was. In fact, I don't think I'd ever had one before. My doctor's comment was, "It's slightly elevated. It's probably nothing to worry about, but I think you should see a urologist."

giantg2 4y ago
If anything, the article you referenced is a perfect example of someone doing their own research and diagnostics. Most people do not get this level of care, nor have the intellect to work the diagnostics the way he did. The risk/value proposition is likely much different for people just deferring to doctors, especially for those doctors that are on the lower end of the performance spectrum.
renewiltord 4y ago
Yeah, this is the classic "regulations are written in blood" logic. If the cost is invisible and the benefit is visible we do not price as we would if it were made apparent. Presumably our internal model clamps some kinds of things to zero and other things to infinity. When thinking about it, I would prefer to take a test and detect cancer even if the test gives me a near equal risk of cancer. It's strange to my rational self, so I must struggle to reconcile it.
helloworld 4y ago
PSA testing may catch prostate cancer early, but it may also lead to unnecessary -- and sometimes harmful -- treatment. I found this analysis helpful for assessing the pros and cons: https://www.hardingcenter.de/en/transfer-and-impact/fact-boxes/early-detection-of-cancer/early-detection-of-prostate-cancer-with-psa-testing https://www.hardingcenter.de/en/transfer-and-impact/fact-box...

giantg2 4y ago

If anything, the article you referenced is a perfect example of someone doing their own research and diagnostics. Most people do not get this level of care, nor have the intellect to work the diagnostics the way he did. The risk/value proposition is likely much different for people just deferring to doctors, especially for those doctors that are on the lower end of the performance spectrum.

renewiltord 4y ago

Yeah, this is the classic "regulations are written in blood" logic. If the cost is invisible and the benefit is visible we do not price as we would if it were made apparent. Presumably our internal model clamps some kinds of things to zero and other things to infinity. When thinking about it, I would prefer to take a test and detect cancer even if the test gives me a near equal risk of cancer. It's strange to my rational self, so I must struggle to reconcile it.

helloworld 4y ago

PSA testing may catch prostate cancer early, but it may also lead to unnecessary -- and sometimes harmful -- treatment. I found this analysis helpful for assessing the pros and cons: https://www.hardingcenter.de/en/transfer-and-impact/fact-boxes/early-detection-of-cancer/early-detection-of-prostate-cancer-with-psa-testing https://www.hardingcenter.de/en/transfer-and-impact/fact-box...