Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
New Robotic Technology for Catheterization Procedures.
Maybe. We're seeing a lot of development in the medical industry where "new" does not equate with "better". (That's not to say that "new" can't command a higher price and better profit margins, because "new" sells, even if it isn't better.) Pharma comes to mind, where new drugs with high price tags and small marginal benefits are not uncommon.
At a recent Fidelity webinar, Maria Bartiromo mentioned robotic prostate surgery as an example of where high skilled jobs were being replaced by machines. (She was wrong about that - robotics there, as with the machine you linked to, are more analogous to fly-by-wire than pilot-replacing autopilot.)
That's not to say that these tools can't do a great job in the hands of skilled doctors. And stenting is noninvasive (no surgery) as opposed to minimally invasive (laparoscopic surgery), so this isn't a perfect analogy. Not to mention the radiation shielding offered by the stenting tool (radiation is not a problem to be solved with surgery). One does need to look carefully to determine what is steak and what is sizzle.
@msf, wonder how insurance companies would pay for these "experimental" procedures? My personal experience with the largest insurance company is that they are very conservative.
You're right about insurance companies being very conservative. And it's not only the insurance companies. Procedures that have been done for many years in Europe are sometimes considered "experimental" in the US, compounding the problem. I don't know what the solution is.
I believe these procedures would follow the same path as other robotic procedures like gall bladder surgery and inguinal hernia repair to name a couple.
Crazy as it sounds, there is no good research showing that stents prevent heart attacks or later cardiac events. Stents have been around for a long time and used because doctors assumed they worked. The new machine might be great for inserting something that is of minimal effectiveness.
Comments
At a recent Fidelity webinar, Maria Bartiromo mentioned robotic prostate surgery as an example of where high skilled jobs were being replaced by machines. (She was wrong about that - robotics there, as with the machine you linked to, are more analogous to fly-by-wire than pilot-replacing autopilot.)
But I looked into this and found that the results with robotics were no better than results from traditional (open) surgery.
Is da Vinci Robotic Surgery a Revolution or a Ripoff?
That's not to say that these tools can't do a great job in the hands of skilled doctors. And stenting is noninvasive (no surgery) as opposed to minimally invasive (laparoscopic surgery), so this isn't a perfect analogy. Not to mention the radiation shielding offered by the stenting tool (radiation is not a problem to be solved with surgery). One does need to look carefully to determine what is steak and what is sizzle.
Here's BC/BS of Kansas' definition of experimental (which they won't cover) - FDA approval is one of the tests:
http://www.bcbsks.com/customerservice/Providers/MedicalPolicies/professional/experimental.htm#experimental
You're right about insurance companies being very conservative. And it's not only the insurance companies. Procedures that have been done for many years in Europe are sometimes considered "experimental" in the US, compounding the problem. I don't know what the solution is.