Interest is growing in the digital version of the breast-cancer screening test, driven in part by a study last fall in the New England Journal of Medicine that said digital was better for some women...
The study found that digital was better at detecting cancer only for premenopausal women, those under 50 years old, or those who have dense breasts. The majority of women who get mammograms are over 50, and looking at the 40,000 women in the study as a whole, the new technology was found to be no better than film overall.
As Joe points out, this reinforces my thesis about premium medicine, or as I put in the Cato forum, "Americans make extravagant use of medical procedures that have very high costs and low benefits." At the margin, digital mammography has low benefits relative to traditional mammography. But women have no incentive to take that into account if insurance is footing the bill.
Is America's health care spending a good thing, or not? Is it a sign that we are wealthy (an income effect), or a sign that we are deceived by third-party payments (a substitution effect, based on a price to the consumer of zero)? I have a discussion forum on this topic at the Crisis of Abundance web site. Go there and weigh in on the issue. (Or weigh in here, but it's lonely over there right now)