Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Insurers should stop paying for robotic hysterectomies

Jennifer Gunter, MD
Physician
October 21, 2013
Share
Tweet
Share

A new study confirms what previous studies tell us. That a robotic hysterectomy is not a safer or a more efficient way to remove a uterus for non-cancerous (benign) surgery than a traditional laparoscopic approach. This study indicates that there is little difference between the two types of surgery with one glaring exception, a robotic hysterectomy was $2,489 more expensive than a laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Several months ago the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued these statements:

Robotic surgery is not the only or the best minimally invasive approach for hysterectomy. Nor is it the most cost-efficient. It is important to separate the marketing hype from the reality when considering the best surgical approach for hysterectomies.

And,

there is no good data proving that robotic hysterectomy is even as good as—let alone better—than existing, and far less costly, minimally invasive alternatives.

Robotic hysterectomies for benign disease provide nothing additional from a medical perspective although they are a welcome marketing ploy for doctors and hospitals (Hey, we have a robot! Come see us! That’s so cool!). Some hospitals and GYN practices have literally built their marketing around the robot. And obviously the more robotic hysterectomies performed the greater the profits for the makers of the da Vinci robot.

There is enough data for insurance companies to say, “We won’t pay the price difference.” If insurance companies capped hysterectomy fees at the cost of a laparoscopic procedure then if hospitals and doctors wanted to eat the price difference or pass that price difference along to their patients, so be it.

Wasting money on a procedure that offers nothing over a less expensive alternative is an outrage. As an aside, this is the biggest issue I have with Obamacare. We should all be insured, but doctors, hospitals, and medical device companies should not be allowed to take advantage of that. The need to curtail egregious expenses is urgent. A robotic hysterectomy does offer advantageous for cancer surgery, so I’m all over that, but isn’t it better to channel the money to where it can actually improve outcomes?

And so my plea is to insurance companies. Whether procedures and drugs are covered or not depends in a large part on the body of medical literature and recommendations by professional organizations (like ACOG). There is not one study that shows the benefit of robotic hysterectomy over a traditional laparoscopic approach. Since the doctors and hospitals that push robotic hysterectomies don’t have the ethics to police themselves, insurance companies must step in and stop the madness. Insurance companies can either flat-out deny robotic hysterectomies or simply cap what they will pay at the cost of a traditional laparoscopic procedure. If there were a $2,489 co-payment for a robotic hysterectomy versus a $200 co-payment for a laparoscopic hysterectomy, given they have similar outcomes, which do you think would be more popular?

It is wrong to pass the additional cost of a more expensive and non medically advantageous procedure along to other purchasers of the same insurance. I don’t want my premiums to go for medically unindicated expenses and I certainly don’t want my premiums paying for corporate perks at Intuitive Surgical (makers of the da Vinci, and who are, by the way, laughing all the way to the bank).

Given that we are all curators of the health care system it is unethical to recommend robotic hysterectomies for benign disease. If doctors and hospitals refuse to read the literature (never mind reducing the waste in the system) then they should not be surprised at all when a third party steps in to do it for them.

Someone has to help stop the madness.

Jennifer Gunter is an obstetrician-gynecologist and author of The Preemie Primer. She blogs at her self-titled site, Dr. Jen Gunter.

Prev

Physicians have lost their backbone

October 21, 2013 Kevin 42
…
Next

Forms do not keep patients out of hospitals

October 21, 2013 Kevin 12
…

ADVERTISEMENT

Tagged as: OB/GYN, Surgery

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Physicians have lost their backbone
Next Post >
Forms do not keep patients out of hospitals

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Jennifer Gunter, MD

  • The Ellen Show broadcasts potentially harmful information about ovarian cancer screening

    Jennifer Gunter, MD
  • Dear science: an appreciation

    Jennifer Gunter, MD
  • Are there too many female OB/GYNs?

    Jennifer Gunter, MD

More in Physician

  • Why the doctor-patient relationship needs a redesign

    Alexandra Novitsky, MD
  • Imposter syndrome is not a personal failing

    Jessie Mahoney, MD
  • How functional medicine fills the gaps left by conventional care

    Sally Daganzo, MD
  • A step‑by‑step guide to crafting meaningful research questions

    Julian Gendreau, MD
  • How restrictive opioid policies worsen the crisis

    Kayvan Haddadan, MD
  • The dying man who gave me flowers changed how I see care

    Augusta Uwah, MD
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Health equity in Inland Southern California requires urgent action

      Vishruth Nagam | Policy
    • Could antibiotics beat heart disease where statins failed?

      Larry Kaskel, MD | Conditions
    • How restrictive opioid policies worsen the crisis

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
    • Why palliative care is more than just end-of-life support

      Dr. Vishal Parackal | Conditions
    • When life makes you depend on Depends

      Francisco M. Torres, MD | Physician
    • Guilty until proven innocent? My experience with a state medical board.

      Jeffrey Hatef, Jr., MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why transgender health care needs urgent reform and inclusive practices

      Angela Rodriguez, MD | Conditions
    • COVID-19 was real: a doctor’s frontline account

      Randall S. Fong, MD | Conditions
    • Why primary care doctors are drowning in debt despite saving lives

      John Wei, MD | Physician
    • New student loan caps could shut low-income students out of medicine

      Tom Phan, MD | Physician
    • Why pain doctors face unfair scrutiny and harsh penalties in California

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
    • mRNA post vaccination syndrome: Is it real?

      Harry Oken, MD | Conditions
  • Recent Posts

    • The many faces of physician grief

      Annia Raja, PhD | Conditions
    • Why the doctor-patient relationship needs a redesign

      Alexandra Novitsky, MD | Physician
    • Health equity in Inland Southern California requires urgent action

      Vishruth Nagam | Policy
    • Imposter syndrome is not a personal failing

      Jessie Mahoney, MD | Physician
    • Why sleep must become a central pillar in modern health care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • How early care saved my life from silent kidney disease

      Charlie Cloninger | Conditions

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

View 20 Comments >

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Health equity in Inland Southern California requires urgent action

      Vishruth Nagam | Policy
    • Could antibiotics beat heart disease where statins failed?

      Larry Kaskel, MD | Conditions
    • How restrictive opioid policies worsen the crisis

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
    • Why palliative care is more than just end-of-life support

      Dr. Vishal Parackal | Conditions
    • When life makes you depend on Depends

      Francisco M. Torres, MD | Physician
    • Guilty until proven innocent? My experience with a state medical board.

      Jeffrey Hatef, Jr., MD | Physician
  • Past 6 Months

    • Why transgender health care needs urgent reform and inclusive practices

      Angela Rodriguez, MD | Conditions
    • COVID-19 was real: a doctor’s frontline account

      Randall S. Fong, MD | Conditions
    • Why primary care doctors are drowning in debt despite saving lives

      John Wei, MD | Physician
    • New student loan caps could shut low-income students out of medicine

      Tom Phan, MD | Physician
    • Why pain doctors face unfair scrutiny and harsh penalties in California

      Kayvan Haddadan, MD | Physician
    • mRNA post vaccination syndrome: Is it real?

      Harry Oken, MD | Conditions
  • Recent Posts

    • The many faces of physician grief

      Annia Raja, PhD | Conditions
    • Why the doctor-patient relationship needs a redesign

      Alexandra Novitsky, MD | Physician
    • Health equity in Inland Southern California requires urgent action

      Vishruth Nagam | Policy
    • Imposter syndrome is not a personal failing

      Jessie Mahoney, MD | Physician
    • Why sleep must become a central pillar in modern health care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • How early care saved my life from silent kidney disease

      Charlie Cloninger | Conditions

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Insurers should stop paying for robotic hysterectomies
20 comments

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...