Superior doctors prevent the disease,
Mediocre doctors treat the disease before evident,
Inferior doctors treat full blown disease.
Huang Dee
2600 B.C.
1st Chinese Medical Text
If one were to interpret this ancient quote in the context of modern medicine, one would have to conclude that the majority of America's doctors are inferior.
How else could one explain the near-exclusive focus on disease management and treatment versus disease prevention? How else could one justify the quintupling of per-person healthcare expenditures in just 20 years?
Yes, it is true that America's healthcare system has become quite good at managing advanced disease. Take cancer, for example – the second-leading cause of death in America. Despite the fact that instances of cancer are on the rise, there has actually been a slight reduction in the mortality rates associated with this disease in recent years.
But wouldn't it be better to prevent full-blown cancer? What impact would that have on survival rates? On healthcare costs?
To illustrate, let's look at two specific types of cancer: lung and colon cancer – the two most deadly forms of cancer in America today.
Historically, chest X-rays have been used as a form of screening the lungs for those with and without symptoms. The X-ray is simply incapable of revealing the small nodules associated with early-stage lung cancer. The individual is often given a clean bill of health; only to have those undetected nodules evolve into full-blown lung cancer. When chest X-rays do find a lung cancer, the cancer is so large that it has already spread to other parts of the body and the unsuspecting patient is left with a five-year survival probability of less than 5 percent.
“A major study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October of 2006 concluded that CT lung scans were the best way to detect early stage lung cancer,” said Dr. Robert Brunst, Medical Director at InnerVision Wellness Imaging. “Because Stage I detection can mean a five-year survival rate greater than 90 percent, many leading advocates now recommend routine low-dose Electron Beam CT screening every few years for the assessment of lung disease in non-symptomatic current and former smokers.”
Additionally, patients with Stage I lung cancer rarely need chemotherapy or radiation and the overall cost of care is considerably less than cancers found at more advanced stages.
Unfortunately, lack of insurance reimbursement has not encouraged the proliferation of CT lung screening.
The tragic irony of colon cancer as a leading cause of death is that this disease is more than 90 percent curable. The current gold standard, optical colonoscopy, is an excellent tool for early detection. The problem, however, is that just 21 percent of at-risk individuals and less than 50 percent of the general screening population undergo this test, despite the recommendation of their physicians.
Why is patient compliance such an issue with the traditional colonoscopy? One can only speculate, but this may be due to the difficult or embarrassing nature of this test. More than likely, the combination of the risk of perforating the intestine with the scope, difficult prep and sedation is off-putting enough for patients to cause procrastination.
In recent years, a new form of colon screening has come of age. The 3D CT colon screening or “virtual colonoscopy” has emerged to become a viable, accurate alternative to the colon scope. A virtual colonoscopy's value lies in its ability to become a widespread screening test for colorectal cancer that will hopefully encourage more patients to be tested.
Additionally, virtual colonoscopy is cost-effective.
“An EBCT virtual colonoscopy will cost between $600 and $900 compared with the traditional colonoscopy's price tag of around $2,000,” Brunst said.
Here are two instances where changing when and how the two leading forms of cancer are detected can change the survival rates and costs associated with treatment.
Brunst says that although InnerVision has been a pioneer in bringing new cancer detection technologies to North County, only a small percentage of physicians use this technology.
“Most of our patients for cancer screening are self-referred,” added Brunst.
Why do physicians routinely ignore these simple solutions to devastating health problems? The simple answer is this: The medical establishment moves slowly, despite the best of intentions.
For example, insurance will generally cover an optical colonoscopy for patients over 50 years of age, but not a virtual colonoscopy. Physicians want their patients to have the test, so they recommend the test that is covered by insurance. If a patient foregoes the exam, the physician does not recommend the alternative test, because it is not covered by the patient's insurance.
Until the collective medical “community” changes the way they assess disease, it is up to the at-risk individual to become their own best health advocate. In time, the better test wins out, and the majority of doctors will start to use EBCT to assess lung and colon cancer risk.
And that, at least as far as Huang Dee is concerned, is just the key to achieving mediocrity.
For more information please contact InnerVision Wellness Imaging at 6185 Paseo Del Norte, Suite 110, 760-804-9929 or visit www.innervisionwellness.com.
Mediocre doctors treat the disease before evident,
Inferior doctors treat full blown disease.
Huang Dee
2600 B.C.
1st Chinese Medical Text
If one were to interpret this ancient quote in the context of modern medicine, one would have to conclude that the majority of America's doctors are inferior.
How else could one explain the near-exclusive focus on disease management and treatment versus disease prevention? How else could one justify the quintupling of per-person healthcare expenditures in just 20 years?
Yes, it is true that America's healthcare system has become quite good at managing advanced disease. Take cancer, for example – the second-leading cause of death in America. Despite the fact that instances of cancer are on the rise, there has actually been a slight reduction in the mortality rates associated with this disease in recent years.
But wouldn't it be better to prevent full-blown cancer? What impact would that have on survival rates? On healthcare costs?
To illustrate, let's look at two specific types of cancer: lung and colon cancer – the two most deadly forms of cancer in America today.
Historically, chest X-rays have been used as a form of screening the lungs for those with and without symptoms. The X-ray is simply incapable of revealing the small nodules associated with early-stage lung cancer. The individual is often given a clean bill of health; only to have those undetected nodules evolve into full-blown lung cancer. When chest X-rays do find a lung cancer, the cancer is so large that it has already spread to other parts of the body and the unsuspecting patient is left with a five-year survival probability of less than 5 percent.
“A major study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in October of 2006 concluded that CT lung scans were the best way to detect early stage lung cancer,” said Dr. Robert Brunst, Medical Director at InnerVision Wellness Imaging. “Because Stage I detection can mean a five-year survival rate greater than 90 percent, many leading advocates now recommend routine low-dose Electron Beam CT screening every few years for the assessment of lung disease in non-symptomatic current and former smokers.”
Additionally, patients with Stage I lung cancer rarely need chemotherapy or radiation and the overall cost of care is considerably less than cancers found at more advanced stages.
Unfortunately, lack of insurance reimbursement has not encouraged the proliferation of CT lung screening.
The tragic irony of colon cancer as a leading cause of death is that this disease is more than 90 percent curable. The current gold standard, optical colonoscopy, is an excellent tool for early detection. The problem, however, is that just 21 percent of at-risk individuals and less than 50 percent of the general screening population undergo this test, despite the recommendation of their physicians.
Why is patient compliance such an issue with the traditional colonoscopy? One can only speculate, but this may be due to the difficult or embarrassing nature of this test. More than likely, the combination of the risk of perforating the intestine with the scope, difficult prep and sedation is off-putting enough for patients to cause procrastination.
In recent years, a new form of colon screening has come of age. The 3D CT colon screening or “virtual colonoscopy” has emerged to become a viable, accurate alternative to the colon scope. A virtual colonoscopy's value lies in its ability to become a widespread screening test for colorectal cancer that will hopefully encourage more patients to be tested.
Additionally, virtual colonoscopy is cost-effective.
“An EBCT virtual colonoscopy will cost between $600 and $900 compared with the traditional colonoscopy's price tag of around $2,000,” Brunst said.
Here are two instances where changing when and how the two leading forms of cancer are detected can change the survival rates and costs associated with treatment.
Brunst says that although InnerVision has been a pioneer in bringing new cancer detection technologies to North County, only a small percentage of physicians use this technology.
“Most of our patients for cancer screening are self-referred,” added Brunst.
Why do physicians routinely ignore these simple solutions to devastating health problems? The simple answer is this: The medical establishment moves slowly, despite the best of intentions.
For example, insurance will generally cover an optical colonoscopy for patients over 50 years of age, but not a virtual colonoscopy. Physicians want their patients to have the test, so they recommend the test that is covered by insurance. If a patient foregoes the exam, the physician does not recommend the alternative test, because it is not covered by the patient's insurance.
Until the collective medical “community” changes the way they assess disease, it is up to the at-risk individual to become their own best health advocate. In time, the better test wins out, and the majority of doctors will start to use EBCT to assess lung and colon cancer risk.
And that, at least as far as Huang Dee is concerned, is just the key to achieving mediocrity.
For more information please contact InnerVision Wellness Imaging at 6185 Paseo Del Norte, Suite 110, 760-804-9929 or visit www.innervisionwellness.com.