Unfortunately, there is another external factor playing into the risk/benefit analysis that I haven't seen mentioned hear yet - the threat of legal action. With such low barriers to filing a malpractice lawsuit and such high payouts for "victims" and devastating effects for doctors, CT scans are often ordered for the sole purpose of mitigating legal risks.
For example - someone comes into the ER with simply a headache. On its own this should not warrant a CT scan. But if a doctor does not order one, and that patient leaves and eventually comes back with a brain tumor (extremely small odds, but not zero), then the following malpractice suit would almost certainly result in a plaintiff victory and the end of a doctor's career.
Malpractice is a real thing and real victims deserve their due. But lawyer attack ads and no limits on "pain and suffering" payouts (often multi-millions) I believe are a critical part of the difficult healthcare situation in America that continues to go unaddressed.
For example - someone comes into the ER with simply a headache. On its own this should not warrant a CT scan. But if a doctor does not order one, and that patient leaves and eventually comes back with a brain tumor (extremely small odds, but not zero), then the following malpractice suit would almost certainly result in a plaintiff victory and the end of a doctor's career.
Malpractice is a real thing and real victims deserve their due. But lawyer attack ads and no limits on "pain and suffering" payouts (often multi-millions) I believe are a critical part of the difficult healthcare situation in America that continues to go unaddressed.