Here is a long study from the NY Times<\/strong>. It deals with cost vs. benefits, incentives to physicians to perform them, etc, etc. A very good, comprehensive article, I have excerpted eight of the 95 paragraphs. Some great CT images of the heart are also included in the article!<\/P> Weighing the Costs of a CT Scan\u2019s Look Inside the Heart – Series – NYTimes.com<\/strong><\/font><\/A><\/P> <\/p>\n \n …more than 1,000 other cardiologists and hospitals<\/A> have installed CT scanners like the one Dr. Rosenblatt turned down. Many are promoting heart scans to patients with radio, Internet and newspaper ads. Time magazine and Oprah Winfrey<\/A> have also extolled the scans, which were given to more than 150,000 people in this country last year at a cost exceeding $100 million. Their use is expected to soar through the next decade. But there is scant evidence that the scans benefit most patients.<\/P><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/P> <\/p>\n \n Increasing use of the scans, formally known as CT angiograms, is part of a much larger trend in American medicine. A faith in innovation, often driven by financial incentives, encourages American doctors and hospitals to adopt new technologies even without proof that they work better than older techniques. Patient advocacy groups and some doctors are clamoring for such evidence. But the story of the CT angiogram<\/A> is a sobering reminder of the forces that overwhelm such efforts, making it very difficult to rein in a new technology long enough to determine whether its benefits are worth its costs.<\/P><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/P> <\/p>\n \n Some medical experts say the American devotion to the newest, most expensive technology is an important reason that the United States spends much more on health care than other industrialized nations \u2014 more than $2.2 trillion in 2007, an estimated $7,500 a person, about twice the average in other countries \u2014 without providing better care. <\/P><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/P> <\/p>\n \n No one knows exactly how much money is spent on unnecessary care. But a Rand Corporation study estimated that one-third or more of the care that patients in this country receive could be of little value. If that is so, hundreds of billions of dollars each year are being wasted on superfluous treatments. <\/P><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/P> <\/p>\n \n At a time when Americans are being forced to pay a growing share of their medical bills and when access to medical care has become a major political issue for states, Congress and the presidential candidates, health care experts say it will be far harder to hold down premiums and expand insurance coverage unless money is spent more wisely. <\/P><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/P> <\/p>\n \n The problem is not that newer treatments never work. It is that once they become available, they are often used indiscriminately, in the absence of studies to determine which patients they will benefit.<\/P><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/P> <\/p>\n \n Some new treatments, like the cancer drug Gleevec and implantable heart defibrillators<\/A>, undoubtedly save lives, contributing to the United States\u2019 reputation for medical breakthroughs. But others \u2014 like artificial spinal disks, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars to implant but have not been shown to reduce back pain in many patients, and Vytorin, a new cholesterol<\/A> drug that costs 20 times as much as older medicines but has not been proved superior \u2014 have been criticized for not justifying their costs.<\/P><\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/P> <\/p>\n \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n