The story accurately represents the cost of the scans, which are often not covered by insurance. The story could have mentioned that once a scan finds something suspicious, biopsies and/or follow-up scans are needed at regular intervals, driving up the costs. These additional scans are typically covered by insurance. The evidence doesn’t show a clear estimate of survival benefit, which the story made clear. The story mentions that CT scanning could lead to unnecessary harms and procedures. The story could have specifically mentioned radiation exposure. The story does a good job of describing the current study and the controversy around the results. The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of lung cancer. The story quotes multiple experts who provide valuable perspective. The story accurately describes that there aren’t really any alternatives to preventing death from lung cancer other than quitting smoking. Lung CT scans are clearly available. Clearly screening for lung cancer is not a new idea. Because the story quotes multiple experts, it’s clear that the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Shades of gray: Debate continues over diagnostic scans for lung cancer