Slashdot Mirror
A Cheap and Easy Blood Test Could Catch Cancer Early (technologyreview.com)
A simple-to-take test that tells if you have a tumor lurking, and even where it is in your body, is a lot closer to reality -- and may cost only $500. From a report: The new test, developed at Johns Hopkins University, looks for signs of eight common types of cancer. It requires only a blood sample and may prove inexpensive enough for doctors to give during a routine physical. "The idea is this test would make its way into the public and we could set up screening centers," says Nickolas Papadopoulos, one of the Johns Hopkins researchers behind the test. "That's why it has to be cheap and noninvasive." Although the test isn't commercially available yet, it will be used to screen 50,000 retirement-age women with no history of cancer as part of a $50 million, five-year study with the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, a spokesperson with the insurer said. The test, detailed today in the journal Science, could be a major advance for "liquid biopsy" technology, which aims to detect cancer in the blood before a person feels sick or notices a lump. That's useful because early-stage cancer that hasn't spread can often be cured.
Currently insurance is guaranteed-issue in the US, and treating early-stage cancers is easier/cheaper than catching them late. So yeah, this will save money, and not by blacklisting.
Also, $500 is cheaper than tests for cancer like scopes and CAT scans.
Talking to a researcher at Tufts, he pointed out that we have plenty of new diagnostics that can't be used because insurance won't cover them. The insurance companies are afraid that the diagnostic will uncover a condition that has to be treated, which would cost more than letting the condition go until it becomes untreatable and the patient dies quickly.
So even though this test might suggest an earlier treatment that is cheaper, you still have to compare the actuarial value of not doing the test and letting the cancers go until they are discovered by some other method.
We need some sort of game-theory change in how insurance companies operate, so that their goal is better health and not lower costs.
Perhaps penalizing the company for deaths under a certain age (to encourage the company to value life over costs), or something similar.
Simply mandating the test and other legislative directives won't work, because the companies still have the incentive to reduce costs - they will always be pulling in the opposite direction.
We need a way to get the insurance companies to pull in the same direction as their customers, so that they both have the same goals.
That being, better health.