Hacker News Reader

Comment by concernedstats | Hacker News Reader

I think their statement is more general than what you're making it out to be. The goal of receiving better and more data puts pressure to have better imaging technology.

View on HN

I think there are perverse incentives at work, too. If running the MRI machine cost $100, people would do it. If it can bill insurance $100k, and then any follow up might cost $500k, there is a rational aversion to doing it as it might make the _system_ less good for everyone if insurance cracked down on exploratory imaging as a billable thing (obviously, they already do this to some extent).

Better technology is unlikely to be cheaper, unless it is so new and novel that it can get its own unique billing codes, and if it becomes ubiquitous so it cheaper and more available than existing machines which are not yet depreciated.

Just typing that out depresses me.

>If running the MRI machine cost $100, people would do it.

There are different kinds of MRIs, but the actual direct costs for running an MRI without preparatory procedures is around $100 (preparatory dye injection may be another $50 cost). Marginal costs are lower still.