4 ms·

Is that why the US has four times as many MRI machines per person? http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/04/02/index.html?contentType=/ns/St

by uvdiv 14y ago

Is that why the US has four times as many MRI machines per person? http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/04/02/index.html?contentType=/ns/StatisticalPublication,/ns/Chapter&containerItemId=/content/serial/19991312&itemId=/content/chapter/health_glance-2011-30-en&mimeType=text/html http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2011-en/04/... And has no queues for MRI scans, where France has a 32-day mean waiting period? http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/09/canadian-medicine-is-sick.html http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/09/canadian-medicine-is-sic... http://sante.lefigaro.fr/actualite/2011/05/10/10863-irm-delais-dattente-stagnent-32-jours-france http://sante.lefigaro.fr/actualite/2011/05/10/10863-irm-dela...

pessimizer 14y ago
Can it really be called cherry picking if you only pick one cherry? At least make an effort.
Rexxar 14y ago
MRI exams, 2009 : - US 91.2 per 1000 inhabitants - France 55.2 per 1000 inhabitants Better usage ratio => lower price
- scarmig 14y ago
  And to make an equally relevant point: more MRIs doesn't necessarily equate to better health outcomes. It depends on who is getting them, and how likely they are to actually be sick. Lots of rich people getting marginally useful MRIs in the USA may be an inferior system to everyone having access to MRIs but fewer being done in total.
- uvdiv 14y ago
  It's also symptomatic of a shortage. Being able to meet everyone's needs every time means keeping certain overcapacity.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Bigger installed base => more capital costs to be paid for. Trying to roll down medical costs to one- or two-line sentences is really dangerous with the US health care system, because so many things you could normally expect in a functioning economy aren't there. In fact, increased access to medical devices and procedures may drive costs up with no change in patient outcomes. This was a pretty well-discussed article in economics circles a few years ago that talks about the phenomenon: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_... We do get something for our expensive MRI machines (lower wait times), but I doubt anyone, or even the invisible hand of the market, decided it was a good trade-off. It just happened.

by uvdiv 14y ago

pessimizer 14y ago

Can it really be called cherry picking if you only pick one cherry? At least make an effort.

Rexxar 14y ago

MRI exams, 2009 : - US 91.2 per 1000 inhabitants - France 55.2 per 1000 inhabitants Better usage ratio => lower price

scarmig 14y ago
And to make an equally relevant point: more MRIs doesn't necessarily equate to better health outcomes. It depends on who is getting them, and how likely they are to actually be sick. Lots of rich people getting marginally useful MRIs in the USA may be an inferior system to everyone having access to MRIs but fewer being done in total.
uvdiv 14y ago
It's also symptomatic of a shortage. Being able to meet everyone's needs every time means keeping certain overcapacity.
danielweber 14y ago
Bigger installed base => more capital costs to be paid for. Trying to roll down medical costs to one- or two-line sentences is really dangerous with the US health care system, because so many things you could normally expect in a functioning economy aren't there. In fact, increased access to medical devices and procedures may drive costs up with no change in patient outcomes. This was a pretty well-discussed article in economics circles a few years ago that talks about the phenomenon: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_... We do get something for our expensive MRI machines (lower wait times), but I doubt anyone, or even the invisible hand of the market, decided it was a good trade-off. It just happened.