5 ms·

No. There is no area of medicine where a boost in productivity will cause doctors to have idle time. The wait times may decrease, throughput may increase, diagn

No. There is no area of medicine where a boost in productivity will cause doctors to have idle time. The wait times may decrease, throughput may increase, diagnosis accuracy may improve, even costs may decrease (press x to doubt) but no, there will never be a case where we will need less radiologists.

whynotminot 1y ago
Which may take us to a sort of “Jevens Paradox” kind of place except for medical care. Like there are times already where I’ve put off or not sought medical care because of the hassle involved. If I could just waltz into the office and get an appointment and have an issue seen to same day I would probably do it more often.
- KerrAvon 1y ago
  To be clear, we also need more medical professionals in general -- they're not keeping up with the population and it's making us all less healthy. Three to six months, or more, in the SF bay area for some critical appointments is really unacceptable, but there's not really an option given supply and demand. I'm sure this will all get better with captain brainworms at the helm.
- perrygeo 1y ago
  Wonderful insight that I'd never considered. Talk to almost anyone in America and they'll tell you about a health issue that they or their family are deferring due to lack of access. Waiting months or years to simply talk to a specialist, let alone find one that can help, is sadly the norm. Patients rightly feel it's a waste of their time so won't even seek treatment. Remove that barrier to access and we won't see a shiny new streamlined medical system but rather a flood of new patients requiring even more bureaucracy to manage.
- 98codes 1y ago
  100% why I bothered to stick w/ OneMedical after the Amazon acquisition. I tried to get a "New Dr/New Patient" appointment with any local doctor I could find that took my insurance, and the closest I could get was 3 weeks away. I'm not worried about medical folks having "time to clean" any time soon.
TuringNYC 1y ago
>> No. There is no area of medicine where a boost in productivity will cause doctors to have idle time. The wait times may decrease, throughput may increase, diagnosis accuracy may improve, even costs may decrease (press x to doubt) but no, there will never be a case where we will need less radiologists. I dont think this is how market participants may think about it. If costs decrease, some group of radiologists will drop out of the market. We may not "need" less radiologists, but we're signaling we need less of them by not paying them as much as before. Much like I still "need" a photographer, but short of weddings, I'm not willing to pay as much as before. I may well acquire a photogrpher for a portrait, but it would have to be priced competitively to a selfie.
- postexitus 1y ago
  Faster CPUs, better screens, helpful IDEs, heck even Gen-AI itself did not reduce the need for software engineers let alone decrease the costs. As mentioned in another comment, The Jevons Paradox implies that in certain industries, increased productivity may actually lead to more consumption (therefore propping up the demand / cost) despite not being intuitive so. The only industries that has observed the opposite effect I can think of so far are translators and stock photographers. Maybe also proof readers - but is that gen Ai or did spellcheckers already kill that branch?
  - vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
    Software engineers could spread out into new areas and find new things to do. Unless I am mistaken, the work of radiologists is more defined.
    - lostlogin 1y ago
      > Software engineers could spread This is key. Radiologists that can program (or software engineers that do medicine) make a massive difference. When someone explains what they want and it’s built for them, you get a very different product to that built by the user. I want more radiologists that can write software please.

whynotminot 1y ago

Which may take us to a sort of “Jevens Paradox” kind of place except for medical care. Like there are times already where I’ve put off or not sought medical care because of the hassle involved. If I could just waltz into the office and get an appointment and have an issue seen to same day I would probably do it more often.

KerrAvon 1y ago
To be clear, we also need more medical professionals in general -- they're not keeping up with the population and it's making us all less healthy. Three to six months, or more, in the SF bay area for some critical appointments is really unacceptable, but there's not really an option given supply and demand. I'm sure this will all get better with captain brainworms at the helm.
perrygeo 1y ago
Wonderful insight that I'd never considered. Talk to almost anyone in America and they'll tell you about a health issue that they or their family are deferring due to lack of access. Waiting months or years to simply talk to a specialist, let alone find one that can help, is sadly the norm. Patients rightly feel it's a waste of their time so won't even seek treatment. Remove that barrier to access and we won't see a shiny new streamlined medical system but rather a flood of new patients requiring even more bureaucracy to manage.
98codes 1y ago
100% why I bothered to stick w/ OneMedical after the Amazon acquisition. I tried to get a "New Dr/New Patient" appointment with any local doctor I could find that took my insurance, and the closest I could get was 3 weeks away. I'm not worried about medical folks having "time to clean" any time soon.

TuringNYC 1y ago

>> No. There is no area of medicine where a boost in productivity will cause doctors to have idle time. The wait times may decrease, throughput may increase, diagnosis accuracy may improve, even costs may decrease (press x to doubt) but no, there will never be a case where we will need less radiologists. I dont think this is how market participants may think about it. If costs decrease, some group of radiologists will drop out of the market. We may not "need" less radiologists, but we're signaling we need less of them by not paying them as much as before. Much like I still "need" a photographer, but short of weddings, I'm not willing to pay as much as before. I may well acquire a photogrpher for a portrait, but it would have to be priced competitively to a selfie.

postexitus 1y ago
Faster CPUs, better screens, helpful IDEs, heck even Gen-AI itself did not reduce the need for software engineers let alone decrease the costs. As mentioned in another comment, The Jevons Paradox implies that in certain industries, increased productivity may actually lead to more consumption (therefore propping up the demand / cost) despite not being intuitive so. The only industries that has observed the opposite effect I can think of so far are translators and stock photographers. Maybe also proof readers - but is that gen Ai or did spellcheckers already kill that branch?
- vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
  Software engineers could spread out into new areas and find new things to do. Unless I am mistaken, the work of radiologists is more defined.
  - lostlogin 1y ago
    > Software engineers could spread This is key. Radiologists that can program (or software engineers that do medicine) make a massive difference. When someone explains what they want and it’s built for them, you get a very different product to that built by the user. I want more radiologists that can write software please.