●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bythsths ( 31372 ) writes:
> 93 million CT examinations were carried out in 2023
So the average person gets a CT scan every three years? Over 20 in their lifetime? That is crazy - the risk of a CT scan is pretty well understood, so why do we use it like candy?
European countries do far fewer CT scans, with better health outcomes, although the numbers are rising, too.
bysubreality ( 157447 ) writes:
so why do we use it like candy?
It's faster and cheaper than an MRI. Cancer? Eh, that's your problem, not theirs.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byKokuyo ( 549451 ) writes:
How would it being cheaper factor into it from the caregiver's side? Isn't it more a question of insurances pressuring towards less costly procedures?
I would guess they calculated that the additional cancers are cheaper than putting them all in MRIs instead.
bythsths ( 31372 ) writes:
> How would it being cheaper factor into it from the caregiver's side? Isn't it more a question of insurances pressuring towards less costly procedures?
CT is covered by insurance, MRI is not. An MRI tends to be about 3 to 5 more expensive.
"Would you like to pay out of pocket?"
> I would guess they calculated that the additional cancers are cheaper than putting them all in MRIs instead.
Not at all, but the cancers is "somebody else's" problem.
bymadbrain ( 11432 ) writes:
I have had both CT and MRI, always covered by insurance. Not sure why they wouldn't be, if deemed medically necessary.
byThurstonMoore ( 605470 ) writes:
Mine are too, I have MRIs of my back and neck every year or two. It's not about cost, its about using the right tool for the situation.
●rrent threshold.
byOl Olsoc ( 1175323 ) writes:
so why do we use it like candy?
It's faster and cheaper than an MRI. Cancer? Eh, that's your problem, not theirs.
It not only is not their problem, but is a source of profit to them if whatever treats you gives you a new problem. This already happens with prescription drugs, the number three killer. They don't want to kill you, because that removes you from potential profit, but some of us might die, but that's a risk they are willing to take.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...