$1,500 BIOPSYS FINISHED/ NOW HAVE +98% RATE ..................
But since insurance pays, doctors don't care. It's not their money.
Look at it from a doctor's point of view. Do I want to recommend patients for a biopsy that costs me nothing but patient $1.5K which is paid partially by insurance, or do I want to risk it by NOT ordering a biopsy and therefore may get sued in the future?
I think the choice is pretty obviously. Don't blame the technology or the doctor, blame it on the lawyers.
A biopsy costs the patient, pain, risk of infection, a life long scar, as well as the out of pocket cost.
If what you were saying were true, then dermatologists would be biopsying everything already and they are not. Their patients would look considerably less attractive and some of them probably would have had serious health issues due to complications from the biopsy process. Their patients would be paying this price but they would not be missing the 20% to 30% that we know the average dermatologist is CURRENTLY missing.
Clearly this is not what is happening. Also derms aren't being sued at the drop of a hat because they missed an early stage melanoma. It's just not happening. In order for a lawsuit to be successful they would need to prove that they didn't biopsy a blatantly suspicious lesion and those are not the lesions in question here. Were talking about the lesion that don't look suspicious, or at least do not fit ENOUGH of the ABCDE characteristics to warrant biopsy. This ABCDE evaluation is very subjective, which is why the MelaFind tool is a useful input to the decision making process for these moles that may not meet this particular derms threshold for biopsy.
You've got to get it out of your head that derms can biopsy every lesion, they can't. Their patients wouldn't stand for it and the insurance companies won't pay for it either. Forget about the patient who shows up with one lesion and the doctor is deciding whether or not to biopsy it. If the patient was concerned enough to come in for it, the patient and the doctor would probably both lean towards a biopsy. This is not what we are talking about. The volume of lesions/biopsies come from patients who have dozens or even hundreds of lesions. These patients come in on a regular basis to have them evaluated and believe me, they are none to anxious to have biopsies, even to be safe because they have to deal with the pain and the scarring and even then only one out of 10, 20, 50, 80 turn out to be a melanoma. In this scenario and because they come back regularly, the patient and the doctor will often err on the side of watching it over time. This is precisely why the ABCD method of evaluation was expanded to ABCDE. The E stands for Evolves over time. In other words, change over time is itself a risk factor. Now these lesions that they currently decide to watch over time, could be scanned and detected NOW with much higher accuracy than the "biopsy it just in case plan". This is where the value of the device comes in.
In a way I agree with you,but most signs of moles are not Skin Cancer at all and the physicians can be assured that when they don't suspect the mole is cancerous they can virtually affirm their diagnosis by using the Melafind Device.When your trained to spot cancer and have a First in the World approved skin cancer test that is 98.3% correct you should use this to affirm your decision that it's not Cancer.When you have a less than 2% chance it's a cancerous growth,thats real great odds it's not Cancer and this is where Melafind will be used for sure,not when the doctors suspects cancer.