"Doctor, would you prescribe a pill to help me ?" a national survey of physicians on using medicine for human enhancement.

Using medical advances to enhance human athletic, aesthetic, and cognitive performance, rather than to treat disease, has been controversial. Little is known about physicians' experiences, views, and attitudes in this regard. We surveyed a national sample of physicians to determine how often they prescribe enhancements, their views on using medicine for enhancement, and whether they would be willing to prescribe a series of potential interventions that might be considered enhancements. We find that many physicians occasionally prescribe enhancements, but doctors hold nuanced and ambiguous views of these issues. Most express concerns about the potential effects of enhancements on social equity, yet many also believe specific enhancements that are safe and effective should be available but not covered by insurance. These apparently contradictory views might reflect inherent tensions between the values of equity and liberty, which could make crafting coherent social policies on medical enhancements challenging.

The influence of body mass index on the cost of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the impact of obesity on the costs of robotic-assisted (RALP), laparoscopic (LRP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: the charts of 629 patients who underwent RP (262 RALP, 211 LRP and 156 RRP) between September 2003 and April 2008 at our institution were reviewed. Clinical and pathological data were collected, including age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index (BMI), tumour stage, complications and length of stay. Direct and component costs (anaesthesia, laboratory, operating room service, radiology, room and board, pharmacy and surgical supplies) were obtained. Differences in costs were evaluated using three BMI categories (<25, normal weight; 25-<30, overweight; and ≥30 kg/m(2) , obese). RESULTS: of 629 patients, 136 (21.6%) had normal weight, 320 (50.9%) were overweight, and 173 (27.5%) were obese. Clinical and pathological characteristics were similar in the three BMI categories of the entire cohort. The median direct cost was higher for obese patients (P= 0.035). On further stratification by type of RP, costs were higher amongst obese than the other groups undergoing LRP (median US$5703 vs $5347; P= 0.002) and RRP (median $4885 vs $4377; P= 0.004). In patients who underwent RALP there were no significant differences in direct costs (median $6761 in obese vs $6745 in non-obese; P= 0.64). CONCLUSION: obesity influenced the costs in patients who underwent LRP and RRP, mainly due to increased operating room service and anaesthesia costs in obese patients. RALP can be performed with no additional financial burden in obese patients.

Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Demand and utilization of minimally invasive approaches to radical prostatectomy have increased in recent years, but comparative studies on cost are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare costs associated with robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study included 643 consecutive patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (262 RALP, 220 LRP, and 161 RRP) between September 2003 and April 2008. MEASUREMENTS: Direct and component costs were compared. Costs were adjusted for changes over the time of the study. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Disease characteristics (body mass index, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, prostate size, and Gleason sum score 8-10) were similar in the three groups. Nerve sparing was performed in 85% of RALP procedures, 96% of LRP procedures, and 90% of RRP procedures (p<0.001). Lymphadenectomy was more commonly performed in RRP (100%) compared to LRP (22%) and RALP (11%) (p<0.001). Mean length of hospital stay was higher for RRP than for LRP and RALP. The median direct cost was higher for RALP compared to LRP or RRP (RALP: $6752 [interquartile range (IQR): $6283-7369]; LRP: $5687 [IQR: $4941-5905]; RRP: $4437 [IQR: $3989-5141]; p<0.001). The main difference was in surgical supply cost (RALP: $2015; LRP: $725; RRP: $185) and operating room (OR) cost (RALP: $2798; LRP: $2453; RRP: $1611; p<0.001). When considering purchase and maintenance costs for the robot, the financial burden would increase by $2698 per patient, given an average of 126 cases per year. CONCLUSIONS: RALP is associated with higher cost, predominantly due to increased surgical supply and OR costs. These costs may have a significant impact on overall cost of prostate cancer care.

The effect of the approach to radical prostatectomy on the profitability of hospitals and surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the profit margins for radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), and the effect on the reimbursement to the urologist, as there has been a dramatic increase in use of RALP, with the cost of the robot borne by hospitals. METHODS: Data on costs and payments to hospital and surgeon from 2003 to 2008 for RRP, LRP and RALP were obtained from the hospital and urology department. We determined the profit based on the difference between payments received and total cost. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2008, 1279 RPs were performed at our private hospital. The introduction of RALP increased total number of RPs and replaced most RRPs. RRP represents the only procedure where payments exceed total costs. For RRP there was a significantly higher profit for patients with comorbidities. The type of payer had a large effect on profit. Medicare provides a small profit for RRP but a significant loss of >US$4000 for RALP. While all insurance companies resulted in losses for LRP and RALP, there was variability of almost $600/case for LRP and >$1400/case for RALP. RALP provided the highest reimbursement for the surgeon due to additional reimbursement for the S2900 code (use of robot). CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of RALP has increased the case volume at our hospital and improved profits for the surgeon. The hospital loses money on each LRP and RALP case compared with RRP, which provides a small profit.