I’m in my early 40s and have had 1. Everyone I know well has had 1 or (more typically) none, including my parents and in-laws, so I figured ~2 lifetime MRIs would be in the right ballpark
Well apparently there are ~40m MRIs per year in the US, implying around 9-10 lifetime MRIs, which seems... pretty high? It's also wild that, at 85-90m CTs per year, apparently the average person is getting more than 20 lifetime CT scans.
And the distribution is likely heavily skewed in one direction. For example, Medicare recommends and covers annual chest CT for smokers and ex-smokers.
Oh for sure it’s skewed, and it doesn’t surprise me that there are people that will get 20+ CTs. Wild that that’s the average though - the skew must be massive.
from a system cost perspective, absolutely. For specific beneficiaries, not so much, especially after they have aged out of paying into the system. This is a textbook challenge with the US healthcare economy.
Not just from a cost perspective: overuse of imaging, particularly in orthopedic medicine, is apparently a major driver of iatrogenesis in American medicine. It actively does harm.
I don't think the term "elective medicine" means anything useful in this conversation. But, yes: I'm referring to unnecessary surgeries consequent to MRI; a big problem, especially for stuff like knees and spines.
eh, If I have elected to undergo a procedure, I would want the best and most imaging possible.
I dont see data as the problem, but the decision making around it. Preventing the generation of data may be a solution, but I dont care for it as a strategy.
I’m in my early 40s and have had 1. Everyone I know well has had 1 or (more typically) none, including my parents and in-laws, so I figured ~2 lifetime MRIs would be in the right ballpark