Fairly often I see pieces about plans to reduce the costs of CT scanners in order to reduce the cost of services. Seems to me that the cost of the machines isn’t the main issue. Maybe one of the medical folks here can fact check me. CT machines cost around $2.5M to buy and install. Given the “cost of money” this would mean a loan for one would cost some $250000 p.a. The companies that run them get $550 per scan (partly from client, partly from Medicare). They can get through 4000 scans a year so gross revenue per machine can be around $2.2M. Am I in the ballpark?

dv said:

Fairly often I see pieces about plans to reduce the costs of CT scanners in order to reduce the cost of services. Seems to me that the cost of the machines isn’t the main issue. Maybe one of the medical folks here can fact check me. CT machines cost around $2.5M to buy and install. Given the “cost of money” this would mean a loan for one would cost some $250000 p.a. The companies that run them get $550 per scan (partly from client, partly from Medicare). They can get through 4000 scans a year so gross revenue per machine can be around $2.2M. Am I in the ballpark?

There are other costs to consider but there does exist a ballpark to toss the ball around in.

Ive never had much to do with CTs

What I can tell you is expensive equipment like this is bought with a plan

You’ll buy the machine AND will often buy a servicing and
Repair / warranty plan with it. Private hospitals should ALWAYS buy the plan – unlike a public hospital which will have a huge service department which will normally have techs that can service/repair CTs because they’ve undertaken the manufacturers training course.

As a rough rule of thumb when ANY medical device hits 10 years old – ditch it, the world has moved on and new methods and techniques have come about.

How would I run an expensive piece of equipment like a CT or anything else to save money and improve efficiency?

Simple use it as much as possible

From my limited experience with x ray machines ( I was replacing the brain/ power board of a dental xray two weeks ago moving slowly, carefully and asking some pertinent questions taking note of dip switches and what’s wired to what and making sure the staff don’t kill.me by switching it on.

You run x rays as much as possible, PCBs will often get component failure after ten years , maybe there could be expansion of components in the head. If I were a dentist I’d make xrays as cheap as possible and take as many shots as possible to recoup the cost quicker before the magical ten years

That goes for CTs I’d say , the electronics are going to fail quicker, the target in practical terms will never wear out.

( the electrons strictly speaking never hit the target believe it or not)

Actually that reminds me

We got called to a machine that no one could work out why it was failing

The basic MO of the machine was it had three sensors that picked up where a wand was inside the body. The patient must obviously be laid out under the three sensors and triangulation must occur – at least that what we surmised.

The biomed dept couldn’t see to work out what was going on with , couldn’t work out why it was failing intermittently. By carefully examining the boards / components turning it on and off we struck gold

We discovered that that the vertical PCBs had a fatal design flaw, by ever so slightly tightening the screws that held them at the base it deflected the PCB enough to open up a dry joint on the PCB.

Solution

Replace that one board of many to be found inside ( I think the machine was made in israel)

That’s the problem with “smart” people – they don’t see that fatal flaw in their logic or knowledge, DV is in that bracket, I meet them all the time and they always fuck shit up.

wookiemeister said:

Ive never had much to do with CTs

Tell us all about CT’s, with all your expertise and years of experience.

Kingy said:

wookiemeister said:

Ive never had much to do with CTs

Tell us all about CT’s, with all your expertise and years of experience.

No

You don’t get it

There’s traits that are common to ALL machines ( and humans) it doesn’t matter if it’s a power station or a toaster.

Your fatal flaw is the Russia bad/ ukraine war. You don’t bother finding out anything about the situation then wonder why NATO and it’s proxies are getting their teeth kicked in on the eastern front.

DV seems to think “medical experts” know anything about a CT. A tech would know plenty. Its like a car , a mechanic would know plenty – the driver would have limited experience ( unless they were forced to know about them)

I gave up bothering in the end

wookiemeister said:

Kingy said:

wookiemeister said:

Ive never had much to do with CTs

Tell us all about CT’s, with all your expertise and years of experience.

No

You don’t get it

There’s traits that are common to ALL machines ( and humans) it doesn’t matter if it’s a power station or a toaster.

Your fatal flaw is the Russia bad/ ukraine war. You don’t bother finding out anything about the situation then wonder why NATO and it’s proxies are getting their teeth kicked in on the eastern front.

DV seems to think “medical experts” know anything about a CT. A tech would know plenty. Its like a car , a mechanic would know plenty – the driver would have limited experience ( unless they were forced to know about them)

I gave up bothering in the end

Can we look forward to you not bothering with the forum any time soon?

It must have been years ago on the original SSSF when I had a revelation after watching the numbers of experts post stuff. I remember it because I think I wrote it up on the forum

The human mind must eventually set like concrete, I often see massive flaws in logic. Mathematicians / programmers buck the trend somewhat but they are often / ALWAYS weird birds, listen to what they say but evaluate it. Smart people can evaluate particular subjects but its that quantum leap where the transference of logic from one thing to another takes a mistep. I just grew tired of dealing with lunatics – its exhausting. Then there’s the lies.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

Kingy said:

Tell us all about CT’s, with all your expertise and years of experience.

No

You don’t get it

There’s traits that are common to ALL machines ( and humans) it doesn’t matter if it’s a power station or a toaster.

Your fatal flaw is the Russia bad/ ukraine war. You don’t bother finding out anything about the situation then wonder why NATO and it’s proxies are getting their teeth kicked in on the eastern front.

DV seems to think “medical experts” know anything about a CT. A tech would know plenty. Its like a car , a mechanic would know plenty – the driver would have limited experience ( unless they were forced to know about them)

I gave up bothering in the end

Can we look forward to you not bothering with the forum any time soon?

I come here to bounce a few balls off a wall if ive got time. Most time it’s a soliloquy. Kii was complaining about the privilege of white men recently and this was accepted with no push back. This forum is an examination of the human mind. I have many tastes , I peer in now again but again – it’s a soliloquy.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

Kingy said:

Tell us all about CT’s, with all your expertise and years of experience.

No

You don’t get it

There’s traits that are common to ALL machines ( and humans) it doesn’t matter if it’s a power station or a toaster.

Your fatal flaw is the Russia bad/ ukraine war. You don’t bother finding out anything about the situation then wonder why NATO and it’s proxies are getting their teeth kicked in on the eastern front.

DV seems to think “medical experts” know anything about a CT. A tech would know plenty. Its like a car , a mechanic would know plenty – the driver would have limited experience ( unless they were forced to know about them)

I gave up bothering in the end

Can we look forward to you not bothering with the forum any time soon?

LOL, live in hope witty and die in despair.

wookiemeister said:

It must have been years ago on the original SSSF when I had a revelation after watching the numbers of experts post stuff. I remember it because I think I wrote it up on the forum

The human mind must eventually set like concrete, I often see massive flaws in logic. Mathematicians / programmers buck the trend somewhat but they are often / ALWAYS weird birds, listen to what they say but evaluate it. Smart people can evaluate particular subjects but its that quantum leap where the transference of logic from one thing to another takes a mistep. I just grew tired of dealing with lunatics – its exhausting. Then there’s the lies.

Yeah because everyone else is the problem and it’s only closemindedness that prevents others from recognising your unique wisdom about pretty much everything.

My first realisation that smart people need to have their work evaluated is when I watched as a chemistry student that went on to get a distinction tried to take out a pyres dish from an OVEN with bare hands because he figured he could be quick.

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

It must have been years ago on the original SSSF when I had a revelation after watching the numbers of experts post stuff. I remember it because I think I wrote it up on the forum

The human mind must eventually set like concrete, I often see massive flaws in logic. Mathematicians / programmers buck the trend somewhat but they are often / ALWAYS weird birds, listen to what they say but evaluate it. Smart people can evaluate particular subjects but its that quantum leap where the transference of logic from one thing to another takes a mistep. I just grew tired of dealing with lunatics – its exhausting. Then there’s the lies.

Yeah because everyone else is the problem and it’s only closemindedness that prevents others from recognising your unique wisdom about pretty much everything.

Oh don’t get me wrong, I’ve got plenty of blind spots. As I said I just gave up bothering in the end.

Got to feed dogs

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

No

You don’t get it

There’s traits that are common to ALL machines ( and humans) it doesn’t matter if it’s a power station or a toaster.

Your fatal flaw is the Russia bad/ ukraine war. You don’t bother finding out anything about the situation then wonder why NATO and it’s proxies are getting their teeth kicked in on the eastern front.

DV seems to think “medical experts” know anything about a CT. A tech would know plenty. Its like a car , a mechanic would know plenty – the driver would have limited experience ( unless they were forced to know about them)

I gave up bothering in the end

Can we look forward to you not bothering with the forum any time soon?

I come here to bounce a few balls off a wall if ive got time. Most time it’s a soliloquy. Kii was complaining about the privilege of white men recently and this was accepted with no push back. This forum is an examination of the human mind. I have many tastes , I peer in now again but again – it’s a soliloquy.

No you’re a moron whose stupid predictions are always wrong and you don’t seem to understand human psychology enough to reason that everyone hates you because you have the gall to think you’re smarter than pretty much everyone. You’re a stupid cunt who thinks he’s a genius etc etc

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

wookiemeister said:

It must have been years ago on the original SSSF when I had a revelation after watching the numbers of experts post stuff. I remember it because I think I wrote it up on the forum

The human mind must eventually set like concrete, I often see massive flaws in logic. Mathematicians / programmers buck the trend somewhat but they are often / ALWAYS weird birds, listen to what they say but evaluate it. Smart people can evaluate particular subjects but its that quantum leap where the transference of logic from one thing to another takes a mistep. I just grew tired of dealing with lunatics – its exhausting. Then there’s the lies.

Yeah because everyone else is the problem and it’s only closemindedness that prevents others from recognising your unique wisdom about pretty much everything.

Oh don’t get me wrong, I’ve got plenty of blind spots. As I said I just gave up bothering in the end.

Got to feed dogs

At least the dogs respect you because you’re marginally more intelligent than them.

>>everyone hates you because you have the gall

You have the gall to think you can speak for everyone.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>everyone hates you because you have the gall

You have the gall to think you can speak for everyone.

Well I’ll try not to speak for closeted virgins with no life experience in the future then.

Witty Rejoinder said:

At least the dogs respect you because you’re marginally more intelligent than them.

big call that.

:-)

Witty Rejoinder said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>everyone hates you because you have the gall

You have the gall to think you can speak for everyone.

Well I’ll try not to speak for closeted virgins with no life experience in the future then.

Bogsnorkler said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>everyone hates you because you have the gall

You have the gall to think you can speak for everyone.

Well I’ll try not to speak for closeted virgins with no life experience in the future then.

Hehe.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>everyone hates you because you have the gall

You have the gall to think you can speak for everyone.

Well I’ll try not to speak for closeted virgins with no life experience in the future then.

Just count yourself lucky PWM , at least he hasn’t threatened to kill you. Don’t ya just love progressives?

I’d love to get OCDC’s insight on this, if she can bring her to step over the barnabesque bloviation.

dv said:

Fairly often I see pieces about plans to reduce the costs of CT scanners in order to reduce the cost of services. Seems to me that the cost of the machines isn’t the main issue. Maybe one of the medical folks here can fact check me. CT machines cost around $2.5M to buy and install. Given the “cost of money” this would mean a loan for one would cost some $250000 p.a. The companies that run them get $550 per scan (partly from client, partly from Medicare). They can get through 4000 scans a year so gross revenue per machine can be around $2.2M. Am I in the ballpark?

Your reasoning seems sound. I confess I am not particularly up-to-date in the field.

I think one of the problems with imaging these days is that it’s over-ordered. At public hospitals who run their own radiology departments, you have to have a good case for a scan to be approved. Many hospitals now outsource their imaging to private companies and they will approve whatever is requested, even if it’s not the best use of resources. Reducing this would improve the overall healthcare budget, such that resources could be redirected to areas in need. But I digest.

OCDC said:

dv said:

Fairly often I see pieces about plans to reduce the costs of CT scanners in order to reduce the cost of services. Seems to me that the cost of the machines isn’t the main issue. Maybe one of the medical folks here can fact check me. CT machines cost around $2.5M to buy and install. Given the “cost of money” this would mean a loan for one would cost some $250000 p.a. The companies that run them get $550 per scan (partly from client, partly from Medicare). They can get through 4000 scans a year so gross revenue per machine can be around $2.2M. Am I in the ballpark?

Your reasoning seems sound. I confess I am not particularly up-to-date in the field.

I think one of the problems with imaging these days is that it’s over-ordered. At public hospitals who run their own radiology departments, you have to have a good case for a scan to be approved. Many hospitals now outsource their imaging to private companies and they will approve whatever is requested, even if it’s not the best use of resources. Reducing this would improve the overall healthcare budget, such that resources could be redirected to areas in need. But I digest.

Definitelly over ordered.
However, it is because of the availability of it.
Of course if it wasn’t there to use, it couldn’t be.

OCDC said:

dv said:

Fairly often I see pieces about plans to reduce the costs of CT scanners in order to reduce the cost of services. Seems to me that the cost of the machines isn’t the main issue. Maybe one of the medical folks here can fact check me. CT machines cost around $2.5M to buy and install. Given the “cost of money” this would mean a loan for one would cost some $250000 p.a. The companies that run them get $550 per scan (partly from client, partly from Medicare). They can get through 4000 scans a year so gross revenue per machine can be around $2.2M. Am I in the ballpark?

Your reasoning seems sound. I confess I am not particularly up-to-date in the field.

I think one of the problems with imaging these days is that it’s over-ordered. At public hospitals who run their own radiology departments, you have to have a good case for a scan to be approved. Many hospitals now outsource their imaging to private companies and they will approve whatever is requested, even if it’s not the best use of resources. Reducing this would improve the overall healthcare budget, such that resources could be redirected to areas in need. But I digest.

Around the time of my mother’s lymphoma diagnosis I wondered whether regular full body scans would be worth it for picking up cancers, clots etc. It would cost a few thousand per year per person but could potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatments, and would provide a huge body of data for retrospectively analysing signs. Then I found out that FB scans take a lot longer than typical scans focuses on particular organs (duh) and also you have to pay someone to go combing through the comparisons.

Maybe restrict it to head and torso and shoulders. If it were being done for the older 10 million of the population, say 3 times a year, with each machine able to do 2000 torso-plus-head scans per annum, so you’d need 15000 new machines just for this… and probably something like 60 million hours of billable time just to examine the results for changes and anomalies. I suppose it would just not make economic sense.

dv said:

OCDC said:

dv said:

Fairly often I see pieces about plans to reduce the costs of CT scanners in order to reduce the cost of services. Seems to me that the cost of the machines isn’t the main issue. Maybe one of the medical folks here can fact check me. CT machines cost around $2.5M to buy and install. Given the “cost of money” this would mean a loan for one would cost some $250000 p.a. The companies that run them get $550 per scan (partly from client, partly from Medicare). They can get through 4000 scans a year so gross revenue per machine can be around $2.2M. Am I in the ballpark?

Your reasoning seems sound. I confess I am not particularly up-to-date in the field.

I think one of the problems with imaging these days is that it’s over-ordered. At public hospitals who run their own radiology departments, you have to have a good case for a scan to be approved. Many hospitals now outsource their imaging to private companies and they will approve whatever is requested, even if it’s not the best use of resources. Reducing this would improve the overall healthcare budget, such that resources could be redirected to areas in need. But I digest.

Around the time of my mother’s lymphoma diagnosis I wondered whether regular full body scans would be worth it for picking up cancers, clots etc. It would cost a few thousand per year per person but could potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatments, and would provide a huge body of data for retrospectively analysing signs. Then I found out that FB scans take a lot longer than typical scans focuses on particular organs (duh) and also you have to pay someone to go combing through the comparisons.

Maybe restrict it to head and torso and shoulders. If it were being done for the older 10 million of the population, say 3 times a year, with each machine able to do 2000 torso-plus-head scans per annum, so you’d need 15000 new machines just for this… and probably something like 60 million hours of billable time just to examine the results for changes and anomalies. I suppose it would just not make economic sense.

That has been researched. On a population basis:
- If CTs we’re used, the radiation exposure would cause more morbidity and mortality than would be averted
- Not financially viable for non-ionising radiation forms of imaging.

Even screening smokers for lung ca is not recommended despite being a high risk group, for similar reasons.

OCDC said:

dv said:

OCDC said:

Your reasoning seems sound. I confess I am not particularly up-to-date in the field.

I think one of the problems with imaging these days is that it’s over-ordered. At public hospitals who run their own radiology departments, you have to have a good case for a scan to be approved. Many hospitals now outsource their imaging to private companies and they will approve whatever is requested, even if it’s not the best use of resources. Reducing this would improve the overall healthcare budget, such that resources could be redirected to areas in need. But I digest.

Around the time of my mother’s lymphoma diagnosis I wondered whether regular full body scans would be worth it for picking up cancers, clots etc. It would cost a few thousand per year per person but could potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatments, and would provide a huge body of data for retrospectively analysing signs. Then I found out that FB scans take a lot longer than typical scans focuses on particular organs (duh) and also you have to pay someone to go combing through the comparisons.

Maybe restrict it to head and torso and shoulders. If it were being done for the older 10 million of the population, say 3 times a year, with each machine able to do 2000 torso-plus-head scans per annum, so you’d need 15000 new machines just for this… and probably something like 60 million hours of billable time just to examine the results for changes and anomalies. I suppose it would just not make economic sense.

That has been researched. On a population basis:
- If CTs we’re used, the radiation exposure would cause more morbidity and mortality than would be averted
- Not financially viable for non-ionising radiation forms of imaging.

Even screening smokers for lung ca is not recommended despite being a high risk group, for similar reasons.

This all makes sense.

OCDC said:

dv said:

OCDC said:

Your reasoning seems sound. I confess I am not particularly up-to-date in the field.

I think one of the problems with imaging these days is that it’s over-ordered. At public hospitals who run their own radiology departments, you have to have a good case for a scan to be approved. Many hospitals now outsource their imaging to private companies and they will approve whatever is requested, even if it’s not the best use of resources. Reducing this would improve the overall healthcare budget, such that resources could be redirected to areas in need. But I digest.

Around the time of my mother’s lymphoma diagnosis I wondered whether regular full body scans would be worth it for picking up cancers, clots etc. It would cost a few thousand per year per person but could potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatments, and would provide a huge body of data for retrospectively analysing signs. Then I found out that FB scans take a lot longer than typical scans focuses on particular organs (duh) and also you have to pay someone to go combing through the comparisons.

Maybe restrict it to head and torso and shoulders. If it were being done for the older 10 million of the population, say 3 times a year, with each machine able to do 2000 torso-plus-head scans per annum, so you’d need 15000 new machines just for this… and probably something like 60 million hours of billable time just to examine the results for changes and anomalies. I suppose it would just not make economic sense.

That has been researched. On a population basis:
- If CTs we’re used, the radiation exposure would cause more morbidity and mortality than would be averted
- Not financially viable for non-ionising radiation forms of imaging.

Even screening smokers for lung ca is not recommended despite being a high risk group, for similar reasons.

Ah yes. Radiation dose.

Important thing.

OCDC said:

dv said:

OCDC said:

Your reasoning seems sound. I confess I am not particularly up-to-date in the field.

I think one of the problems with imaging these days is that it’s over-ordered. At public hospitals who run their own radiology departments, you have to have a good case for a scan to be approved. Many hospitals now outsource their imaging to private companies and they will approve whatever is requested, even if it’s not the best use of resources. Reducing this would improve the overall healthcare budget, such that resources could be redirected to areas in need. But I digest.

Around the time of my mother’s lymphoma diagnosis I wondered whether regular full body scans would be worth it for picking up cancers, clots etc. It would cost a few thousand per year per person but could potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatments, and would provide a huge body of data for retrospectively analysing signs. Then I found out that FB scans take a lot longer than typical scans focuses on particular organs (duh) and also you have to pay someone to go combing through the comparisons.

Maybe restrict it to head and torso and shoulders. If it were being done for the older 10 million of the population, say 3 times a year, with each machine able to do 2000 torso-plus-head scans per annum, so you’d need 15000 new machines just for this… and probably something like 60 million hours of billable time just to examine the results for changes and anomalies. I suppose it would just not make economic sense.

That has been researched. On a population basis:
- If CTs we’re used, the radiation exposure would cause more morbidity and mortality than would be averted
- Not financially viable for non-ionising radiation forms of imaging.

Even screening smokers for lung ca is not recommended despite being a high risk group, for similar reasons.

Yeah

dv said:

OCDC said:

dv said:

Around the time of my mother’s lymphoma diagnosis I wondered whether regular full body scans would be worth it for picking up cancers, clots etc. It would cost a few thousand per year per person but could potentially save hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatments, and would provide a huge body of data for retrospectively analysing signs. Then I found out that FB scans take a lot longer than typical scans focuses on particular organs (duh) and also you have to pay someone to go combing through the comparisons.

Maybe restrict it to head and torso and shoulders. If it were being done for the older 10 million of the population, say 3 times a year, with each machine able to do 2000 torso-plus-head scans per annum, so you’d need 15000 new machines just for this… and probably something like 60 million hours of billable time just to examine the results for changes and anomalies. I suppose it would just not make economic sense.

That has been researched. On a population basis:
- If CTs we’re used, the radiation exposure would cause more morbidity and mortality than would be averted
- Not financially viable for non-ionising radiation forms of imaging.

Even screening smokers for lung ca is not recommended despite being a high risk group, for similar reasons.

Yeah

Do it with full body non ionising ultrasound bath with artificial intelligence reporting you heard it here first thanks catch yous all later.

dv said:

Fairly often I see pieces about plans to reduce the costs of CT scanners in order to reduce the cost of services. Seems to me that the cost of the machines isn’t the main issue. Maybe one of the medical folks here can fact check me. CT machines cost around $2.5M to buy and install. Given the “cost of money” this would mean a loan for one would cost some $250000 p.a. The companies that run them get $550 per scan (partly from client, partly from Medicare). They can get through 4000 scans a year so gross revenue per machine can be around $2.2M. Am I in the ballpark?

Healius health made $431 million from ~148 imaging sites previous FY. So fairly close…

poikilotherm said:

dv said:

Fairly often I see pieces about plans to reduce the costs of CT scanners in order to reduce the cost of services. Seems to me that the cost of the machines isn’t the main issue. Maybe one of the medical folks here can fact check me. CT machines cost around $2.5M to buy and install. Given the “cost of money” this would mean a loan for one would cost some $250000 p.a. The companies that run them get $550 per scan (partly from client, partly from Medicare). They can get through 4000 scans a year so gross revenue per machine can be around $2.2M. Am I in the ballpark?

Healius health made $431 million from ~148 imaging sites previous FY. So fairly close…

Just noticed not all sites have CT though.