>>>The published state of diagnosis, treatment and imagined benefits from relatively bottomless pockets don't add up for me: I cannot imagine radiation treatment that much better/less risky for a billionaire to turn to at age 81 (assuming such a billionaire had PSA checked for years and the things found in biopsy were typical slow growth type), so I suspected some GiGo effect for my poor,limited POV.
>
>Yep, we can't be sure- though Harvard professors grumbled that the media reports sent completely the wrong message about PSA in the elderly.

the ultra paranoid areas of my mind are certain to interpret those grumblings as disinformation as well, but are uncertain about the real reasons ;-)

>
>I do know that in healthcare, $$$$$$ doesn't always deliver a better result. Ironically that's covered in the House of God as well - when a luminary from the Zock family (who donated the $ for the hospital's "Wing of Zock") is admitted, bracing himself for an exhausting whirlwind of investigations and consultations with no stone left unturned, the young doctor hero throws the rest of the Zock family out of the room and follows the 13 laws including "Masterly Inactivity" ... allowing the patient to recover from his exhausting stressful existence rather than being worn down further by a barrage of "care."
>
>Certainly it's true that if $$$$$$ is accompanied by a habitual declaration that "money is no object" then no stone will be left unturned. If you review the laws I postulated in an earlier message to Tamar - then PSA in the elderly is a prime example of where you might prefer not to investigate things you don't plan to treat, in which case "masterly inactivity" can be the best way to avoid doing harm. It also saves a lot of $$. Unfortunately the US system is set up to prevent physicians behaving as they'd like.

not so certain that not doing tests like PSA if bottomless pockets are surmised as they are in this case is wise: "Masterly Inactivity" on the treatment side of things can be followed even if such tests are done. Might be harder, but not out of the picture.
For the BP case you and Dragan post on another sub-thread: for me those should be carried out by patients or relatives if they are relevant/needed: machines for 35$ work well enough and only a check once or twice a year is needed to validate ranges of such cheap measurements giving the doctor much better data if they are needed. Legal troubles in the US make that impossible.