RadiclDreamer
Diamond Member
- Aug 8, 2004
- 8,622
- 40
- 91
IV contrast for CT scans costs the hospital $25 per scan, and it's about another $20 for the high pressure syringe and tubing.Originally posted by: hurt
The cat scan I had last month at the ER was billed at $2K for the IV contrast and another $2K for the scan.
Originally posted by: Acanthus
What i love is the MRI machines are usually donated by a business or organization, then the hospital turns around and charges you $5k a pop to use it... hmm...
Originally posted by: Acanthus
What i love is the MRI machines are usually donated by a business or organization, then the hospital turns around and charges you $5k a pop to use it... hmm...
Originally posted by: SpazzyChicken
Originally posted by: Acanthus
What i love is the MRI machines are usually donated by a business or organization, then the hospital turns around and charges you $5k a pop to use it... hmm...
What are you talking about? While this may rarely occur, this is far from the norm.
Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Insurance paid it but mine was around $1500 (last Oct.). I sat there and watched golf the whole time so it was pretty nice.
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
Originally posted by: slsmnaz
Insurance paid it but mine was around $1500 (last Oct.). I sat there and watched golf the whole time so it was pretty nice.
Watching golf, ouch thats painful
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
Originally posted by: SpazzyChicken
Originally posted by: Acanthus
What i love is the MRI machines are usually donated by a business or organization, then the hospital turns around and charges you $5k a pop to use it... hmm...
What are you talking about? While this may rarely occur, this is far from the norm.
Ok, I'd also like to poke some holes in this guys argument.
#1 They arent free
#2 Lots of power
#3 Lots of space
#4 Technician to run it
#5 Someone to read it
#6 Storage for the results be it digital or hard copy
#7 Billing people to bill you
#8 Many people dont pay
#9 Maintenance isnt free
#10 Need I go on?
Originally posted by: boomerang
What's the charge for the Contrast Agent that they eventually find was really, really bad for you?
Charge for an MRI for enemy combatants - free! For them, the good ol' US taxpayers get the bill.
Originally posted by: aphex
Just curious
Originally posted by: Squisher
I don't see why people aren't believing me when I say it cost so little.
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Squisher/MRI.jpg
No contrast was used. Good, because I'm allergic to iodine in the contrasts that I've had for my kidney stones.
Originally posted by: jjsole
Hmmm, I thought it was more like 1k...
Originally posted by: Tiamat
lets see, it cost me 500$ for a consulting doctor to see me for 1 minute and tell me he has no clue what was wrong with me. So, for someone to actually do something useful, I am sure it would be at least 10x that price.
I vote for 5k$
Thanks for the info. I thought you sounded like you knew what you were talking about. I can tell you do. Just curious, who manufactures the stable contrast agent you write about?Originally posted by: Mark R
Originally posted by: boomerang
What's the charge for the Contrast Agent that they eventually find was really, really bad for you?
Charge for an MRI for enemy combatants - free! For them, the good ol' US taxpayers get the bill.
Well, the most common contrast agents used in MRI are based on gadolinium solutions. There are about a dozen different agents that use Gd with slightly different properties. Prices of the agents vary from about $100 to $600 depending on which one the doc wants to use
None have proven to be particularly dangerous, and they are probably at least as safe as the contrast agents used for CT. However, there has been a very rare, but often fatal disease (nephrogenic systemic fibrosis - NSF) identified which appears to start when some gadolinium agents are used in people with severe kidney failure who require dialysis. Although the manufacturers recommended against the use of the agents by people with severe kidney failure, some docs nevertheless thought that the risk was worth taking because of the extra information available from the scan.
There is still some controversy over the exact cause of NSF. The current theory is that the Gd-contrast agents are large organic-Gd complexes, which are filtered and removed by the kidneys in a few minutes to hours. In kidney failure the agents stay in the body as dialysis can remove them only extremely slowly. While the complex molecules seem to be pretty safe, in time, some contrast agents degrade in the body. In people needing dialysis, the agents can hang around in the blood for weeks (because the dialysis does such a poor job). However, as they agents degrade they release highly toxic unbound gadolinium.
The FDA has now essentially banned use of Gd in people with moderate or severe kidney failure. Despite this, many hospitals are now changing over to Gd contrast agents with different molecular structures that don't degrade, even for people with normal kidneys. Indeed, the manufacturer of the contrast agent with the most stable molecular structure has suddenly found demand for their product surging, and to give them credit, despite the surge it is still priced significantly lower than the more traditional agents.