Banner
    In the 'Medicine needs to be more evidence-based' department, we have brachytherapy
    By Hank Campbell | December 11th 2010 11:36 AM | 4 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    The National Cancer Institute says 200,000 American women will get breast cancer this year and 20% will die from the disease.

    A lumpectomy is a common treatment but up to 40 percent of women see the cancer return, a number that is reduced to about 10 percent with radiation of the (whole) breast.

    But between 2001 and 2006 partial-breast treatments, brachytherapy, went up 1000% - despite real evidence it works.

    How did it increase then?   Because the FDA approved a device to deliver the radiation in 2002 and Medicare began reimbursement in 2004.    "It brings to the front the issue of when we should enact a new technology," says radiation treatment expert Dr. David J. Sher. "What the paper shows it that it really is done in the absence of evidence."

    We can't continue to complain that the cost of health care is too high for working people while expensive and unproven treatments are used simply because well-insured Medicare patients can get them and drive the taxpayer costs up even more.    Medicine needs to be more evidence-based and not 'if we can save even one life no matter the cost' logical fallacy.

    Citation: Grace L. Smith, Ying Xu, Thomas A. Buchholz, Benjamin D. Smith, Sharon H. Giordano, Bruce G. Haffty, Frank A. Vicini, Julia R. White, Douglas W. Arthur, Jay R. Harris, and Ya-Chen T. Shih, 'Brachytherapy for Accelerated Partial-Breast Irradiation: A Rapidly Emerging Technology in Breast Cancer Care', Journal of Clinical Oncology DOI:10.1200/JCO.2009.27.0942

    Comments

    Hank
    Obviously it may turn out to be the best thing ever and the data look promising but the principle remains that it shouldn't be exponentially increasing in use just because the government will pay for it.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    I agree, but the difficulty is that when people are desperate, then any possible solution will do.  So, something that has been approved for treatment is automatically considered "essential" regardless of evidence.
    Hank
    I get that but the doctors and hospitals play up the culture war aspect - 'insurance companies should not decide what treatment you get' - to keep the money train rolling also.   When it's taxpayer money people feel very little accountability for data-based treatment.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Gerhard Adam
    I'm not sure that accountability is at the fore-front of what most people think or feel when they're facing treatment.  The problem here is that you're right about how people feel when it's taxpayer money, but that's not as bad as when it's insurance money.  People are much more inclined to abuse insurance when they feel that they've paid for the right to do so. 

    Overall the system simply doesn't work.  Sure if you have the money or a good corporate sponsor for your insurance that you'll do well, but even with those elements, the system is designed to be wasteful because there simply is no accountability.  I've said it before, and I still maintain that as long as there's a middle man that is willing to pay whatever is demanded, then waste will be involved.  Until the doctors actually have to deal with their patients in a true "free market" environment, there will be no solutions.  Despite the prevailing mythology, a doctor's profession should not be exempt from market forces, and a doctor is not arbitrarily entitled to charge whatever they like, if the market can't bear it.  Yet, this is the system we keep tinkering with.  A true "free market" would eliminate insurance and government subsidies.  Perhaps then the pharmaceuticals and hospitals would realize that they have to be sensitive to the "market" if they intend to remain viable.