An idea to prevent undergoing redundant medical tests

[mHealth]

As one may be already aware of the issue that doctors suggest lot of redundant medical
tests to bump up profit.
Next time one suspects a test to be unnecessary, ask the doctor more details
about the test, like what s/he wants to find out, what would be the assessment
for test result being normal, abnormal, above normal, below normal.

Then verify your final assessment against the suspect test, if varying test result does not
affect the final assessment, the medical test was clearly redundant.

Let me know your thoughts to plug the loopholes of this idea

[blackmiau]

What?

[JorgeM]

I suspect that the purpose of this post is simply to promote the signature links (which aren't visible to non-logged-in members). Let's see if there is actually any discussion or further interaction from mHealth.

@mHealth - I beleive there are probably some general reasons why so many tests are ordered.

1. the doctor wants to help the patient find the problem
2. the doctor wants to cover their @ss.
3. the doctor wants to ensure that he/she doesnt miss something so different tests are ordered to validate the results.
4. and yes to be able to charge more

Ok and so what?

[Reverend Jim]

Well, here in Canada the doctor does not get paid more for ordering more tests so I suppose the reasons for more tests would be more akin to 1, 2, & 3.

[ddanbe]

You never can tell if a medical test is redundant, unless you are a doctor.

[Reverend Jim]

The problem is, if the doctor works for the hospital, and the hospital profits from excessive tests, then the doctor may order these tests to generate revenue for the hospital.

[ddanbe]

Of course this practice exists, but I guess it is very hard to prove it.
A hosptal doctor also can live under a certain stress to get fired, so he orders e.g. a second RX just to make sure.

[Agilemind]

I think your missing reason #5: the patient insists on additional tests because they are worried or want a second opinion...

Even doctors have a hard time figuring out whether tests are necessary or not. For instance there is a debate in the medical community about when to screen for cancer because often false-positives and/or benign tumours are picked-up the unnecessary treatment of which causes more harm to the patient than good, whereas early detection of malignant tumours improves treatment outcomes.

Has mHealth really posted a question, or as Jorge says, is it a vehicle for his signature? Stupid question anyway.

[happygeek]

At least the miserable spammer has started some discussion, albeit (as you say) one with an abvious conclusion as the 'question' was pretty damned retarded if you ask me.

[jwenting]

main reason for superfluous tests in the US is covering yourself so you can't get sued for malpractice in case you failed to diagnose something, anything, however unlikely.

Over here in the Netherlands, it's rather the other way around and healthcare rationing has reduced the number of tests and other diagnostic procedures to the point that many conditions don't get diagnosed at all until they're so bloody obvious that even without testing they can be recognised by a nurse or family doctor.
Of course by that time it's often a case of a very serious condition, maybe even life threatening or causing permanent damage.