Physicians entrusted with so much responsibility oftentimes are pained with juggling quality, cost and access--all of which can have both direct and indirect impacts on a patient's mental and physical health. Physicians do not need this burden, but at the same time, an antiquated system will not adequately handle it.

So, while I agree with you on the idea that medicine should be health-centric, I add that there are many other factors to take into account.

Also, nowhere does it say that oral appendectomy is less risky and results in better health (I noticed you never made an explicit reference to this specific surgery, so my apologies if this isn't what you meant). That, however, is mainly because the procedure is in it's infancy. Only time (and maybe the animal model studies) will tell--unfortunately.

Finally, you should be careful about misjudging the people on any forum. You might actually be surprised about the diverse educational and experiential backgrounds people have. The ability to enjoy a good 'pantsing' and know things aren't mutually exclusive.

AmbroseP

Oh, and I have to smile at some people commenting on a tech blog that second-guess extremely educated doctors/surgeons. That'd be like commenting on space shuttle heat panels ..."I don't know ..(grabs another Funyon)... I think they need more panels. (chomp, chomp) That just doesn't seem like enough."

And yes, I do so love Funyons.

sonofray

Assume that the cost of a laparoscopic appendectomy is $13,000 (we'll ignore the cost of open wound infection--it should be lower compared to an open procedure anyway), and that this "new" procedure would cost $21,000.

Also, assume that, if you do have insurance, hospital days will be covered; insurance will pay 90% of the cost of current appendectomy methods; or, they will pay up to 50% of the cost of a procedure that's not preferred.

You're telling me you'd rather pay $10,500, out of pocket, for no scars than pay $1,300 and end up with two or three tiny scars?

I'm just trying to see if you would really prefer this "new" approach.

AmbroseP

The Doc could give you a menu of flavors before you go under_

uberfu

Stomach Acid adrift on the surgery instruments while inside the free space of a body does not sound like a good thing to me_ Not mention anything else that lurks in your stomach or food pipe_ Bacteria and what not_

uberfu

@uberfu: Maybe we could have some mint jelly on the side.

DCGaymer

They have to also sew up the hole that was cut in the stomach_

And then yore gonna have a nasty after taste when you wake up from tasting yor own appenidx_

They should drag doen a little salt and butter with the cutting tools and bag before they pull it back thru yore mouth_

uberfu

MirDreams

ps61318

Also, have you ever seen any scarring as the result of using a laparoscopic procedure? I had my appendectomy about six years ago and I can barely see the original scars--just my personal experience, though.

AmbroseP

@kmpu-tah: Obviously this wouldn't work for acute appendicitis, or an appendix that bursts during the operation, but given a choice...I'd say go for it. Then if you have to cut me open because it bursts mid proceure....so be it.

DCGaymer

Erzengel

kmpu-tah

bobbydanforth

These two factors alone, decreased complications and decreased recovery time, will actually reduce the cost of performing medical procedures because they result in less time spent in the acute care setting (i.e. hospitalization) and less lost productivity due to convalescence.

castrensis

And while I was trying to point out that his "double cost" assumption was unfair, I never said that the procedure would cost more (nor did I say it would cost less).

I'm sure it'll cost less in the sense that there will be fewer billed hospital days. That's why I made the "time to heal is minimized" comment. I just forgot to mention that related point! However, in the overall scheme of things, this wouldn't make a huge difference in expenditures.

My whole cost quibble was solely related to health care expenditures (in general) and universal health care.

I apologize if my original post was confusing. I'll try to be more clear next time.

AmbroseP

Personally,I had mine removed in Sept.,and they did the laparoscopic surgery. I have a scar less than the size of a penny on my stomach and one "in the bush",and that's it. Was out of the hospital in 2 days. Back to working out in two weeks.

FiveLiters

Actually the comment about it probably costing double was made by a poster - and isn't mentioned in the original post.

And while, initially, I'm sure it will cost more - because it is different, and so people have to be trained on it.

I'm sure in the long run, it'll cost less. The environment doesn't need to be as sterile (since you're going through the mouth and stomach), and it's less invasive because you're not cutting into the skin (though you are cutting into the stomach - so that might be a wash), and healing time is less.

So, in the long run, I'm sure it'll cost less.

What I'm trying to figure out, is if the average appendix is 10 cm long and about 6 to 7 cm wide - how do they get it out of the 1 cm hole they make when they do it laparoscopically?

tidybowl

geekinky

The skin and the intestines, not so much.

CatPope

jackfrost132

bitfactory

danielmakman

The article continued by citing "Santiago Horgan, of the University of San Diego Medical Centre."

Anyway, your comment reminds me of when people cry over Penn State != UPenn. It really doesn't matter (that much) because those that need to know the distinction will know it. And, honestly, not that many people need to know!

A degree is a degree. Unless you payed for a doctored degree.

AmbroseP

dichron

You only get a few wee incisions in the stomach and the recovery time is much better than the slice-n-dice method I went through. I feel like that's a hell of a lot less complicated and cheaper than this nonsense.

loudguitars

There are a few ways to look at this:
(-) If adoption of consumer-driven health care plans continues to increase, more people will tend to choose the less expensive surgery (especially if the one mentioned here was "double the going rate of a traditional [procedure]")

(-) This isn't an innovative procedure. While laparoscopic surgery does leave a scar, it is on average about 1-cm in length. (Considering this, it seems less likely that plan coordinators would include this procedure on any reimbursement schedule.)

(-) In terms of the U.S.'s "most expensive health care system in the world," there are other culprits worth mentioning such as administrative costs, regulatory costs, willingness to pay, the uninsured, the "baby boomers", and the overweight. (I know that you mentioned innovation was just one of the reasons for the cost.)

(-) Sometimes, prices need to be high to sustain innovation--at least in terms of pharm goods. Also, consider that U.S. prices help to subsidize the capped prices in other countries for these goods. But I digress...

However, most alarming is the implicit argument you make in your last line. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that expensive health care and universal health care are mutually exclusive? If we want universal coverage, we need to expect high cost (initially, at least.)

Anyway, this procedure sounds great, but I prefer my laparoscopic scars any day. Would you really want a bag of toxic death exploding inside of you because the surgeon had less operational control? (I know, that's a bit excessive)

AmbroseP

In an unrelated story...
(End of Week One: -5)

bosskev

As well you should be.

s017jrs

johnnyabnormal

Shuft

roflwaffles

sfokevin

Parker. A

GiltProto

sfokevin

willyolio

Parker. A

tcolberg

bitfactory