TL & Dan,
Here is a post that I think you will both find VERY interesting. It is posted on Yahoo message board and it is from John B. Henneman, VP of US Operations / Neuromedical. I hope this helps. Personally, I am buying some more NSIX at these prices.
Subj: Reply from NSIX
By: JBHenneman
Date: Jan 22 1998 9:05 A.M PST
Reply To: Msg. 11 by woundedinvestor
I am the Executive Vice President, US Operations, of Neuromedical Systems, Inc., and I definitely feel your pain. That having been said, here are our key responses to the JAMA study and editorial that have caused such a furor.
First, the laboratory that performed the study is outstanding, and it has a healthy, well-screened subject population (military personnel and their families).
Second, the laboratory performed two (2) manual screens before sending the smear for PAPNET-assisted review.
From our point of view, PAPNET was subject to the most grueling possible test -- the examination of Pap smears from a fundamentally healthy, well-screened population that had TWICE been determined to be negative by one of the best anatomical pathology laboratories in the world. NEVERTHELESS, false negatives, including one low grade squamous epitheliel lesion, were detected through PAPNET-assisted rescreening.
Not surprisingly, this laboratory concluded that it would not make economic sense for it to routinely screen all its negatives a third time using PAPNET testing, and we do not disagree. After all, if there is no disease left to be found, PAPNET is not going to find any!
From our point of view, the frustrating part of the JAMA communication relates to cost-effectiveness. The truth is that there was a detailed, peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness study published more than a year ago in a leading pathology journal (Acta Cytologica) that found that the cost-effectiveness of PAPNET-assisted rescreening cmpares quite favorably to other widely accepted medical interventions, such as mammography for women 40-49 and PSA testing for
prostate cancer. This study was not even cited by the JAMA paper, which we find quite surprising (to say the least). Another, more detailed, study will be published in the next issue of Acta Cytologica. An announcement with the details will be forthcoming once it is mailed.
The good news in all of this is that the leaders in American medicine (including, apparently, the editors of JAMA) are recognizing that laboratories should be rescreening 100% of their Pap smears, and that PAPNET testing can pick up more false negatives than 100% manual rescreening, albeit at a higher cost. Cost NSI can deal with -- we are, after all, a technology company, and can expect that our costs, and therefore our customers' costs, will decline.
John B. Henneman, III
Executive Vice President, US Operations
Pices
|
