Ontario's OHTAC rules against da Vinci surgery
"In its first real ruling on a robotic
surgery, the expert committee that advises Ontario on which new health
technologies to pay for said there was no good evidence that
robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is any better than conventional
open surgery when it comes to controlling cancer or preserving urinary
and sexual function.
The panel said the robot’s other benefits
– patients have smaller incisions, lose less blood, suffer less pain
and leave the hospital sooner – were not significant enough to justify
spending, on average, an extra $3,224 a case, a figure that does not
include the millions that wealthy benefactors have spent buying the
machines for Canadian hospitals.
“We don’t have unlimited resources,” said
Irfan Dhalla, vice-president of evidence development and standards at
Health Quality Ontario, the agency that oversees the Ontario Health
Technology Advisory Committee, known as OHTAC. “How do we spend the
resources we do have to maximally benefit the people of Ontario?”
OHTAC’s recommendation, which is in the hands of Ontario’s health ministry, has sparked an outcry.
Four urologists and one general surgeon
who advised OHTAC during its research asked that their names be removed
from the final recommendation paper, published last month, because they
disagreed so strongly with its conclusions. Urologists and chiefs of
surgery at major teaching hospitals wrote letters, begging the committee
to reconsider.
“This is a harbinger of bad things to
come,” said James Rutka, chair of the surgical division at the
University of Toronto’s medical school.
The fight over public funding for
robot-assisted prostate surgery in Canada’s most populous province could
have ripple effects in other provinces, and on other types of robotic
surgery for which the benefits are more clear cut.
It could also sour top-flight surgical trainees on Canada, Dr. Rutka warned.
More profoundly, the fight raises a
question: Should a public health-care system with little money to spare
pay for a costly new technology when the old-fashioned approach might
work just as well?"
Comments