Why are MRI machines so expensive to operate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LightningInAJar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Machine Mri
AI Thread Summary
MRI machines are expensive to operate primarily due to high capital costs, which can range from $1 million to $3 million, along with significant operating expenses such as electricity, trained personnel, and liability insurance. The detailed imaging provided by MRI technology, which does not use ionizing radiation like CT scans, contributes to its perceived value despite the costs. Patient experiences highlight concerns about the financial motivations of healthcare providers, particularly when additional scans are recommended without clear justification. The complexity of MRI technology and the need for specialized training to operate and interpret results further drive up costs. Overall, the combination of these factors results in high prices for MRI services in healthcare settings.
  • #51
AndreasC said:
A basic X-ray and a CAT scan are not the same! If you are getting the first, the dose is minuscule.
oh gosh, you're right, it's an x-ray, a long day 🤦‍♂️
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #52
I think Gleem makes a lot of good points, but overall I suspect the best answer to all of these issues is, "who knows". Over time, all of the various scanner technologies have been improving, the machines are more efficient, more sensitive, generally smaller, becoming more common/available and so overall it's getting cheaper. This also has an impact on the radiation doses used, this is an issue which is given a high priority, though whether this is justified is unclear. It is assumed that any dose of radiation carries some risk, but a great deal of the evidence to support this still comes from survivors of the A bombs. A great deal of what is in the literature is poorly supported and likely to be obsolete.

It's important to recognise that the various scanners provide different information and are not easily interchangeable, the best type of scan is guided by what the clinicians are looking for. The dose delivered can be very variable, depending on the scan detail and the areas covered. The risks are also very variable, as there are significant individual differences in people's sensitivity and in the type of tissue exposed. It is suggested that a dose of 10 millisieverts (mSv) might be associated with a 1 in 2000 risk of a malignancy, this should be compared to the lifetime risk of 1 in 5 for the development of cancer.

All of these scanning technologies, even when used correctly, require careful evaluation by experts and lately by AI systems, it can be very difficult to make accurate diagnosis based on scans, results that are unclear often lead to further investigations, or even risky treatment interventions. This is really the most significant threat associated with these diagnostic technologies, while they have made some powerful and very useful tools available to Dr's, Inappropriate or overzealous treatments do far more harm.

https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/medical-x-ray-imaging/what-are-radiation-risks-ct
 
  • #53
sbrothy said:
This is one of those scenarios that makes me glad I live in Denmark where healthcare is free and ubiquitous (read: included in taxes). On the other hand I sometimes have the distinct feeling that our MRIs, CAT-scanners - what have you - are second-rate for the exact same reasons. I have little to no evidence though.

One horror-story is that the machine that they use to ionize cancer on Copenhagen teaching hospital sometimes fall out of "whack". A patient told me that. Private hospitals have been offering to undertake a lot of operations to bring down the waiting lists (the news here reported one guy who have to wait 12 years (!) for a jaw operation to alleviate his migraines so he can do his job.) but the state wont let them for some reason. They allowed them to handle perhaps 13 out of 100. Of course I only know what I read and see in the news but I'm sincerely doubting our little "socialist paradise" here....
I know this is an old thread [EDIT: Oh not so old it would seem.) but I must admit that I stand corrected. I was CT-scanned myself very recently (doctors were worried about my lungs (everything seems to be fine though), and it was a very professional experience. The results were ready that same day; only hours later my physician had the results in his hand!

Also, even though my mum had been diagnosed with what we all thought was terminal cancer (13cm high tumor in one of her lungs), which had had several years to metastasize (some of it to her brain even!), they now say they got it all! Allegedly she's completely hale!

I'm shocked! Positively shocked and impressed!

So I happily eat my words about the Danish healthcare system!

:)

[EDIT: Corrected spelling error s/metastase/metastasize. Hope that's correct.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and berkeman
  • #54
I operated one in Manchester, pretty cool and learnt a lot as a grunt. An awful lot of guys in the team but they had other kit there too, IR, MS think.
The techs showing up one day to change the liquid He (I think) warranted a quick move to the far side of the lab to let them get on with it!
We did not put people in there (NMR) we put novel organics from the synthesis lab.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top