All the rads I've talked to/worked with hate "screening" MR (or CT! Some morons do CTs for random checkups!) not so much for the cost of the procedure (since they directly or indirectly were getting paid), but because it leads to finding basically insignificant incidental findings which then cause the patient to worry, and/or have unnecessary surgery. The benefits are questionable if anything, but the costs of the unnecessary surgery are high.
A needs-based study based on having MS, sure, but just getting an MRI as part of a routine checkup, probably not.
Exactly this. Unnecessary imaging needs to unnecessary follow-up evaluations like biopsies which in turn have additional complications.
When I was in med school we spent a lot of time in a hospital providing indigent care. We ordered tests that we needed to determine how to treat someone, but not more than that. When I worked in a private hospital, most patients got lab tests done daily, with no specific reason for ordering them.
I'd be willing to buy that imaging is sometimes underused with some patient populations, and sometimes overused -- just like medications, even painkillers, which are dramatically overprescribed in some places (old people, Florida, pill mills for diversion) and underprescribed for others (some chronic pain patients, terminal care).
Now, what if imaging were free ... wouldn't the solution be to use it all the time but fix the tendency to over-treat harmless irregularities/growths, rather than using it selectively? Or is fear-of-malpractice preventing this?
A needs-based study based on having MS, sure, but just getting an MRI as part of a routine checkup, probably not.