Slashdot Mirror


Affordable Blood Work In Four Hours Coming To Pharmacies

kkleiner writes "With the cost of healthcare services increasing, it's welcome news that a recent deal between Walgreens and Theranos will bring rapid, accurate, low-cost blood testing to the local pharmacy. A pinprick of blood from a finger is enough to run any number of a la carte diagnostic tests with results in four hours or less. The automation of blood testing in one convenient machine may mean that the demand for clinical technicians may decline, but the benefits of making blood analysis more accessible to everyone is enormous."

282 comments

  1. hemoglobin test by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    I'm always a bit awed at the speed of the blood iron/hemoglobin pinprick test when I give blood. 15 seconds from pinprick to result. I guess that's the exception and not the rule where blood testing is concerned (something tells me the HIV/Hepatitis tests they run aren't nearly that fast), but it's still a neat little trick to marvel at.

    Of course, that stupid little spring loaded thing freaks me out more than the 16 gauge IV they use for the actual donation, but that's probably a different conversation...... thank god I'm not diabetic.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Of course, that stupid little spring loaded thing freaks me out more than the 16 gauge IV they use for the actual donation, but that's probably a different conversation...... thank god I'm not diabetic.

      Wouldn't you rather just be a sperm donor?

    2. Re:hemoglobin test by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure where this breathless PR piece is leading to. We've been using 'micro' samples in automatic lab analyzers for years. Just because you can get the results from Walgreen's doesn't change things.

      I imagine that Walgreens is going to run only a few tests - cholesterol, pregnancy, HIV antibody. Tests where the FDA has approved patient education for point of care testing. I don't think you can order a whole lot more without 'practicing medicine' and for that you need some sort of license. Perhaps they will limit the testing to places where they have a mini clinic with a PA (physician's assistant) or NP (nurse practitioner).

      Ordering tests without knowledge of some important things (like pretest probability / accuracy and sensitivity of the tests) is basically worthless.

      But what the hell, it will make somebody some money. That's what counts.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:hemoglobin test by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Oh, and you can, with a prescription from a health care provider, buy a bunch of cute little point of care testing devices already. Have been able to do this for years. Works great in the field. At Walgreens, again, not so sure how useful it's going to be.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:hemoglobin test by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really. I've got this hang up about actually wanting to be a part of raising the children I'll (hopefully) one day father.

      Besides, sperm donation doesn't exactly save lives, whereas blood donation does. Last Wednesday marked my 20th donation (2.5 gallons) and the second year in a row I managed to make six donations in a calendar year, the maximum allowed in the United States and Canada. Earlier in the year I even got a letter from the ARC saying that one of my donations had been transfused into two different patients somewhere out in Buffalo.

      Do you know of a way to make that kind of a positive impact for less than an hour of your time?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:hemoglobin test by symes · · Score: 1

      The good thing here is that it brings patient closer to the test - when blood travels long distances you begin to see greater variation in the end results. So it is not just about speed, if this little machine gets it right it may also improve accuracy. There is a flip side in that there probably will not be a trained clinician there to interpret and explain the results. Some people (you know who you are) might get all worked up over a slight deviation that is still within normal limits and can be easily dealt with through a modest behavioral change.

    6. Re:hemoglobin test by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      something tells me the HIV/Hepatitis tests they run aren't nearly that fast

      There are some HIV and Syphilis tests that are that fast... just not as reliable. The idea is that they are biased towards false positives, so if it shows negative, you can trust it, and if it is positive, you follow up with a traditional test to confirm.

      (They administer such tests at some gay events, and people get to see their results literally within minutes)

    7. Re:hemoglobin test by sjames · · Score: 1

      The tests have been that quick, simple, and cheap to perform for years. It's just that now the patient can actually benefit from some of that instead of continuing to pay high prices for slow results while the lab (but never the lab tech!) makes a killing.

    8. Re:hemoglobin test by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I imagine that Walgreens is going to run only a few tests - cholesterol, pregnancy, HIV antibody

      HIV can be a gray area in a lot of jurisdictions. New York treats HIV tests differently than other tests, with mandated reporting of positive results to the Department of Health, plus extra privacy protections such that they aren't allowed to disclose the results via phone or mail. I'm not sure how that would jive with a program like this, or frankly that there's a need for it, since you can get a free HIV test almost anywhere in the United States if you know where you go.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know of a way to make that kind of a positive impact for less than an hour of your time?

      Do you have any idea how much hospitals are charging patients for your hour's worth of time?

      And yet ironically you probably bitch about paying taxes every year while these "donations" valued at thousands of dollars are unable to be written off.

      I thank you and welcome your philanthropy. I just wish it carried over more to excite the rest of the human race to donate. Speak to their wallets, it likely would.

      Then again, with casual sex being as mainstream as McDonalds, finding clean donors will become the real challenge.

    10. Re:hemoglobin test by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      There must be a reason why such testing hasn't made its way to the local blood drive.... I'm guessing accuracy and/or cost? They have to collect an entire donation, ship it off to a processing center, then throw it away when it comes back HIV positive, plus track the donor down to inform them....

      Do those tests have the same detection window as the lab tests? Maybe that's what's holding them back?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    11. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is really interesting is how the singularityhub has been a pusher of breathless PR pieces for a while now...

    12. Re:hemoglobin test by afidel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uh, they have a licensed pharmacist right there to analyze the results, in the rest of the world a pharmacist can basically do everything an NP can do because they have to know medicine and pharmacology to do their job.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    13. Re:hemoglobin test by Bengie · · Score: 2

      Getting blood is one thing, storing, distributing, and inserting it is entirely another.

    14. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Earlier in the year I even got a letter from the ARC saying that one of my donations had been transfused into two different patients somewhere out in Buffalo.

      They got that kind of information on you?

      Creepy!

    15. Re:hemoglobin test by Stargoat · · Score: 2

      That's funny. Pheasants also freak out at my 16 gauge.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    16. Re:hemoglobin test by FrankSchwab · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I imagine that Walgreens is going to run only a few tests - cholesterol, pregnancy, HIV antibody.

      Well, it looks like a few more than that:
      http://www.theranos.com/test-menu?ref=our_solution

      I didn't bother to count; maybe 200 in that list? Heavily tilted towards drug detection and STDs, but still a pretty good variety.

      Why would I make an appointment with my doctor for 4 weeks from now, drive over, get a referral to a testing center, drive over, get stuck and drained, drive home, make another appointment for 4 weeks to get the results, drive over, and have someone read me results with no background info, when I could go to Walgreens, walk out with the results 10 minutes later, and spend 20 minutes on Google finding out what they really mean?

      I would say that the fact that I can get results from Walgreens changes everything.

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    17. Re:hemoglobin test by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > Besides, sperm donation doesn't exactly save lives

      Depends how you measure it. Subtracting the average number of lives before and after each donation, sperm is looking pretty good vs. blood.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    18. Re:hemoglobin test by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the main reason this is good. Just like giving flu shots at the pharmacy. Technology has advanced so much, at yet, in the medical field, prices have only skyrocketed, because there's strict limits on who can do what. If diabetics can give themselves their own insulin injections, there's no reason the average Joe shouldn't be able to give themselves a flu shot, or at least get one from somebody who doesn't cost as much to employ as a nurse. Same goes for simple blood tests. For many blood tests, there's very little reason to go to a specialized lab, so they can charge extravagant amounts of money for putting a drop of blood on a piece of paper and looking at what color it turns. We need to bring the cost of healthcare down, especially for routine procedures if we want people to be able to afford medical care in the future.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    19. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      "Do you know of a way to make that kind of a positive impact for less than an hour of your time?"

      Having a job writing software that millions+ people a day use?

    20. Re:hemoglobin test by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Diabetics take a course, and their immediate life depends on it, and they can' give diabetes to anyone else.

      many would be given wrong, and they don't know what to look at to see if something went wrong.

      Dr. Office don't really make any money from the Flu vaccines... or any vaccines. They often lose money.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:hemoglobin test by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "and spend 20 minutes on Google finding out what they really mean?"
      that why. You do not have the knowledge to do that, and the fact you think how they mean to you can be sussed out via google is laughable.

      However, I don't see why you could take the results to your Dr.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:hemoglobin test by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      They like me at the blood center ( www.nybloodcenter.org ) because my blood is common (O+), and I am CMV- ( http://blog.inceptsaves.com/blog/2011/05/04/what-does-it-mean-to-have-cmv-negative-blood/ ), which allows me to donate platelets that help premature babies develop immune systems. Everyone who can should donate, the need is that great. Plus, you get free cookies!

    23. Re:hemoglobin test by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Then again, with casual sex being as mainstream as McDonalds, finding clean donors will become the real challenge.

      Casual sex isn't the problem, that would be unprotected casual sex. As with everything else, it comes down to risk management, not risk avoidance. The Red Cross asks a whole bunch of questions about your sex life during the intake exam, but whether or not you engage in casual sex is not one of them.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    24. Re:hemoglobin test by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed. It's really a failure of the system that I can't go to "Bob's discount MRI and Bait Shop" for the "cheaper at 4AM" discount. There are only so many MRI machines in the world, so MRIs are far too expensive. Why aren't there more? Why are any of them idle at 4AM? A system that doesn't respond well to demand by increasing supply has issues.

      And you see this all over healthcare. Sure, it takes a doctor to understand what test results mean in the context of patient care. But the tests themselves are just technology, and nothing brings cost down like the march of technological progress. Something's fundamentally broken when we're not seeing the cost of high-tech tests fall quickly over time.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:hemoglobin test by FrankSchwab · · Score: 2

      The last time I took a blood test to my GP (ordered by my dermatologist) she said "Hmm, I don't normally order that test. Let me go look it up and see what these results mean". The five minutes that she took to do the research, and the three minutes she took to explain it to me, were insufficient; five minutes more on my own with Google after the appointment gave me a much greater understanding of the result, the meaning, and the next steps.

      So, yes, I do have the knowledge to do that. And the wisdom to get my results from the NIH, Scripps, Harvard, etc. medical websites rather than someplace frequented by watchers of Oprah and followers of Jenny McCarthy.

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    26. Re:hemoglobin test by lgw · · Score: 1

      Chances are you only need the doctor to clue you in once. Take cholesterol - there's little the numbers alone can tell you, unless they're extreme, but you doctor can tell you, for you specifically, what you should care about. Having done that once, you should be good for years with a test at Walgreens. I suspect this is true of all the tests they will offer.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is the part of "statistics" that comes after "damned lies".

    28. Re:hemoglobin test by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      It's because the medical industry in the US has had laws made that exempt them from antitrust. They actively collude to restrict supply and drive up prices. The whole industry is a scam.

      http://truecostofhealthcare.org/

    29. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, the availability of blood testing will make unprotected casual sex safer than ever!

    30. Re:hemoglobin test by gamanimatron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Man, I hope you aren't anywhere near the legislative process. People like you are why we can't have nice things.

      I have ten times more motivation and available time to research than my doctor does; he's just trying to last through his 80 patients a day and not kill anyone. His training and experience are certainly valuable, but for the most part when I'm talking to a doctor s/he's either (a) a generalist with a little bit of familiarity with me and a little bit of familiarity with what might be wrong with me, or (b) a specialist that knows a great deal about one particular thing that *might* be wrong with me but knows exactly dick about me personally.

      I, on the other hand, have excellent computer skills and search fu, can read, understand and critique research in some disciplines (a skill that is highly transferable, by the way), and know a great deal about myself. I'd *much* rather be able to manage my own treatment and consult with a doctor when I need insight or specialized skills.

      --
      cogito ergo dubito
    31. Re:hemoglobin test by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      No you don't. Blood test results only rarely provide definitive diagnosis of anything. A diagnosis requires an analysis of a series of test results and symptoms in combination, which done of your websites will do. My doctor has told me that the interpretations I find on the web, from reliable medical websites, do not apply to my case.

    32. Re:hemoglobin test by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The last time I took a blood test to my GP (ordered by my dermatologist) she said "Hmm, I don't normally order that test.

      That's why your dermatologist should have been interpreting the results and discussing them with you. Specialists may often order tests that general practitioners don't.

      A previous poster who asked why he should get an appointment and drive around and then have someone read him results over the phone demonstrated a more serious problem than just having to visit a doctor. He's got a doctor that doesn't care and doesn't explain what the results mean. Or doesn't have time to care. As more people go to the same number of doctors because they've now got insurance, that problem will get worse and not better.

      I've seen this problem firsthand. My previous GP was my GP in name only; I got handled by his PA, and after one test I learned of the diagnosis from the medical equipment salesman calling to set up a time to deliver the equipment I was supposed to use instead of from the PA or GP. My current GP is much different.

      So, yes, I do have the knowledge to do that.

      Some people do. The vast majority do not. The vast majority will see low value on a test result and find the absolute worst possible interpretation on the web, ignoring the more common less serious possibilities. Kind of like, "OMG, I've got red spots all over my face, I must have measles", instead of thinking "I drank myself into a stupor and my frat buddies had a good time with a red sharpie." Like "OMG, my vitamin D numbers are low, I must have ..." instead of "eat more veggies with vitamin D and get more sun, or take a vitamin pill".

    33. Re:hemoglobin test by anglico · · Score: 1

      Our fingerstick HIV tests take about 10-12 minutes, but I'm not familiar with a Hepatitis C fingerstick test. They may have hospitals that are able to do a fingerstick Hep C test, but not a common occurrence in the clinics.

    34. Re:hemoglobin test by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

      One example of this breakage you are talking about. In most US states a new MRI clinic (or other medical service) cannot open without permission from the state. There is some committee which decides if there is enough demand in the area to justify opening a new provider. (Who do you think this cozy arrangement benefits? It isn't the general public, surely) This is done under the lunatic delusion that more availability and competition would cause prices to rise.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    35. Re:hemoglobin test by LNO · · Score: 1

      Platelets. Every two weeks, or up to 24 times a year. I switched from whole blood donations to that, and every other Saturday morning at 7:30 I head in, pick out a movie I've been meaning to watch (this past Saturday was Hotel Rwanda), watch for two hours, and go home. Take a look at it if you haven't yet. ARC and Memorial Blood Centers count that as double towards your gallon record, too. I'm at 34 with MBC so far, and can't recall where I left off with ARC.

    36. Re:hemoglobin test by sjames · · Score: 1

      I see no reason why pre-loaded single use syringes couldn't be used quickly and effectively for the flu shot. Most of the things that go wrong won't do so until you're on your way home from the pharmacy anyway.

      I don't know that we want untrained people giving shots to others, but that training need not be a medical degree.

    37. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They administer such tests at some gay events

      From context, it sounds like such events are where a lot of unprotected sex goes on. So I should certainly hope these are happy events! ;)

    38. Re:hemoglobin test by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where this breathless PR piece is leading to. We've been using 'micro' samples in automatic lab analyzers for years. Just because you can get the results from Walgreen's doesn't change things.

      I imagine that Walgreens is going to run only a few tests - cholesterol, pregnancy, HIV antibody. Tests where the FDA has approved patient education for point of care testing. I don't think you can order a whole lot more without 'practicing medicine' and for that you need some sort of license. Perhaps they will limit the testing to places where they have a mini clinic with a PA (physician's assistant) or NP (nurse practitioner).

      Ordering tests without knowledge of some important things (like pretest probability / accuracy and sensitivity of the tests) is basically worthless.

      But what the hell, it will make somebody some money. That's what counts.

      Pharmacists have locally been granted the ability to make certain prescriptions directly without doctors orders for certain drugs. It's not a big step to integrating that with having them able to do certain tests as well.

      There are certain advantages to having this ability. Walgreens is generally a lot closer and more convenient than the local testing facility and the waits are almost guaranteed to be a lot shorter.

      I look at it as "distributed testing". You can test more often and more casually and offload some of the grunt work from the more elaborate facilities. And probably pull in some people who could be persuaded to get a finger-stick while shopping for Xmas supplies who might not go for a full-blown needle in the arm. Better yet, since Walgreens can be found in places where GPs are hard to come by, it's a good first-line outpost for early detection and prevention.

    39. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would depend on country. In Norway, where I'm from, they refuse (refused?) donors that have had new sexual partners during the last six months. In the US, they refuse me because I have lived in Norway previously, and they are afraid of mad cow disease. The WHO lists Norway as "negligible risk" (the lowest risk category) and the US as "moderate" risk, but for some reason the US does not disallow Americans from giving blood...

      (After having had various IMO stupid reasons blocking me from giving blood every single time I've tried for almost twenty years now, I've given up - I donate money to charitable causes instead.)

    40. Re: hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the truth. Last time I want to the opthalmologist, my prescription was basically determined by a robot. I just looked into this machine and a bored assistant sat there while I iteratively chose which image looked the best from the two options. Why is this machine not at Walmart, and offer to automatically order me glasses for only 19.99?because laws or something.

      Since the medical industry has regulatory-captured itself to where it's impossible to compete, I have begun looking for loopholes. We should start a community nonprofit where you use the machines yourself. It could be labeled "for novelty use only" and "not intended to cure treat or prevent any disease". Nobody can be arrested for treating themselves, right?

      Right?

    41. Re:hemoglobin test by nbauman · · Score: 2

      mean in the context of patient care. But the tests themselves are just technology, and nothing brings cost down like the march of technological progress.

      Pharmacist: Here's your test. You have leukemia.

      Customer: What? What does that mean? Can it be treated? How long do I have to live?

      Pharmacist: I'm sorry. I'm just a pharmacist. I'm not allowed to give advice like that. You'll have to see your doctor.

      Customer: But I don't have a doctor!

    42. Re:hemoglobin test by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1
      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    43. Re:hemoglobin test by nbauman · · Score: 2

      Uh, they have a licensed pharmacist right there to analyze the results, in the rest of the world a pharmacist can basically do everything an NP can do because they have to know medicine and pharmacology to do their job.

      My insurance company sent a nurse practitioner to see me. I said, "What's this thing on my arm Is it just an aging spot or is it something more serious?" She said, "I'm not allowed to diagnose."

      And for good reason she wasn't allowed to diagnose. A dermatologist spends years learning to distinguish melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and thousands of other things that look like skin cancer but aren't. Make a mistake, and the patient dies needlessly.

      NP!=MD.

      Neither can pharmacists make diagnoses like that.

      Do you want to have third world medicine, where ordinary people can't afford to see doctors?

    44. Re:hemoglobin test by nbauman · · Score: 1

      I don't know what your test was, but I used to write about medical tests. I still do occasionally.

      One of the problems is that a new medical test doesn't usually give you a clear answer. You want a test that says, "You have rheumatoid arthritis" or "You don't have rheumatoid arthritis." Instead, what you get is tests that say, "You have an 80% likelihood of having rheumatoid arthritis" or "you have a 20% likelihood of having rheumatoid arthritis."

      If a new test isn't widely adopted by doctors, it's usually because it's not a very accurate test. What do you do if a test says, "You have a 5% chance of leukemia"? Or what do you do if a test says,"You have a positive result for a protein that is sometimes associated with leukemia?"

      What did the Scripps web site tell you? This is the kind of test they're concerned with http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20120521/mowen.html It has nothing to do with anything of medical significance to you today.

      If it's a test that she doesn't normally do, the most reasonable explanation is that it's a test that doesn't have much significance and won't affect your treatment.

    45. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, sperm donation doesn't exactly save lives, whereas blood donation does. Last Wednesday marked my 20th donation (2.5 gallons) [...]

      Whoa... I do hope you're referring to your blood donations there...?

    46. Re:hemoglobin test by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Ordering tests without knowledge of some important things (like pretest probability / accuracy and sensitivity of the tests) is basically worthless.

      Hitting with a hammer ___ $5
      Knowing where to hit___$495

    47. Re:hemoglobin test by nbauman · · Score: 2

      In most US states a new MRI clinic (or other medical service) cannot open without permission from the state. There is some committee which decides if there is enough demand in the area to justify opening a new provider.

      The original reason for that was a good one. When MRIs came out, hospitals, and free-standing radiology clinics, were buying more MRIs than anyone knew what to do with (with the help of financing from the manufacturers).

      There was an epidemic of over-use of MRIs. MRIs expose you to a lot of radiation. Somebody calculated that when you give a child an MRI, that child has a 1/10,000 increased risk of brain cancer. They were advertising (useless) whole-body scans on the radio, just to fill up their machines.

      So the Medicare administration decided to limit the number of MRIs to just what they needed.

    48. Re:hemoglobin test by lgw · · Score: 1

      Wow, I like the way you chopped off what you were quoting just a few words short of the full quote that would have refuted your point. Well trolled, sir, well trolled.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    49. Re:hemoglobin test by SageMusings · · Score: 1

      I cannot find a source that states MRI test expose patients to radiation. What source are you using?

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    50. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting theory. However, MRI's don't expose you to ANY radiation. "MRI does not use ionizing radiation (high-energy radiation that can potentially cause damage to DNA, like the x-rays used CT scans).

      There are no known harmful side-effects associated with temporary exposure to the strong magnetic field used by MRI scanners. However, there are important safety concerns to consider before performing or undergoing an MRI scan:" Thats from http://www.fda.gov/radiation-emittingproducts/radiationemittingproductsandprocedures/medicalimaging/ucm200086.htm

      Maybe you were thinking CT?

      http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/MedicalImaging/MedicalX-Rays/ucm115317.htm

    51. Re:hemoglobin test by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Oops, sorry. I was thinking of CT scans.

      MRIs have their own problems. They often use gadolinium dye, which can cause permanent kidney failure.

    52. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MRIs expose you to a lot of radiation. Somebody calculated that when you give a child an MRI, that child has a 1/10,000 increased risk of brain cancer. They were advertising (useless) whole-body scans on the radio, just to fill up their machines.

      Not ionizing radiation, unless it were say in a room made out of bricks that might be slightly radioactive. Or maybe you were thinking of a CT scan. Or maybe you are talking about the RF within an MRI, which amounts to less than a watt of absorbed power for a short period within a person's head, unless you are on a research grade high field MRI machine that might get up to a couple watts.

    53. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gadolinium contrast agents can cause an issue in people with big kidney problems, and people on dialysis are advised to not use them unless necessary. But the contrast agent is a lot safer than other ones in that regard, and people with all but the most severe kidney problems often will have an MRI instead of a CT scan, even if the latter is slightly more appropriate, because the contrast agent is less dangerous to the kidney than iodine and other CT contrast agents.

    54. Re: hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For as long as I can remember, stores like Walmart and others have generic eye glasses available, with instructions on the display and a little eye chart so you can do that exact same test yourself. You don't need some fancy machine to search through common, cheap eyeglass values and since most people's prescription doesn't change that fast, you wouldn't need to search very far each time.

    55. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cannot find a source that states MRI test expose patients to radiation. What source are you using?

      His ass. MRIs are harmless as long as you don't have any metal in you and you don't decide to cut yourself open for any dumb little thing you might discover. It's CT scans you have to be afraid of since they're just a whole bunch of x-rays.

    56. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone who can should donate, the need is that great. Plus, you get free cookies!

      If the need is great, they should pay for it instead of relying on volunteers. They sure as hell charge you when you need it back and they disclaim any liability if they F you up with blown veins or worse. I'd be fine with getting a $150/pint non-expiring credit for general medical care in exchange for every $300 they charge the recipient (or myself via taxes, etc).

    57. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are severely confused. CT scanners use ionizing radiation because at the heart of CT are X-Rays. MRI is non-radiation imaging. The MR standing for Magnetic Resonance. There are some dangers associated with MRI but radiation is definitely not one of them.

    58. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dermatologist spends years learning to distinguish melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and thousands of other things that look like skin cancer but aren't.

      Well, the dermatologist spends years learning whether to send out for further testing. But what if the further testing becomes cheaper than a visit to the dermatologist? Why not just go straight to the further testing and skip the dermatologist? Yes, in some cases there are other costs - certain tests are very invasive and dangerous - but the big thing in cancer research these days is detecting cancer by sequencing free DNA floating around in the blood. What if, ten years from now, we're in a situation where a simple blood test at Walgreens detects skin cancer more accurately than a dermatologist?

      I mean, sure, ideally if the further testing turns up something serious then there'd be a mechanism to have the results explained in detail in person. But, having taught introductory biology at the community college level, I'm skeptical that anyone - no matter how god-like and wonderful - can explain anything meaningful in five minutes (that is, the time a medical doctor has to meet with each patient).

      And, if the test comes up negative, do you really need a medicial doctor to explain that to you?

      The fundamental point here that we are living in an era of rapid advances in medical technology that could dramatically improve clinical outcomes - but access to this technology is often severely limited by rigid requirements to have medical doctors serve as gate keepers. I mean, what's the point of developing a super accurate test for cancer that only takes five minutes and costs ten cents - if to get the test you first need to schedule an appointment with a medical doctor months in advance - and pay a hundred dollars for that five minute appointment?

    59. Re:hemoglobin test by cliffjumper222 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Based on my recent experience with an illness, this is exactly what you will have to do if you ever fall out of the normal bounds of straightforward illnesses. You will be managing your own treatment and trying to piece together what's wrong with you. You will burn through doctors and specialists one by one as they say they cannot help and refuse to let you make appointments. You will end up being the only person on the whole planet who cares and all the time you will be doing this when you are sick and/or drugged up. You will also realize that the whole health care system does not work like JIRA and that there is no follow up and your issue will be dropped if you don't continue to be the squeaky wheel. Health care is not engineering. It's scary how few engineering best practices are used in it and how full of holes the "system" has. Healthcare is probably about 40 years behind engineering in terms of problems solving and issue resolution and about a million years behind understanding how our bodies work vs "complex" systems we diddle around with all day on computers.
      Moral of the story is - don't get sick with anything weird otherwise you're basically toast.

    60. Re: hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a Clinical Laboratory Scientist for 28 years, I find the list of tests interesting but I'm not afraid of them putting me out of a job. The automated Blood Culture with identification was especially intriguing. Or the CBC with automated differential with reflex to manual differential from one drop in a point of care instrument. Results are always dependent on the quality of specimen as well as maintenance of the instrument. Even point of care instruments need maintenance and quality control performed and monitored by someone. Some tests will be fine, but others might give a false negative. Hopefully positive tests will encourage a visit (and repeat test) with a doctor/NP/ or PA. Someone has to write a prescription for treatment .

    61. Re:hemoglobin test by Macgrrl · · Score: 2

      I used to donate many years ago, then they changed the gauge needle they use and it started leaving a scar. After the second time it happened, I stopped donating blood. I work in professional environments, I really don't need 'track marks'.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    62. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gave blood twice, and both time I almost lost consiousness while getting the blood out. You need a good heal;th to give, unfortunately, I lackj this.

    63. Re:hemoglobin test by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Somebody calculated that when you give a child an MRI, that child has a 1/10,000 increased risk of brain cancer.

      Unknown person calculated by an unknown method based on unknown data set that a person of unknown but low-ish age has a 1/10,000 increased risk over an unknown period compared to an unknown test group.

      Sounds legit.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    64. Re:hemoglobin test by Draknor · · Score: 1

      Exactly where I'm at right now - diagnosed with hypothyroidism about 2-3 years ago, given the standard synthetic thyroid hormone and sent on my way. Many dosage changes & roller-coasters of symptoms, now I'm ordering all my own tests online at sites like truehealthlabs.com & directlabs.com & anylabtestnow.com (not affiliated, just a satisfied customer) -- they just requisition orders for labwork to be done at LabCorps or Quest.

      I order online, go to a local LabCorbs or Quest patient service center, have the blood drawn, and 3-5 business days later get emailed the results. I get exactly the labs I want, when I want them -- not on my primary doc's schedule or whim. And yeah, I'm paying for these labs out of pocket, but like the GGP posted - I care a lot more about my health & specific condition than my dr does, and if I'm willing to put in the extra time & effort for additional testing, why shouldn't I be able to?

      I do still need my doc's guidance (or probably a specialist, given some of my recent confusing results), to help figure out what the results mean in combination with each other, and what additional tests may be useful to run to shed more light on what's going on, but it makes my occasional 15 minute office visit more valuable by discussing lab results, not just deciding we need to run some basic labs.

    65. Re:hemoglobin test by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      Diabetics take a course...

      Whatever gave you that idea? When I started on insulin, I was told how much to put in the syringe, and the nurse checked to see if I'd gotten it right. I did, because when I was younger I'd been the caregiver for a diabetic friend who'd lost his sight and set up his daily injection, although I'd never needed to give them. That and a few instructions about how and where to inject were all of the training I got.

      The first time I did it, I'll admit, was rather difficult, because it took a bit of time to get used to the idea. The second day was easier, and I got lucky because I put the needle in exactly the right place and didn't feel it at all. From then on, it's not been very hard at all.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    66. Re:hemoglobin test by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      There must be something I fail to grasp: how is 3-5 business day a good delay? When I have the blood drawn at noon in the lab next door, I have the results at 18:00 the same day.

    67. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case of both CT and MRI, there's a very good reason supply hasn't increased as rapidly as you'd like -- safety and liability. MRIs have a nasty habit of firing anything that's attracted by a magnet through the air like a cannonball, and CT has huge downside risk due to radiation exposure (which, even in some hospitals with supposedly well-trained personnel, have caused radiation poisoning in patients -- complete with hair falling out -- due to improper operation).

      I'm not sure I'd trust Bob the fisherman and bait aficionado to give me an MRI or CT, but your 4am point is a good one -- at $2000 USD per five minutes, those things should be running 24 hours a day anywhere where adequate oversight and training can be maintained.

    68. Re:hemoglobin test by khallow · · Score: 1

      Did you have a point to that post? Things routinely happen that are outside our skill set.

    69. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of CT (computed tomography). MRIs do not expose you to ionizing radiation, merely a powerful magnetic field.

    70. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, on the other hand, have excellent computer skills and search fu, can read, understand and critique research in some disciplines (a skill that is highly transferable, by the way), and know a great deal about myself. I'd *much* rather be able to manage my own treatment and consult with a doctor when I need insight or specialized skills.

      Paging Prof. Dunning and Prof. Kruger, paging Prof. Dunning and Prof. Kruger, please report to Slashdot, stat.

    71. Re: hemoglobin test by gamanimatron · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... Those studies concluded that the highly competent tend to overestimate the abilities of others, while the incompetent tend to underestimate them. Now, my argument was that everyone should at least not be prevented from using the (rather extensive) resources available to them to guide their own medical treatment. I take it you're arguing that my bias is preventing me from perceiving that most people are hopeless tools that would damage themselves if they attempted this? I suppose that's possible, but still think it should be allowed.

      --
      cogito ergo dubito
    72. Re:hemoglobin test by nbauman · · Score: 2

      The point is that even though your doctor orders tests, it's useless, often misleading, and sometimes dangerous for you to bypass your doctor and get the same (or similar) tests cheap in a pharmacy.

      If you don't have the skill set to understand the tests, and your pharmacist can't legally explain them to you (because he doesn't have the skill set either) what's the point of getting them?

    73. Re:hemoglobin test by lgw · · Score: 1

      How do you think tests always work? The doctor sends you out to get tested, you get the test results, and the doctor explains them to you. Getting them at Walmart instead of paying $400 at some "lab" in a strip mall changes nothing except price.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    74. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MRI is non-ionizing and therefore safe. CT is ionizing. You are an idiot or troll.

    75. Re:hemoglobin test by david.kammer · · Score: 1

      Uh, they have a licensed pharmacist right there to analyze the results, in the rest of the world a pharmacist can basically do everything an NP can do because they have to know medicine and pharmacology to do their job.

      If you look at the Theranos website it make it cleat that the test are still ordered and interpreted by physicians. you are also misinformed about the scope of practice of pharmacists in most of the world. In may places pharmacists have been given limited prescribing power. But prescribing is only part of the role of medical practitioners, and pharmacists are not broadly trained in methodology of diagnosis and laboratory evaluation. This is not hating on pharmacists, pharmacists are fantastic and their knowledge of pharmacology and medication management is key to good patient care, but no self respecting pharmacist would claim that their role in healthcare is similar to that of an NP.

    76. Re:hemoglobin test by JakartaDean · · Score: 1

      "and spend 20 minutes on Google finding out what they really mean?" that why. You do not have the knowledge to do that, and the fact you think how they mean to you can be sussed out via google is laughable.

      However, I don't see why you could take the results to your Dr.

      I completely and totally disagree. You have an inalienable right to the results of tests of your body, whether paid for by you or someone else, whether ordered by a doctor or yourself. You have the right to Google the results of those tests, and even act on your limited knowledge if you are so inclined, even if that is foolish. The medical profession has been able to convince many people that the potential for misuse overrides your basic rights, but it doesn't. You must be free to choose among, say, waiting two weeks for a doctor's appointment or getting the test yourself and doing with the results what you will, assuming the technology exists, which is the subject of this article.

      This is a topic near and dear to my heart. I am a type I diabetic and feel much more in control of my diabetes and my life since I moved from Canada to Indonesia. My Canadian endocrinologist was an asshole, but I couldn't go to another one -- all the ones recommended to me were refusing to take on new patients without a referral, and my GP referred his patients to the asshole. Tests could only be done on a doctor's order. Now, I can go to any number of clinics, walk in and get the critical blood test (for me, HbA1C) done in a few minutes for a few dollars. I can store my history over time, and show it to anyone I want, including any doctor I happen to be seeing. I self medicate, yes, using Google, for other conditions. I am in control and my life is better. Dean living with type I diabetes for 27 years, without complications. And happy.

      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    77. Re:hemoglobin test by nbauman · · Score: 1

      How do you think tests always work? The doctor sends you out to get tested, you get the test results, and the doctor explains them to you. Getting them at Walmart instead of paying $400 at some "lab" in a strip mall changes nothing except price.

      My doctor's office takes a blood and urine test and sends it to the lab himself. Then he reviews them to see whether they show any reason for further intervention, and gives me a copy. My insurance covers it. Under Obamacare, all the insurance companies will cover recommended tests with no copayments, so you won't be saving any money.

      There's not just one set of blood tests, there are many different panels of tests. There's the SMA-12, SMA-20, and others. A doctor will order particular tests because he wants to check something out. If a doctor thinks I might have lupus or multiple sclerosis, he'll order tests for that. Wallmart isn't going to do that.

      Medical tests aren't commodities. One of the most important things about routine tests like PSA is the trend over time. Testing equipment has to be calibrated. Two labs can get different readings for the same blood sample. That's why a doctor would want to use his own lab. If your PSA is up from last year, is that because you have prostate cancer, or because the Wallmart lab is calibrated differently than the CVS lab?

      I don't think do-it-yourself medicine is the way to save costs.

    78. Re:hemoglobin test by nbauman · · Score: 1

      If diabetics can give themselves their own insulin injections, there's no reason the average Joe shouldn't be able to give themselves a flu shot, or at least get one from somebody who doesn't cost as much to employ as a nurse.

      When I got my flu shot, the nurse had an epi-pen prominently on the table. A small number of people respond to flu shots with an anaphylactic reaction. If you had an anaphylactic reaction, would you want it to be handled by a nurse or by a graduate of a 6-month medical technologist school?

      We need to bring the cost of healthcare down, especially for routine procedures if we want people to be able to afford medical care in the future.

      Other countries have brought their cost of health care down. Canada spends half what we do for the same outcomes. Maybe we should try some of their ideas.

    79. Re:hemoglobin test by turtledawn · · Score: 1

      I loved donating, and am also O+ but I tend toward vasovagal syncope (ie, I faint when my blood pressure changes rapidly) and after passing out in the recovery room a few times they moved me to half units and then a couple of times after that they started subtly encouraging me not to donate. I guess I was too much paperwork. :-(

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    80. Re:hemoglobin test by trout007 · · Score: 1

      The tests at the big labs are actually pretty cheap. Look online for various testing companies. I was interested in a MNR Lipopanel that my doctor refused to write a script for. I course he had no problem writing a script for a lifetime of statins. I went online and paid someone $70 to write a script and pay Labcorp to run the test and email the results.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    81. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is silly MRI is magnetic fields not ionising radiation, they are also very expensive due to needing liquid nitrogen cooled magnets. Do you mean CAT scans? These use lots of radiation and do come with the sorts of risks you talk about. MRI scans have replaced CAT scans in some cases for this reason, but if the legislation is general then it may apply to both....

    82. Re:hemoglobin test by khallow · · Score: 1

      Medical tests aren't commodities.

      At the alleged low prices, they would be. And trends over time would be very cheap to obtain compared to today.

      I don't think do-it-yourself medicine is the way to save costs.

      Well, doing your own surgery on yourself probably never will be. But I think cheap and comprehensive blood tests would fall on the other side of that line.

    83. Re:hemoglobin test by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      She said, "I'm not allowed to diagnose."

      The real point is that she should be allowed to refer you to someone who is allowed, in this case a dermatologist. The whole GP-as-gatekeeper issue is really profit-driven disfunction. Of course, in most jurisdictions medicine is a self-regulating profession statistically dominated by GPs, so it may be a while before that changes.

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
    84. Re:hemoglobin test by nbauman · · Score: 1

      She said, "I'm not allowed to diagnose."

      The real point is that she should be allowed to refer you to someone who is allowed, in this case a dermatologist. The whole GP-as-gatekeeper issue is really profit-driven disfunction. Of course, in most jurisdictions medicine is a self-regulating profession statistically dominated by GPs, so it may be a while before that changes.

      If she refers me to a dermatologist, I'm out (or rather, my insurance company is out) $200. If I show it to my GP, he can immediately tell me that it's nothing to worry about, in one of my regular visits, for which my insurance company pays $50. So how did the NP save any money? Or convenience? Or anything?

    85. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it'll be like cars. While it's cheaper to build a model T today than it was 100 years ago, car companies don't sell you the model T for a cheap price. They sell you cars which have more features than a model T at a higher price.

      As individual medical tests become cheap, I think medical providers will bundle them, and commoners won't be able to choose a la carte (legally). Overall things would be better, but medical tests still won't be something you can pick up for cheap next to the condom dispenser (well ok, maybe having cheap tests just for venereal disease near the condom dispenser might be a good idea)

      Eventually we get the Star Trek tricorder, a single device that tests almost everything... well except the venereal diseases. I don't remember Kirk or anybody using a tricorder before engaging in interspecies sex.

    86. Re:hemoglobin test by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      This is why when I hear those desperate voices by the pundits; "they can't keep their doctor" -- I'm like, in what Universe is my Doctor that important?

      1) I can't afford to see one now and
      2) All the doctors I've ever seen in my life in the USA have not known me from a stray dog.

      People who listen to the disclaimers to "consult your physician" before X, Y or Z have not gotten the memo; you are on your own to make sure you are healthy. If you don't do something after being persistently sick -- nobody is going to show up and help you with that.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    87. Re:hemoglobin test by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      It's probably a "good delay" because out of pocket, he's probably paying 1/4th what he would for the same day results.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    88. Re:hemoglobin test by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      It's going to save a lot of people a lot of money. After my wife went to a hospital and paid $400 out of pocket for a Vitamin D test (the State forced us out of 'insurance' a few years ago), I began to research the options and wound up going with a service that does a full blood panel (~60 tests) for a little over $300, including fasting glucose. Since I'm not a diabetes risk now, my next panel will be even cheaper.

      All my ranges were normal except for some inflammatory markers and I've modified my diet and exercise to try to cause a change. I'm going to get a new mini-panel next week to see how things are going, on just those specific tests, and then keep getting the full panel every year. I'll consider pharmaceutical intervention with a physician if the obvious solutions don't pan out first.

      The result is much more comprehensive than any mainstream approach, at a lower cost.

      Anyway, Walgreens can probably run Vitamin D for about $35. The hospitals will probably fight this. This is also a microscopic example about why the US has such healthcare cost problems.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    89. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of CT scans. MRI's don't use ionizing radiation and therefore do not increase cancer risk.

    90. Re:hemoglobin test by DeathToThePatriarchy · · Score: 1

      For both the flu shot and the MRI, there is risk to the patient. From the flu shot -- allergic reactions are rare, but you need someone to notice it and do something. For MRIs, someone needs to know whether the image is sufficient for what is being looked at and you have the need to be able to deal with people who are having claustrophobia reactions to the machine. Finally, there is a comparatively limited number of diabetics from whom potentially infected used sharps need to be collected. Expand that to the general public, which includes people who cannot be bothered to put cigarette butts in trash containers or pick up their dogs' feces, and you have a serious public health issue.

    91. Re:hemoglobin test by DeathToThePatriarchy · · Score: 1

      Yes. And don't try to survive in an HMO if you have anything atypical. Oh, and if they have just started teaching it in medical schools, you are likely more screwed than before they taught it.

    92. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To figure out that you have a disease so you can see a doctor about it? I'd rather know if I have something as soon as possible.

    93. Re:hemoglobin test by g1zmo · · Score: 1

      You will end up being the only person on the whole planet who cares

      It's usually at this point that a person finally realizes that that's pretty much how they started out, too.

      --
      I have found there are just two ways to go.
      It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow.
      -REK, Jr.
    94. Re:hemoglobin test by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      This is why when I hear those desperate voices by the pundits; "they can't keep their doctor" -- I'm like, in what Universe is my Doctor that important?

      You don't have one so your doctor isn't important to you. No doctor knows you from a stray dog because you never see any of them more than once or twice.

      I've got one I see regularly. He's good. He looks at tests before I see him to discuss them, and even sends them to me ahead of time -- with comments. He doesn't know everything, but he's got a much larger picture of what's going on than I do, and I want to keep him.

      My previous doctor, I never saw. He had a couple of PAs who were ATROCIOUS at passing on information or dealing with patients. I went to one appointment after getting some tests done to talk about the results. The PA came in, plopped down, and said "so, why are you here today"? A week after some other test work I called the office to see if the results were back. No return call. The next day I got a call from an equipment salesman who told me "wow, you got a really bad case of ..." and wanted to arrange a time to drop off the equipment (which wasn't the right solution to the problem to start with) my PA had ordered for me.

      I would never go back to that quack or his ducklings. If the government promised that "if you like your doctor you can keep him, period" and then passed a law that forced my insurance to change so I couldn't see my current guy anymore, I'd be livid.

      People who listen to the disclaimers to "consult your physician" before X, Y or Z have not gotten the memo; you are on your own to make sure you are healthy.

      No, you aren't on your own. Your health is your responsibility, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use all the resources available to help out. One of those is an educated professional who can say "that symptom is serious" or "that number is low but not significantly so". Or he can say that you should avoid certain things because you are likely to have a bad reaction. I was started on a certain cholesterol med and immediately developed a chronic dry cough. I didn't think it was significant, he did. He changed to a different med, no more cough. But now there is a record that he knows not to prescribe certain drugs because I am allergic to them, and I know to ask "is that the same kind of thing" if he tries to change me.

      And he'd be the guy I ask before X, Y, or Z because even if he can't answer off the top of his head, he can look in my records to see if there are any reasons not to X, Y, or Z that I wouldn't be aware of.

      Yes, people do have ongoing relationships with their medical professionals and benefit from that relationship. You aren't one of them. But thanks to ACA you will be, or you will pay for the privilege of not being one of them.

    95. Re:hemoglobin test by lgw · · Score: 1

      Sure, but part of the point of technology is to reduce the skill needed to use equipment. Flu shots at the pharmacy are great progress. This blood testing the same. If we could get the capital cost for an MRI down low enough, I don't see why you couldn't get a scan at the pharmacy as well.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    96. Re:hemoglobin test by lgw · · Score: 1

      My doctor's office takes a blood and urine test and sends it to the lab himself. Then he reviews them to see whether they show any reason for further intervention, and gives me a copy. My insurance covers it. Under Obamacare, all the insurance companies will cover recommended tests with no copayments, so you won't be saving any money.

      Ahh, you do it the expansive way, but since the cost doesn't come out of your personal pocket, you close your eyes and pretend the cost isn't there. No need to do things cheaply when someone else is paying, right?

      Except you're fundamentally wrong about that: different health care strategies (single payer, obamacare, cash up front) change how care is rationed, but the point is to have more total care. Instead of fighting over who gets the MRI machine this week, it's far better to eliminate the rationing entirely by incentivizing the price of an MRI to fall to where no one needs to wait.

      Technological progress is great for stuff like that. Don't be confused by "prices in dollars", what will matter to the nation/world as a whole is total availability of care, and the easier it is (less labor, less capital) to provide any given care the more there will be to go around for everyone.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    97. Re:hemoglobin test by manu0601 · · Score: 1

      National healthcare pays for most of the thing, and there is no special price for same day result. Most of the test results are available at 6 PM for a blood drawn in the morning.

      The exception is when the lab lacks the equipment to do a test and has to send the blood sample to another lab. In that case, results are usually availble the next day,

    98. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MRI's expose you to ZERO radiation. MRI stands for Magnetic Resonance Imager. It's possible you were thinking about CAT scanners, but it's more probable that you were just making stuff up.

    99. Re:hemoglobin test by nbauman · · Score: 1

      On the contrary. I pay for the test. I pay a huge premium because I wanted a policy that would cover all my medical expenses. I've paid much more to my insurance company than I took out of them.

      The point is not to have more total procedures. The point is to have the care that alleviates illness and suffering.

      We take far more MRI and CT scans in this country than are appropriate for medical treatment. A British radiologist wrote an essay in the New England Journal of Medicine about how, when he was in training, he told his supervisor that he wanted to do a CT scan. The supervisor asked him, What for? It's not going to make any difference in how you treat your patient. When he came to this country, doctors ordered CT scans indiscriminately, even when they had no diagnostic value. CT scans expose patients to a lot of radiation. It's hard to calculate exactly how many cancer deaths are caused by excess CTs in the US, but most calculations are in the thousands.

      The reason is that radiologists get paid by the x-ray. If a radiologist can bill $2,000 for a useless CT scan, a lot of them will do it. Especially if he just bought a $3 million machine and he's making payments on it.

      The cost of health care in Canada is half of ours. They were slower to adopt CTs and they do a lot fewer. Their outcomes are just as good.

      If you could diagnose a patient by giving him a $1,000 x-ray, or get the same diagnosis by simply asking him a few questions, why in the world would you give him an x-ray? Which is what the British would say.

      The solution, if you want one, is to evaluate treatments by evidence-based medicine, to avoid waste, as NICE does in the UK.

    100. Re:hemoglobin test by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Case in point:

      In patients with sciatica, MRI at 1 year did not differentiate between a favorable or unfavorable outcome.

      By: Mushlin, Alvin I. ACP Journal Club. 8/20/2013, Vol. 159 Issue 4, p1-1. 1p. 1 Chart.

    101. Re:hemoglobin test by charyou-tree · · Score: 1

      Uh, they have a licensed pharmacist right there to analyze the results, in the rest of the world a pharmacist can basically do everything an NP can do because they have to know medicine and pharmacology to do their job.

      As a physician, every time I read something like this, I think ... when the day comes that people get their "free" and "efficient" healthcare from the "friendly" and "responsive" NPs and other midlevels who "spend more time with me" and "empathize", they are going to get exactly what they deserve.

      Kind of like that old saw about people getting the government they deserve. You're going to get the health care you deserve. The notion of a pharmacist making a diagnosis of anything based on blood work is just so far out into the realm of absurd that it all I can do is shake my head.

      Consider the possibilty that you don't know what you don't know.

    102. Re: hemoglobin test by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Aren't those only for reading glasses?

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    103. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your thinking cat scan when it comes to radiation. MRI's use Quantum effects to image the body. There is no radiation to come out of an MRI machine. The only legislative thing I can think of that could affect MRI is liquid helium supply, which is a strategic concern.

      Won't be an issue as SQUIDS get to the point they can run on liquid nitrogen. If we ever get to room temperature superconductors, MRI's will be used for everything from looking for defects in nonferrous goods, to security scans at the airport (would stop body based drug smuggling in it's tracks, and implanted bombs would be rendered not useful)

    104. Re:hemoglobin test by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

      "Parietal Cell Antibodies" was the test. Was going to the GP to discuss lack of energy. Went to the Dermatologist to discuss Vitiligo. Dermatologist doesn't care about Parietal Cell Antibodies, just knows that autoimmune diseases are weakly related to B12 deficency related to IF and Parietal cell destruction. GP ended up referring to gastroenterologist, and starting B12 shots.

      It's a unique situation in being a pretty clear-cut, but the blood test was directly related to a life threatening disease. The results were fairly easy to interpret with 20 minutes on Google. That, surely, isn't the case with many other tests. /frank

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    105. Re:hemoglobin test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? I'm sure you're talking about CAT scans which use X-rays. An MRI is simply a very strong magnetic field that gets flipped to extract radio waves from your bodily fluids. No ionizing radiation at all.

  2. Accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And just how accurate are these cheap, quick tests going to be?

    1. Re:Accuracy by P-niiice · · Score: 2

      once your friendly insurance company gets ahold of it, it'll cost $650. Affordable, by their standards.

    2. Re:Accuracy by barlevg · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it depends on the test, but my guess is pretty accurate. I was going to throw in some citations with some actual figures, but without specific tests / brand names, all I can tell you is that tests based on microfluidics are being billed as "fast and accurate."

    3. Re:Accuracy by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      once your friendly insurance company gets ahold of it, it'll cost $650.

      That makes no sense. The insurance companies have an interest in lower medical costs. If anyone opposes this, it will be the AMA, or other association of doctors. It was doctors that opposed, and tried to ban, home pregnancy tests, mail-in DNA tests, etc.

    4. Re:Accuracy by BradMajors · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope. Insurance companies have an interest in increasing medical costs.

      Under Obamacare health insurance companies are allowed a maximum of 20% of the cost of medical care. The only way health insurance companies can increase their profits is by increasing medical care costs.

    5. Re:Accuracy by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      The government requires the accuracy of medical tests to be determined before the tests are used on patients.

    6. Re:Accuracy by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Insurance companies want to lower their medical reimbursements to you; they have no vested interest in lowering medical costs overall. Thus they are happy to offer a high-deductible plan, limit you to doctors and hospitals that will give them favorable prices, and refuse to cover things that, although your doctor ordered them as essential to your proper care, would impact the insurance company's bottom line.

      Here's an interesting short article on how mixing private insurers into Medicare actually multiplied the overhead costs by a factor of six:

      http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/february/setting-the-record-straight-on-medicare%E2%80%99s-overhead-costs

    7. Re:Accuracy by Politburo · · Score: 1

      The actual metric is that 80% of premiums must go to medical care. So yes, they can spend more (in asbolute $) on medical care and subsequently keep more (in absolute $) as overhead/profit, but in order for that to work out, they have to also charge higher premiums since that is the only income in the equation. This puts them at a disadvantage in the marketplace.

  3. OW! by paiute · · Score: 1

    A pinprick of blood from a finger

    Why does the blood always have to come from a finger? That's where all the nerves are. Why can't you get the drop of blood from your elbow or some other place?

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:OW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because the finger is easier to administer to than an elbow since it protrudes and is easy to squeeze. The needles they use if I remember correctly (been a while since I donated) were kind of flat so they'd capture the first drop of blood to come out, I think those types of needles are probably harder to use on an area like the elbow.

    2. Re:OW! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The trick that I've found is to get the pinprick on the side of your finger. Makes it a lot more tolerable. Most of the people administering these tests realize that, though you're always apt to run into one that insists on doing it square in the middle of a pad for whatever reason. I'll usually just grin and bear that, though the one lady that failed to find a capillary (what were the odds of that?) and drew no blood managed to annoy me enough to protest her second attempt in the same location.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:OW! by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

      Absolutely! I'm Type II, and I check my blood sugar twice a day, always using the side of a finger. Sometimes, when I'm getting my vitals taken at the doctor, they want/need to check again, and I always make sure that they don't use the pad or, in some ways worse, the fingertip. (Try typing within several hours of having blood taken from your fingertip, and you'll know why.) In one case, I actually had to demand to speak to a supervisor after an arrogant tech insisted that he knew better than I did about where to take the blood. He ended up getting chewed out, doing things the way I wanted and apologizing (probably the worst punishment) for not listening to me.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:OW! by Russ1642 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Blood from the tip of your penis is actually the best blood to use for tests. If you complain about it you're just a problem patient.

    5. Re:OW! by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Those of us that work for a living have callouses that make it pretty much not hurt at all.

    6. Re:OW! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Lots of capilaries just beneath the surface, rapid healing, no scar.

    7. Re:OW! by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as the nurse is pretty and she makes certain to achieve maximum blood pressure at the sight in question....sure.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    8. Re:OW! by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      A pinprick of blood from a finger

      Why does the blood always have to come from a finger? That's where all the nerves are. Why can't you get the drop of blood from your elbow or some other place?

      I had to stick myself in high school as part of a biology experiment to determine my blood type. Couldn't do my finger. Ended up stabbing myself in the lower leg.

      It hurt a lot less, but unfortunately, there's not as much blood on tap there.

    9. Re:OW! by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. I'd much rather have a pretty nurse fingering my prick instead of pricking my finger.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  4. Just like the new cancer test by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that the winner of the international science fair came up with...detected Lung, Pancreatic and one other type of cancer using a carbon nanotube and a handful of parts he picked up at Home Depot. Cost of the test? About $0.04 and highly accurate.

    What will it cost after it's commercialized? We'll see.

    1. Re:Just like the new cancer test by barlevg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Keep in mind, the cost of the pharmaceutical company's study used to verify the accuracy of the test and gain FDA approval likely pushes the cost-per-test up quite a bit.

    2. Re:Just like the new cancer test by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      Anyone seen a decent accuracy study for that test? Even if it detects cancer 100% of the time, that is useless if the FA rate is 99%.

    3. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Defenestrar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Keep in mind, the cost of the pharmaceutical company's studys used to verify the accuracy of the test and gain FDA approval likely pushes the cost-per-test up quite a bit.

      FTFY. Preclinical, phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 at a minimum

    4. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What will it cost after it's commercialized? We'll see.

      More.
      A lot more.

    5. Re:Just like the new cancer test by barlevg · · Score: 1

      Indeed, thank you.

    6. Re:Just like the new cancer test by game+kid · · Score: 1

      The ads for the test, to be aired at primetime and targeted at people who won't even have a choice in the matter (let alone the knowledge to judge whether this is "right for you"), will push the costs up further.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    7. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind, the cost of the pharmaceutical company's study used to verify the accuracy of the test and gain FDA approval likely pushes the cost-per-test up quite a bit.

      So, from the rough cost of four cents, please let me know what the "reasonable and customary" cost will become after those involved make up some bullshit claim about how their "internal" costs were sky high (to cover all the executive bonuses), forcing them to charge insurance companies $200 per test.

      And even with that insane markup, I'm probably low-balling that estimate.

    8. Re:Just like the new cancer test by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      The cost-per-test, or marginal cost, is impacted neither by the pharmaceutical company's study used to verify the accuracy of the test nor the FDA approval.
      These costs are fixed costs, not marginal costs. That is, these costs do not change dependent on the number of test kits produced.
      So technically, no, they don't push the cost-per-test up quite a bit. The company's desire to turn a profit is what pushes up the cost-per-test.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    9. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      You mean the study that's funded almost entirely with Federal grants? :-p

    10. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cost-per-test = cost / tests = (FC + MC*tests) / tests = FC/tests + MC.

      If the fixed costs are large enough, they impact the cost-per-test.

    11. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I can build a cancer detector that detects cancer 100% of the time by putting a piece of paper that says "yes" in a bag. To administer the test, you simply reach into the bag and pull out the result!

    12. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind, the cost of the pharmaceutical company's study used to verify the accuracy of the test and gain FDA approval likely pushes the cost-per-test up quite a bit.

      Yes, that is true in a simplified-talk radio-media-TV-retard point of view. But the pharmaceutical company will then do some creative accounting/Hollywood accounting to justify charging the insurance companies 100X what is necessary.

      Or to put it another way, for insurance purposes, I can PROVE that a glass a lemonade should be billed at $110 to your insurance company - all GAAP and IRS approved.

      I'm the accountant that says "whatever you want it to be" when asked what is "2+2"?

      Our medical industry in the US is just obscene and there is NO excuse. Other countries can give BETTER care for less. And yet, the industry gives us this BS about quality and even more insulting - "the cost of litigation". Nonsense. Complete nonsense. When you get fucked over by the medial system - you stay fucked.

      Bah! Never mind, my pearls are for better pigs.

    13. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep in mind, the cost of the pharmaceutical company's studies used to verify the accuracy of the test and gain FDA approval likely pushes the cost-per-test up quite a bit.

      FTFY. Preclinical, phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 at a minimum

      FTFY

    14. Re:Just like the new cancer test by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      In economics and finance, marginal cost is the change in the total cost that arises when the quantity produced has an increment by unity.

      Are you arguing that per-unit costs are in fact average total costs, not marginal costs? That's quite the redefinition of terms...

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    15. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the demand aspect. Certain drugs cost on the market WAY more than the cost to not only produce but also clear the FDA hurdles. Viagra is one example.

      I would imagine a quick and accurate cancer test will also be quite high in demand.

    16. Re:Just like the new cancer test by spasm · · Score: 1

      Phase I-III are needed for treatments. FDA regulation of tests is different and considerably milder.

    17. Re:Just like the new cancer test by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      It won't push the costs up to nearly what they'll charge. Health care should not be a for-profit industry.

    18. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      And until this test is proven, it's no different than any one else's home remedy or folk wisdom. It'll be another of those "amazing breakthroughs that the government supported medical industrial complex is suppressing!", like Laetrile.

    19. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/studys/studies/

      ;-)

    20. Re:Just like the new cancer test by JakartaDean · · Score: 1

      The cost-per-test, or marginal cost, is impacted neither by the pharmaceutical company's study used to verify the accuracy of the test nor the FDA approval. These costs are fixed costs, not marginal costs. That is, these costs do not change dependent on the number of test kits produced. So technically, no, they don't push the cost-per-test up quite a bit. The company's desire to turn a profit is what pushes up the cost-per-test.

      You are so right. I test my blood sugar a few times a day (Type I diabetic). Each test costs around $1, whether I buy test strips in Canada, Singapore or Indonesia. I'm locked into a meter given to me free by Bayer -- that's how much money there is in this business. I would guess the strips cost one cent to manufacture in bulk, two cents at most. The rest is obscene drug store and manufacturer margin. Canadian public health insurance (OHIP in my case) doesn't cover these, nor insulin. Do I believe these should be included in public health care? Absolutely. I haven't checked whether Obamacare specifically includes them, but assuming it does I think it is a huge step forward. Everyone's life includes some random elements, and including some treatments while excluding others from public insurance, or mandated private insurance, strikes me as arbitrary.

      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    21. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      using a carbon nanotube and a handful of parts he picked up at Home Depot

      Which aisle of Home Depot are the anti-mesothelin antibodies in? I thought they were next to the inflatable santas. Maybe my local store ran out. Anyway, we all know how cheap antibodies are.

      About $0.04 and highly accurate .

      This has a special meaning for population screening tests. First of all, mesothelin has not been validated as a blood test for pancreatic cancer. The smart kid's innovation was in the general concept of designing protein assays, not the use of this specific protein as a pancreatic cancer marker. The problem with most protein markers (apparently including mesothelin) is a large overlap between values in normal people and values in people with the disease.

      But forget that. Applying even a really good, free test to the entire population isn't straightfoward. The whole point is that pancreatic cancer is "silent", rarely causes symptoms until it's advanced. So you'd be giving this test to essentially the entire adult population, perhaps annually. Let's assume this specific pancreatic cancer test successfully detects 90% of cancers, and correctly tells you that you don't have cancer 99% of the time. This is far better than any existing cancer test, including mammograms.

      You give it to 100 million people in the US. 40,000 of them have cancer, and it detects 36,000 of them. Yea! 99,960,000 do not have cancer, but the test says that 999,600 of them do (1%). Oops. So only 36,000 out of 1,035,600 people with positive tests actually have cancer. The positive predictive value of the test, as you might say, is 3%. 97% of people with a positive test don't have cancer. But you don't know which ones yet. So you give those million people another test.

      For pancreatic cancer, step 2 might be a CT, MRI or ultrasound via ERCP. These cost anywhere from $200ish (CT) to $1000ish (ERCP), with the attendant health risks of radiation, IV contrast, or an invasive procedure. But set those aside for now and focus on the cost. Figure an average $500 per person, so that's $500 million. Scans aren't 100% either, you often see spots or artifacts, so some portion of people without cancer will have either more scans, biopsies, or maybe outright surgery. Let's be conservative and double the cost to $1 billion. So the "free" test has caused $1 billion in direct costs, to prove that a million people don't have cancer! Maybe the math works out and this saves money by identifying the people with cancer early. And maybe the health benefit to those people balances the health risks to the other million people. Or not. It's not as simple as "About $0.04 and highly accurate."

      It's not coincidental that the two organs we actually have very good, cost- and health-effective screens for are breast and colon. The former are sitting entirely on the surface of your body, making every thing easier and cheaper; while in the latter most cancers grow on convenient stalks that we can see and remove directly via colonoscopy. Solid intra-organ tumors are really, really hard. And screening the entire population for uncommon diseases is really, really hard. Unless follow-on tests are unusually cheap/good (breast/colon) you need multiple 9's of specificity in a screening test. It's not even clear that this is biologically plausible for blood tests, given the "noise" in our bodies. Biology isn't engineering.

    22. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is anyone else frightened by the board of directors of thanos....just sayin.

    23. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cost per-unit that must be recovered to break even is indeed the average cost not the marginal cost. Even if the marginal revenue is equal to the marginal cost, if the revenue per unit is less than the average cost, it is not profitable to pursue the venture.

    24. Re:Just like the new cancer test by Havokmon · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind, the cost of the pharmaceutical company's studys used to verify the accuracy of the test and gain FDA approval likely pushes the cost-per-test up quite a bit.

      FTFY. Preclinical, phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3 at a minimum

      And then of course there needs to be someone licensed in reading the results, and prescribing a treatment.
      My foot is killing me from gout, but I'm not dropping $200 for a doctors visit to get $10 in meds.

      --
      "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  5. But will patients actually get to see the savings. by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    If you need a blood test the doctor/hospital will likely take the blood perform test and charge accordingly leaving the patient out of the loop entirely. If this test does actually force a lower reimbursement rate, they will specify checking for conditions not covered by the test so a more expensive one has to be done

  6. How much will it cost? by CubicleZombie · · Score: 0

    Since my health plan went Obamacare compliant and a doctor visit went from $25 copay to a $6000 deductible, now I get a separate bill from the lab company every time my wife or kids go to the doctor. Seriously - I just call Solstas Lab Partners every month and ask how much I owe because there are so many bills.

    In house testing or at the local pharmacy would be great.

    (Yeah, mod me Troll, but it's still true.)

    --
    :wq
    1. Re:How much will it cost? by barlevg · · Score: 2

      It was your choice to sign up for a plan with a $6000 deductible, and I'd imagine it's quite a bit less expensive than your old plan. If not, pony up some details. We don't need your name and Social Security number to verify what you're paying for a plan under the new healthcare exchanges.

    2. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Since my health plan went Obamacare compliant and a doctor visit went from $25 copay to a $6000 deductible, now I get a separate bill from the lab company every time my wife or kids go to the doctor. Seriously - I just call Solstas Lab Partners every month and ask how much I owe because there are so many bills."

      I live in Europe and my lab technician comes to my home to take blood samples at 6:30, so that I don't have to walk out of the house without breakfast. (Or at any other hour if you work other times or not at all.)
      I get the result at around 12am per email or the next day via snailmail.

      At it doesn't cost a dime no matter what the test is.

    3. Re:How much will it cost? by stevez67 · · Score: 1

      Well, the Affordable Healthcare Act insurance plans aren't effective until Jan 1, 2014. And there's nothing in the AHA that prevents a policy from having a cheap co-pay. You're either a troll or you blame the AHA for your insurance company using the AHA as an excuse to put the screws to you.

    4. Re:How much will it cost? by CubicleZombie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My choice? Let them eat cake, I guess.

      My premiums went up another $250/month. Deductible went from $500 to $6000, with 65% coinsurance to $9000. No prescription drug coverage. A lot of people reading this got the same news this year. Or will.

      My son's birth two years ago cost me $500. Baby #2 is due this year and it's going to cost me $9000.

      --
      :wq
    5. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At it doesn't cost a dime no matter what the test is.

      Nothing's free.

    6. Re:How much will it cost? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      I live in Europe...

      And, apparently, had Sarah Palin as a Geography teacher.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:How much will it cost? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If not, pony up some details.

      Stories abound of people who have lost under the ACA, some of whom have lost big. You don't need some random /. member to tell you his story when similar stories have aired on every major news network for the last few weeks. Here's one from PBS, a relatively unbiased source that few would claim was rooting for the failure of the ACA.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    8. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What you are saying doesn't make sense to me, for two reasons:
      1. Under my obamacare compliant plan, on lab services besides "major imaging", the deductible is waived, and I only pay the coinsurance cost share percentage.
      2. With a 6k deductible, your cost share might be 40%, so you would need to be using 15k of lab services. If that is the case, why aren't you signed up for the gold plan? Get the 2k deductible, and you will probably only need to pay 20%, like me, and the difference easily pays for the gold plan.

      What state do you live in? I am in WA, and everything is running smoothly here. I had a lot of help finding the right plan.

    9. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didn't you get the gold plan?

    10. Re:How much will it cost? by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1
      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    11. Re:How much will it cost? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I doubt it. Sounds like a lie, or some other change happened your not talking about.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:How much will it cost? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's about getting everyone insured. Yes some people are paying more.

      OTOH, under her old plan, if somethign difficult came up, they could(and probably would) cut her plan. Now they can't do that.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, wtf? My insurance rates only went up $10/paycheck. The only changes is now instead of paying a co-pay of $30 per doctor visit, they cover the first two visits 100% plus 100% coverage of your yearly all per person, then any visit after those is out of pocket. All co-pays now counts towards my $1500 deductible. Fair trade.

      I wonder if they still cover 10 Viagra 100% per month. Not that I need it :-)

    14. Re:How much will it cost? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Apparently you had Sarah Palin as a reading comprehension teacher.

      He is comparing the American health care system with the European health care system.
      Which is far superior by every measure.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:How much will it cost? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Now they can't do that.

      Stop boiling this issue down to talking points, it does both sides a disservice. In fact, a talking point ("If you like your health insurance you can keep it.") is precisely the reason why our fearless leader finds himself with a 39% approval rating.

      There were a multitude of ways to get everybody insured that didn't require a 2,000 page Rube Goldberg piece of legislation. The goal of universal coverage is laudable. The ACA is anything but, and, incidentally, will still leave millions of people without insurance. For 2,000 pages and trillions of dollars I really had hoped for more than just nibbling around the edge of the problem.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:How much will it cost? by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

      If not, pony up some details.

      Stories abound of people who have lost under the ACA, some of whom have lost big. You don't need some random /. member to tell you his story when similar stories have aired on every major news network for the last few weeks. Here's one from PBS, a relatively unbiased source that few would claim was rooting for the failure of the ACA.

      And there are plenty MORE stories about people getting screwed by insurance companies BEFORE the ACA. Even with the ACA, it's still the insurance companies screwing you.

      Okay, /. loves car analogies, so here's one. Let's say in the near future the technology for self-driving cars is well enough refined for the mass market. Now let's say failures in the automatic driving system will cause 1,000 deaths per year from traffic accidents, but the automatic driving system will save 10,000 deaths per year. Should we implement the system in order to save a net of 9,000 deaths per year, or should we deny it because it'll cause 1,000 deaths per year?

    17. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I live in Europe and my lab technician comes to my home to take blood samples at 6:30, so that I don't have to walk out of the house without breakfast. (Or at any other hour if you work other times or not at all.)
      I get the result at around 12am per email or the next day via snailmail.

      At it doesn't cost a dime no matter what the test is.

      As someone else living in Europe that is paying through taxes for this "doesn't cost a dime" service of yours, can I just say... you're welcome.

      Isn't it lovely living in a civilized place?

    18. Re:How much will it cost? by CreatureComfort · · Score: 2

      If your plan was compliant with the AHA, which it sounds like it was, then your insurance company is absolutely still allowed to offer that plan. The fact that your insurance company decided to drop that that plan and only offer you a worse one, which is something they COULD HAVE DONE AT ANY TIME ANYWAY, is just down to your insurance company being douches, not a fault of the AHA or Obama. I'm willing to bet that if you shopped around (power of the marketplace, gee what an interesting concept) you'd find someone else offering something similar or better to your old plan at similar or better pricing.

      My purely random anecdotal story is that, with the advent of the AHA, my employer offered plans went from a single plan that gave me no choices or options, to the choice of three plans. The first was almost identical in price to the old plan I had, $1,000 deductible, $30 co-pay, same prescription drug coverage both on 30 and 90 day amounts, and with the exception that now it covered routine lab work (out of pocket, no coverage before), and several preventive care options that weren't available previously. But even better were the two other options. For about 20% more I could drop to a $750 deductible, with $25 co-pay and similar reduction in drug costs, or for 40% more than my original I could drop to $500 deduc, $20 co-pay, and even lower drug costs.

      Choice is a wonderful thing.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    19. Re:How much will it cost? by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

      But obviously, YOU aren't a trolling douche.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    20. Re:How much will it cost? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      And there are plenty MORE stories about people getting screwed by insurance companies BEFORE the ACA. Even with the ACA, it's still the insurance companies screwing you.

      Insurance companies were the problem, so we "fix" it by mandating that everybody do business with them? WTF?!

      You just don't get it.... The biggest problem with our healthcare system is the cost, and the ACA did nothing whatsoever to address that. What good is universal coverage (which, FYI, the ACA doesn't provide) when healthcare costs are slowly bankrupting us? 21% of GDP and rising. There are a variety of reasons for this, few that can be boiled down to simple talking points, and the ACA did nothing to address them. Healthcare costs (by extension, health insurance costs) continue their endless upward march, consuming an ever larger slice of the national pie, while our body politic squabbles about stupid shit like mandatory contraceptive coverage, a non-issue (generic birth control pills: $30/mo, box of 12 condoms: $8.99 at the grocery store) except for those most partisan of asshats on both sides of the aisle.

      Read this article, How American Health Care Killed My Father. It's old, but the trends that he talks about were not addressed by the ACA. These problems will remain regardless of the eventual success or failure of the ACA, and sooner or later they'll have to be addressed.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all money is a waste either. Food costs money, but I gladly pay for it.

    22. Re:How much will it cost? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Apparently you had Sarah Palin as a reading comprehension teacher.

      He is comparing the American health care system with the European health care system.
      Which is far superior by every measure.

      "European" != a country, numbnuts.

      Since it obviously went over your head, the Sarah Palin crack is in reference to a rumor that, during the 2008 campaign, she got into an argument with a staffer about whether Africa is a country or a continent (apparently Mrs. Palin believed the latter).

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    23. Re:How much will it cost? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Choice is a wonderful thing.

      Too bad the ACA took a lot of it away, by telling people what kind of coverages they must have, because clearly 55 year old menopausal women need maternity coverage. Mandated coverages are the biggest thing driving the sticker shock that a lot of people are seeing right now, and it's only going to get worse.

      Also nice that they outlawed a lot of traditional actuarial processes, like charging women more than men (hint: women use more healthcare, though I could get behind this if we apply the same concept to auto insurance), only allowing them to charge the elderly 3X more than the young even though they use many times that in coverage (and usually have more money than the young to foot the bills with....) and so on.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    24. Re:How much will it cost? by Russ1642 · · Score: 1

      I live in Canada and even though I don't have to pay for blood tests I still have to leave my warm igloo, hook up my dogs and then mush down to the trading post to get my blood drawn.

    25. Re:How much will it cost? by BradMajors · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's about getting everyone insured.

      Nope. Some people are finding Obamacare is cancelling their insurance while their Obamacare replacement insurance is unaffordable and they make too much for a subsidy.

      So far, more people have had their insurance cancelled than the number of people who have been able to obtain a policy through the government website.

    26. Re:How much will it cost? by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

      The biggest problem with our healthcare system is the cost, and the ACA did nothing whatsoever to address that.

      Well, what it tried to do about costs was to push them onto relatively healthy young people by forcing them to buy insurance. What the smart relatively healthy young people are doing is accepting the penalty for not buying insurance because it will ultimately cost them less. They'll simply wait until they get some "pre-existing condition" and then get insurance to cover it, never actually paying into the system more than they take out.

      Or they'll be in the same situation the CT law school student is, where he's so 'poor' that he gets free health care and doesn't have to pay even the $39/month he was paying for insurance anymore, but would be paying much much more were he to participate in the exchange plans.

      And when you consider the astronomical deductables that are in the ACA exchange plans, you have to be pretty sick to save money by having insurance anyway.

      AP story about Oregon's CoverOregon -- nobody has been signed up yet. One woman sent in the paperwork to sign up in early October, she just got back the documents so she can actually know how much the plans will cost her and sign up for real. A 19 page form. She waited for more than a month for just the information, and she needs to sign up by December 15 (less than a month now) if she's going to get insurance on Jan 1.

    27. Re:How much will it cost? by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      In California, the insurance commissioner has said that none of the existing health insurance plans are compliant with the ACA and all must be cancelled.

    28. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, since everything I said comes straight from my 2014 obamacare plan docs:
      https://www.lifewisewa.com/visitor/shop-for-plans/individual-and-family-plans/2014-summary-of-benefits-and-coverage/

    29. Re:How much will it cost? by SillyHamster · · Score: 1

      The fact that your insurance company decided to drop that that plan and only offer you a worse one, which is something they COULD HAVE DONE AT ANY TIME ANYWAY, is just down to your insurance company being douches, not a fault of the AHA or Obama.

      And yet it wasn't canceled until now. Clearly a conspiracy against Obama, which is why he suddenly said he was issuing 1 year waivers for insurance plans, despite that never being in the "Affordable" Care Act.

    30. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The example you give, maternity coverage, is actually a perfect example of why it should be required across the board. The whole point of insurance is that costs are shared among people with equal risks OVER TIME. A 55 year old menopausal woman doesn't need maternity coverage now, of course. But she only technically needed them during a fraction of her life. Also, men and women should be equally liable for maternity costs, for obvious reasons. Women use more healthcare, technically, but men share half the cause of that increase.

      An "efficiency" in an insurance product is usually an absurdity. The ideally "efficient" insurance product is no insurance at all! The only way to have industry-wide fairness is to regulate the industry pools, the main win of obamacare. Insurance "efficiency" should be about the reduction of overhead and general pool risk, so private insurance with regulated pools actually makes sense to focus the innovation on the right aspects.

    31. Re:How much will it cost? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      It means free-to-use, pedant. Same as your public library.

    32. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would make her right, Africa is a continent. Doesn't make her any less of a total douche, but she would be right about that.

    33. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what it tried to do about costs was to push them onto relatively healthy young people by forcing them to buy insurance.

      So they young pay SS and Medicare tax of 15% of their income already. The way to solve their inability to buy health insurance, due to costs, was increase it even more so they can pay even more of their income to insure the elderly or pay an increased tax for not buying it.

      This, in addition to every policy DC comes up with to make it even harder for the youth to even get jobs and increase college costs so much they are in debt for life with student loans they can't pay back.

      Why is it you liberals hate the youth so much?

    34. Re:How much will it cost? by Uberbah · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As someone else living in Europe that is paying through taxes for this "doesn't cost a dime" service of yours, can I just say... you're welcome.

      Isn't it lovely living in a civilized place?

      You could always move to an uncivilized place like the United States, and pay 3x as much for worse care AND deal with insurance company roadblocks to get it.

    35. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she got into an argument with a staffer about whether Africa is a country or a continent (apparently Mrs. Palin believed the latter).

      Whoa! She believed that Africa is a continent?! Haha, what a tard!

      Nice job, dumbass: you always look so intelligent when you mock someone for being correct. Or when you fuck up the details of what you are mocking someone about. Either way, it's equivalent—you appear to be a moron.

      I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

    36. Re:How much will it cost? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Apparently you had Sarah Palin as a reading comprehension teacher.

      He is comparing the American health care system with the European health care system.
      Which is far superior by every measure.

      Erm, there is not European health care system. There isn't even an EU health care system.

      There are health care systems in countries in Europe, most of which are superior to the US. The US lingers at the bottom of developed countries when it comes to health care, which is surprising as the US tends to spend more on health care than many European nations.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    37. Re:How much will it cost? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The whole point of insurance is that costs are shared among people with equal risks OVER TIME.

      No, the point of insurance is to trade risk for cost in a deal between the insurer and the insured. The existence of risk pools makes this practical on a large scale, since the costs average out, but it's not really a necessary component. You can be insured for a potential one-off event that no one else will ever experience.

      The correct way for insurance to operate is that you pay a higher premium while your risk is high, and a lower premium while your risk is low. Averaging out the high-risk and low-risk times is not the function of insurance.

      An "efficiency" in an insurance product is usually an absurdity. The ideally "efficient" insurance product is no insurance at all!

      Nonsense. You're assuming perfect knowledge of the future. Insurance operates in the real world, where the future is uncertain. If you actually knew what the outcome would be then you wouldn't need insurance, but all you actually know is how likely each outcome is projected to be. Efficient insurance means not paying more than you have to in premiums for coverage against a particular outcome. Since underestimating the risk means the insurance company eventually goes out of business, and overestimating it means you pay too much in premiums, the efficient price is the one where the risk is accurately assessed and there is sufficient competition to keep the insurance company's margins in check.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    38. Re:How much will it cost? by Nephandus · · Score: 1

      Not to those that actually paid for it, duh.

      --
      "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
    39. Re:How much will it cost? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's mostly a bunch of lies Europeans and self-loathing Americans tell each other. Our health care system only looks bad in terms of cost, the infant mortality numbers are outright fabrications and longevity is heavily cultural (we're fat).

      Cost and availability you can certainly ding us for, but as an upper middle class American the health care available to be is as good or better than pretty much any European outside of the super wealthy.

    40. Re:How much will it cost? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Shrug. We have better care. If you get cancer your best bet is to get treatment in the US. Oh, sure, it costs a lot but pretending you get worse care here is a lie _if_ you have decent insurance.

    41. Re:How much will it cost? by CubicleZombie · · Score: 1

      What I posted is true.

      --
      :wq
    42. Re:How much will it cost? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Why would that be a "rumor?" Was there also a "rumor" that Hillary Clinton believed the sky was blue?

    43. Re:How much will it cost? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Wait, so spreading the costs over everyone in a single payer system is "eeebil commie socialism," but when we do it to protect corporate profits, that's A-OK?

    44. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the GP. I prefer single payer, but I will take private insurance with regulated pools, and understand why that is a more "American" attempt. We will need to go through regulated pools before we get to single payer, I think.

    45. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Yes, you can be in a pool by yourself, but that is still a pool. It seems that we are in agreement here.

      2. I emphasized ideal and used efficient in quotes, to make it clear that I was starting from "perfect knowledge" to make a point, which you didn't actually address. It seems that we are in agreement here, also.

      In the future, it might help to not argue against misunderstood semantics, and instead ask for clarification.

    46. Re:How much will it cost? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Cost and availability you can certainly ding us for, but as an upper middle class American the health care available to be is as good or better than pretty much any European outside of the super wealthy.

      First off, you'll find the European systems to be as good, if not better. They wont subject you to as many X-Rays and may suggest going on a diet above giving you a motorised scooter and vitamin injections but this does not make them worse.

      Secondly, that's what makes the US health care system so terrible.

      Unless you have money, it's denied to you. Most middle class Americans get their health care via their employer (otherwise it's too expensive) and that pretty much makes you indentured to your employer.

      As a "regular Joe" I'd rather be under the UK system than the US system.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    47. Re:How much will it cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, right? Can we say distribution of wealth?

    48. Re:How much will it cost? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      the US tends to spend more on health care than many European nations.

      No we don't. We spend more than anybody! Period. In the whole world.

      Stupid, aren't we?

  7. Re:And your DNA is stored for how long? by barlevg · · Score: 1

    There are far easier--and less obvious--ways of getting someone's DNA.

  8. Re: Obama official again lowers bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow, thanks so much for this insightful and completely topical post!

  9. Where to effectively use this.. by lionchild · · Score: 2

    I think I'd like to see this in my doctors office. They could employ someone to take care of that, make blood work more quick for diagnostics, and patients wouldn't have to go to yet somewhere else for blood work, then everyone waits for results. I could be wrong, but it feels like this is something a doctors office might be more well invested in for the patient. And if the cost is low enough, then perhaps it's a service they add on regularly so as to insure there's not something cropping up that goes undiagnosed between visits...since we all know that particularly men don't want to go to the doctor unless something is really wrong.

    But, it goes back to doctors being more invested in patients and their positive health and less about getting as many people through the door as possible in a day. However, that's probably a whole different discussion.

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    1. Re:Where to effectively use this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see this as a vending machine in my local McDonalds.

    2. Re:Where to effectively use this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://egr.uri.edu/the-blood-test-app/

    3. Re:Where to effectively use this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on the number of patients - the whole reason LabCorp and such exist is that it is cheaper to outsource the testing and have a lab tech spend his/her day doing the tests than to have someone in each office trained to do the tests. Presumably Walgreens has more customers than a doctor has patients, else why not have a pharmacist at the doctor's office as well, so locating the test there probably still makes more sense unless the time savings are worth the extra expense of on site testing.

  10. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Might be my european background but: Where I live the general population is not savvy enough to be left alone with a printout of Hb, Hk, MCV, MCHC, Ferritin, Transferrin, ASAT, ALAT, ... AFP, CEA-19, PSA... god forbid! The test alone is meaningless without interpretation -- that's something only qualified staff can and should do and it should be explained to the patient in a one-on-one conversation.

    1. Re:Huh? by barlevg · · Score: 1

      I know how to interpret my LDL and HDL levels. Most people understand what it means to be "positive" for HIV or Hepatitis. The last blood panel I had included a whole column of "acceptable" ranges. I think the idea here is either that your doctor orders the blood panel and gets you the results that day (rather than a week later) or that you take the test and then say, "Oop. Time to see the doctor." Or it's for chronic conditions (like high cholesterol) where self-monitoring is entirely possible.

    2. Re:Huh? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " "positive" for HIV or Hepatitis"
      so what does that mean?

      if you answer was anything other than ' take a second test' you fail.

      And of course a significant portion of people will never report or followup when they have an STD. They will infect others, and they will apply 'pop culture' 'treatments' to serious diseases.

      I look forward to people beating themselves with bushes to cure aids, and using prayer to protect others from getting infected~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  11. How to interpret results by iced_tea · · Score: 1

    Use this chart to quickly interpret blood test results:
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Reference_ranges_for_blood_tests_-_by_mass.svg

    (shamelessly stolen from this post a few months back)

    1. Re:How to interpret results by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      That chart provides no interpretation whatsoever. It only says if results are within range. Someone can have a result out of range, but be a normal result for them.

    2. Re:How to interpret results by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      That chart provides no interpretation whatsoever. It only says if results are within range. Someone can have a result out of range, but be a normal result for them.

      Exactly. You need a baseline to "compare" results.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:How to interpret results by Draknor · · Score: 1

      Exactly. You need a baseline to "compare" results.

      Which I don't get with today's system.

      I've been feeling really fatigued lately so I had an iron test done. I have low iron-binding capacity, and yet high serum iron. Is that normal for me? I have no idea - I'm 33 years old and I've NEVER had my iron checked before, because my doctor(s) have never ordered it. At least today, I can go online to order tests (paid out of pocket, drawn at local service centers for LabCorp or Quest) that I think might be useful, irregardless of if my doctor would order it or not, and start to look at some of those things pro-actively.

  12. Accuracy of Theranos Tests by barlevg · · Score: 1

    Someone asked, here's the answer: a whole lot better than the labwork you get now. Example: HDL tests are allowed to have a 30% margin of error. Theranos' tests are accurate to within 10%.

    1. Re:Accuracy of Theranos Tests by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That chart is pretty meaningless. suppose you have high normal Free triiodothyronine but also low normal Estradiol what does that indicate? How are they impacted my medicine? what if something moves from low normal to high normal?
      I've seen to many 'self diagnosis' go bad becasue people don't understand the other effects.

      It's not just a check list of normals.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Accuracy of Theranos Tests by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      No, accuracy and margin of error are different concepts.

      First of all Theranos is FOS. All the stuff she is touting to do is available on the open market. We will see about their prices. Their 'accuracy' is test-to-test repeatability - NOT confirmation with a reference sample. You can be very accurate and very wrong. Theranos is probably not either, and for clinical laboratory work you don't need to be terribly precise. But all of their breathless hype is total BS.

      Getting lab work a couple hours (even days) earlier isn't going to change things much unless you are so ill that you are in a place that can get such studies routinely. They still have to get CLIA waivers for any test that is done outside their central lab.

      And we'll see about prices. If you look at the wholesale prices for 'standard' central labs like Quest it's pretty cheap. The problem comes after the several levels of markup. Theranos will be subject to the same issues. And it's not like the current labs have people making test tubes from recycled glass - it's incredibly automated. Much of the costs comes from quality control and Theranos is going to have the same issues.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Accuracy of Theranos Tests by Draknor · · Score: 1

      I think you responded to the wrong post, but I'll bite anyway -- sure, it's easy to self-diagnose incorrectly. I'm guilty of it myself. But the ability to get labwork done (on my own dime) is super valuable to me, because (anecdotally) doctors follow their traditional protocols, which are generalized for the population and (often, it seems to me) rely on prescribing a magic pill.

      I was diagnosed by my doctor with hypothryoidism based on a high (but not astronomical) TSH. My doctor would have NEVER ordered a lab for free triiodothyronine - she just rx'ed synthroid and was done with me. I did more research on my own, decided I really wanted to track FT3 & FT4 because I suspected my symptoms strongly correlated with those levels rather than TSH. And I discovered low/normal FT3/FT4 is NOT good for me - despite it being within the reference range.

      For patients that are willing to take charge of their health, having more access to tests is a good thing. Doesn't mean patients shouldn't have conversations with their doctors - I'm meeting with mine in 3 weeks - but those can now be much more fruitful conversations.

  13. This will be a great for detecting illness sooner. by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    This will save money, and improve healthcare outcomes. No upside to waiting 3 days for test results. Next stop - subdermal monitors!

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
  14. Re:But will patients actually get to see the savin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're assuming the patients will be allowed to take the test in the first place. The last time someone tried this, the ATF (yes, WTF do blood tests have to do with alcohol, tobacco, or firearms?) beat the fuck out of the two medical students who were trying to help people. The AMA will make sure people die if they try to compete with the medical cartel like this.

  15. This fainter is very happy by businessnerd · · Score: 1

    As someone who frequently faints or comes extremely close while having blood drawn, I am extremely excited about this tech. I hate getting blood drawn so much that I have a tendency to avoid scheduling routine physicals, which I know is not smart since yearly physicals are so crucial to spotting trouble before things get too bad. I don't just hate passing out (or nearly), but I hate needles in general, so having that needle stuck in my arm for the duration of the draw (or the frequent misses and retries) along with the whole losing consciousness is torture for me. Finger-prick was never a problem for me, though. I imagine I'm not alone, so if this means more people doing some preventative maintenance, then it likely also means less emergency room visits and major procedures resulting from ignored or uncaught conditions that would have otherwise been easily treated.

    I just hope that my insurance will accept this method. I just got a letter in the mail from them the other day reminding me that they do not work with all labs.

    --
    "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
    1. Re:This fainter is very happy by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      I'm in a similar boat. I thought it was seeing the flood of blood that is taken for routine bloodwork that made me white out, but getting a vaccine booster shot resulted in similar symptoms. Over the years, I found needlework more bearable if I:
      a) look away. seriously.
      b) think about something else. other body parts, other things entirely. and think hard!
      c) inform the technician ahead of time, and lay down for the duration of the needling. most techs are very accomodating.

      At the doctor's I always bring up, half in jest, that it's ridiculous how much blood they need. On TV they can sequence someone's entire genome from a single red blood cell. In medical research they can watch individual neurons firing in realtime with fMRI. But to determine if my excessive butter consumption is fucking up my HDL:LDL ratio, they need a bucket of fresh blood? This development couldn't be more appealing to me.

      That being said, good luck with those damn blood thieves. I swear they only need a drop of that blood for testing and then they sell the rest on the black market.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    2. Re:This fainter is very happy by geekoid · · Score: 1

      how much blood do they take, I would think 4-6 vials.

      " excessive butter consumption is fucking up my "
      It is.
      That will be 50 bucks please.

      If if your ratio is normal, it's still impacting it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:This fainter is very happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The key is not to let them see you sweat.

      Look right at the spot and casually watch what they are doing. Occasionally even talk about previous blood test difficulties.
      Watch the lab tech become disappointed.when you don't freak out.

      The first time you may need to tense your sphincter and squeeze your stomache, just don't let them see. After the third or fourth time you will be so cheerful that you are annoying the techs that you won't even notice the test.

      BTW, I would be happy if they drew twice as much blood. Each ounce of blood has to be replaced so you are giving your internal systems a workout!.

    4. Re:This fainter is very happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, I would be happy if they drew twice as much blood. Each ounce of blood has to be replaced so you are giving your internal systems a workout!.

      And it's cheaper to get drunk!

    5. Re:This fainter is very happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just hope that my insurance will accept this method. I just got a letter in the mail from them the other day reminding me that they do not work with all labs.

      I assuming here, but if it's cheap enough to install in doctor's offices and pharmacies, I assume it's cheap enough to pay out of pocket.

      Just the savings from having to file the paperwork to the insurance company would probably drop the price by at least 50%.

    6. Re:This fainter is very happy by turtledawn · · Score: 1

      former lab sample processor here - not CLT, but pre-test prep. For most tests you need serum, which is only about half the blood volume after centrifugation. Then it's poured off- by hand- into plastic sample vials. You lose some down the side of the tube, the tubes are wider than they need to be because human pour accuracy is bad which is more surplus, and the company always wants to keep at least one test's worth of serum as a backup in case a tube gets dropped or exposed to a contaminant or gets overheated or something, and because more often than you'd think doctors call up and say oh hey add these 40 tests to Bob's sample. Oh, and sample processors are expected to split well over 120 patient's orders an hour, usually into four or five tubes, sometimes a lot more.

      A funny aside: some people have triglyceride levels so high that their blood serum is actually strawberry milkshake pink. Always impressive to see that.

      --
      Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
    7. Re:This fainter is very happy by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      A while back, mine were ">450mg/dL". Doctor said their lab's test range maxed out at 450, and I was somewhere above that. They wanted to put me on statins, etc., while I was still in my 20s!

      Instead, I cut down my drinking, stopped eating like shit, and started exercising. Got down to 150mg/dL in 6 months. On the one hand, it's nice being healthier. On the other hand, I somewhat miss my days of extreme gluttony and sloth.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  16. affordable you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if it's like the Affordable Care Act then it means you'll be forced pay twice as much for a bunch of tests you don't need!

  17. Re: Obama official again lowers bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Spam is certainly a form of "information", but it's nearly universally unwanted. Which sums up your bullshit neatly.

  18. Funding by: by jafac · · Score: 2

    So - don't forget to check the box at the bottom of the form saying that you agree to their privacy policy. (whereby, your blood will give them a DNA sequence that they can sell as marketing information - which funds the tests. And the CEO's retirement plan).

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    1. Re:Funding by: by geekoid · · Score: 1

      you think selling it a market material change there bottom line enough to impact a CEOs bonus? you're high.
      It's used in medical research, and is a good thing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Funding by: by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1

      And your paranoia makes this worse than any of the current situation, how?

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
  19. luddites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    may mean that the demand for clinical technicians may decline, but the benefits of making blood analysis more accessible to everyone is enormous

    Every invention makes a few jobs obsolete but opens up many more.

    With it being easier and cheaper there'll be more demand. That'll mean more tests. So the technicians will have as much work as before. With more results that opens up the opportunity for more jobs elsewhere dealing with the results, and big data analysis of results.

    1. Re:luddites by mlts · · Score: 1

      If tests are easier to get and use, I can see going in fairly often just to make sure a diet is working or that an exercise regimen is actually taking care of stuff. Plus, it might be useful checking if one has cold or flu, and treating it accordingly.

  20. advice from a former fainter by Shakrai · · Score: 1

    Find a lab that will let you lay down while they do the draw. You faint during the draw because of a drop in blood pressure, lying down will ensure that more blood remains in the brain when this happens, which will prevent (or at least postpone) fainting. Get a few successful draws under your belt and you might find that you don't have to keep laying down, since your body will have moved past the negative association.

    YMMV, but it worked for me, I used to have the exact same problem and managed to conquer it to the point of becoming a regular blood donor. I could tell you some real good stories about passing out in hospitals though. :)

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:advice from a former fainter by businessnerd · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the advice. I always bring up my history of fainting and request to lie down and usually stay down for a little while afterwards since it hasn't always been during the draw that the lights have gone out (Once it was 15 minutes later back in the waiting room). My experiences have all varied. Some have turned out OK, others tortuous, so I know some of it is in my head. At the end of the day, I just need to man up and deal with it for the sake of my own health.

      --
      "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
    2. Re:advice from a former fainter by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are different lipid levels depending on fasting cycles and resting cycles.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  21. So how much does a blood test cost in the US? by hamster_nz · · Score: 1

    I used to look after the local Lab Management System for a medical lab here in New Zealand.

    Here blood tests are pretty much free when ordered by a doctor - IIRC the ministry of health gives the tester around $5 for the simple tests... if you walked off the street they might charge you $US15 for doing the paperwork.

    The results were ready in a few hours, and then an EDI-style clearing house is used to deliver the results back into the doctor's patient management system, so a four hour turn-around was not unheard of (as long as the sample was taken at the lab and not the doctor's surgery).

    1. Re:So how much does a blood test cost in the US? by jtara · · Score: 1

      There are two prices: there is a "retail" price that is tremendously inflated. And there is a "negotiated" price that is paid by insurers. The "retail" is absolutely unaffordable.

      As an example, my annual tests ordered by my physician last year were $700 "retail".

      The negotiated Blue Cross rate was $130. I paid a co-pay of something like $40. So, the lab somehow cheerfully forgoes $570 revenue, and collects $40 from me and $90 from Blue Cross.

      Poor people have to pay $700. Or go through horrible paperwork and nonsense to access free government services. Or wait till it is an emergency, and go to the emergency room, and then they'll run the needed blood tests. Then they wind-up owing $10,000 which they can't pay and then ruin their credit.

      The system is bass-ackwards.

    2. Re:So how much does a blood test cost in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They start at about 5 and go up from there depending on the amount of blood drawn and number of tests. Tests of 250 each are not unheard of.

    3. Re:So how much does a blood test cost in the US? by hamster_nz · · Score: 1

      I don't know if I should laugh or cry at that. What stops somebody setting up a lab - you could pay a lab tech's salary twice over to just do one manual test a day.

      Is there some sort of cartel that doesn't supply equipment / reagents / consumables to labs that don't toe the line?

      Or are the labs being screwed by their suppliers?

    4. Re:So how much does a blood test cost in the US? by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

      Welcome to America. Nearly half our country is willing to salt the fields just to keep the other half from eating.

    5. Re:So how much does a blood test cost in the US? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Typically the cartel is the state government which won't allow new providers to open in an area without an elaborate dance to 'prove need' to some committee.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    6. Re:So how much does a blood test cost in the US? by hamster_nz · · Score: 1

      So this is an attempt to solve what is not a technology problem but a political one?

        I can't see that this will ever be able to make blood tests affordable to you - it will be used by the existing providers to increase profit margins while doing less work.

    7. Re:So how much does a blood test cost in the US? by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Nope. You can almost always obtain the lowest prices by paying cash. While I have health insurance I almost always pay cash in order to save money. A recent blood test would have cost me about $80 if I used my health insurance. Instead I obtained the blood test for $20 by paying cash.

    8. Re:So how much does a blood test cost in the US? by tehdaemon · · Score: 1

      "What stops somebody setting up a lab"

      Medical regulations. Lots of them.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    9. Re:So how much does a blood test cost in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is very true. Before I had insurance it wouldn't cost much more for a doctors visit vs the co-pay with my insurance. For other things, they gave me a pretty good discount for paying cash.

      Now it's not always the case, but I've seen in personally before myself

    10. Re:So how much does a blood test cost in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just regulations. A commercial chemistry analyzer can cost $50,000-$100,000 up-front. Throw in another $35,000/year for a service contract, and $5000/month for a small amount of reagents and other consumables (wash solutions, sample cups, etc). Add in electricity, rent, and whatever you're paying the people who push the buttons; start-up costs for a small lab can easily run into the $750k - $1m range before sending through the first tube.

      It's worth noting that most medical labs (at least here in the city) are small private affairs, and at any given time at least a couple are closing down for lack of business, so these costs are significant.

    11. Re:So how much does a blood test cost in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The legal regulations are a tremendous barrier to entry. Both for setup and on-going checks. Additionally, there is a considerable capital investment, depending on the type of lab you want to setup (low, medium, or high complexity), such that not just anyone can waltz in and get lab testing equipment.

      SOURCE: part of a start-your-own-lab consulting team.

    12. Re:So how much does a blood test cost in the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > lowest prices by paying cash

      No. That is illegal after HIPAA. That was a brilliant poison pill that Hilary Clinton has bragged about coming up with the concept. It is illegal for any medical provider to offer a service for cash at less than what it costs an insurance company. The Republicans supported it because it means more money for insurance companies. The Democrats supported it because it is so screwed-up that it brings us one step closer to single-payer.

  22. Crap by geekoid · · Score: 1

    I reread that and it sounded like I was implying I am a Medical Doctor. I am not. I used to run some very in depth analysis with multi zone/state/country hospitals.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  23. Important question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we pay cash at the local pharmacy and have the test done anonymously?

  24. Walgreens in Palo Alto has one by rlh100 · · Score: 1

    According to Theranos' web site the Walgreens in downtown Palo Alto has one. Looking at their price list, the tests are very affordable for people without insurance

    1. Re:Walgreens in Palo Alto has one by gregor-e · · Score: 1

      I wonder whether doctors could prescribe a periodic test, to keep track of a particular metabolite or something? I wonder whether insurance would pay for it?

  25. I read this too quickly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was skimming, and I thought it said you donated 2.5 gallons of sperm. This didn't register immediately, and I was half-way down the page before it hit me. I had to scroll back up to see from the context that you were talking about blood donations.

  26. Re:But will patients actually get to see the savin by BradMajors · · Score: 1

    If your doctor has requested you take a blood test, you can have that blood test done at any facility of your choice. I have personally transferred my doctor's blood tests to other facilities.

  27. Re:But will patients actually get to see the savin by BradMajors · · Score: 2

    In California, patients are prohibited from obtaining blood tests without a doctor's request. And, the test results must be sent only to the doctor without providing the patient with a copy.

  28. Time to sell some stocks by Cantankerous+Cur · · Score: 1

    Comprehensive metabolic panels (CMPs) and CBCs are the bread and butter of companies like Quest Diagnostics and Labcorp. Might be a good time not to own any of their stock...or at least, not once a working version of this comes out.

  29. Schizoid Flash ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Due to Slashdot's sudden adoption of schizoid Flash-based advertising (animation sliding ads in and out of their sub-iframe, plus they are Flash-based), I have removed Slashdot from my ad blocking whitelist. Make a public, high-visibility post in the future apologizing for this breach of the user trust and I will re-whitelist Slashdot.

    There is zero excuse for these hyper-annoying advertisements.

    -- A disgusted, anonymous coward

  30. Re: Obama official again lowers bar by Barny · · Score: 1

    Not, the person you responded to didn't even say they were in the US. Get over yourselves.

    Signed, someone in a country with real healthcare.

    --
    ...
    /me sighs
  31. Re: Obama official again lowers bar by gagol · · Score: 2

    We really need a sign near the comments that reads: "don't feed the trolls".

    --
    Tomorrow is another day...
  32. Main problem is knowing what risks actually are by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I know a lot of people who buy diagnostic tests on their genome and their blood.

    The problem is that you don't know what the risks "mean".

    Knowledge is not always wisdom.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  33. European health care has a median by tepples · · Score: 1

    "European" != a country

    So? European health care has a median among countries, and it's still valid to compare that median to American health care.

  34. Vitamin D 25-OH only $20.35 by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 1

    Wow, Vitamin D 25-OH for only $20.35 according to their page. that +$200.00 less than LabCorp charges. It's nice to see Silicon Valley expanding its menu.

    1. Re:Vitamin D 25-OH only $20.35 by justcauseisjustthat · · Score: 1

      The management team is a Who's Who of former US government/military

  35. Re: Obama official again lowers bar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    repeating political propaganda is NOT giving information.
    And getting information from you and fox is just like getting it from a NAZI youth. You are fascists who loves to suck on the hard-on of some of the worst leaders in history.

  36. Re:But will patients actually get to see the savin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something. that a rational and good fix of the health care system would have eliminated.

    MRI machines cost the same as they did fifteen years ago, but Pentium II machines cost one twentieth. Why is that?

    This is what you get when you put people from the University of Chicago in charge.

  37. I have to ask .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A test done at a pharmacy, with little control, could result in a higher chance of cross contamination.

    I have no problem with the concept/idea. I'm just concerned about quality if there aren't any standards applied to the process.

  38. It is $510 to get basic blood work here by Cammi · · Score: 1

    It is $510 to get basic blood work here. (Just had it done a month ago). We don't have a wallgreens, but still .... If this is cheaper ....

  39. Re:But will patients actually get to see the savin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No the cost of the MRI is much to do with the need for supper high temperature superconductors, liquid nitrogen cooling tolerant magnets are an improvement on the liquid helium/hydrogen ones but in terms of cost we would need to get them to work on "normal" refrigeration to see another big price drop (but what a price drop that will be).

  40. Where to start by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    When I think of Walgreens, I instantly think of airtight, impervious security and attentive employees obsessed with getting detailed work dead solid perfect the first time, every time.

    Meanwhile, on planet Earth...

    This info (I mean the 70% of it that is kept with the correct customer) will be hacked within two months. And buried deep within the 1-point EULA you have to agree to is permission to share all this information with every health insurer - especially your current one. In fact, the order will be: first your rates go through the roof, *then* word is passed along to you by the snail-est of mail that they found something in your tests.

  41. Test Markups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked for seven years for a device manufacture (1998 to 2005) whose primary product was blood tests. I saw, on a regular basis, invoices to labs charging around $1.25/test. Over the years I had at least 20 tests as a patient done at commercial labs. I was stunned to see that the labs were charging ~$50 for these same tests which would be discounted to the insurance company to about ~$30. There are added costs to the labs (running controls that use tests but do not produce revenue, etc) but I have never been able to get from a 1.25 -> 50. These were automated tests: ordered by remote computer, the tests ran when the bar coded blood showed up on the instrument, reported the results electronically. Some of the major labs are publicly traded companies and are not making outrageous profits and it is a competitive business both at the manufacturing and lab level.

    This is just another example of medical care costing way more then it should. I don’t have answers but something is seriously wrong.

  42. The cost of healthcare services? by codeusirae · · Score: 1

    "With the cost of healthcare services increasing"

    Healthcare costs aren't going up, what is going on is price gouging by the insurance companies.

  43. Re: Obama official again lowers bar by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

    No.

    Slashdot is filled with extremist Democrat socialist leaning voters and has forced this tyrannical monstrosity upon the people of the US, not single handedly of course, but you all did your part like good little drones and you all know it.

    Slashdot has quite a variety of political stances and belief systems, and some who don't like being affiliated with any of them.

    We also have at least a small share of idiots, as you have displayed.