Is MRI really being overutilized?

So often in this litigious society, practitioners are being scrutinized by lawyers for malpractice. This includes lacking diagnostic information to either support or negate a diagnosis. That is why wounds are cultured without looking "infected" and why radiographs are done even after soft tissue surgery. So often are practitioners forced to practice "defensive medicine" that the costs for health care are going to rise simply because of these examinations. Without these tests to "confirm" a diagnosis, surgery may not be authorized by an insurance company, or if someone is injured on the job or as part of a traffic accident, the extent of damage may be overlooked.

This is in my opinion, that these tests need to be done. MRI should be ordered to confirm or negate osteomyelitis in the presence of diabetic foot wounds. Also with severe ankle sprains to rule out underling ligamentous damage or cartilage lesions. Without the tests, even in the presence of clinically suspicious findings, there will always be a malpractice lawyer who will ask you, "why didn't you get the test, Dr?"

In the case of MRI, there are few to no real risks, as there are no radiation exposures for this exam. Also, for patients that are not able to have this test (ie. pacemaker,etc) it is usually determined by CT scan for whatever the reason for the advanced imaging. In other words, these tests are available and although not entirely necessary, they are invaluable to not only diagnose with more certainty, but also allow for surgical planning and provide further means to demonstrate pathology leading towards surgical intervention in the case of malpractice depositions.

The coutnter argument is that over-utilization of MRI is expensive and wasteful, according to researchers. For example, the information needed to diagnose knee OA can be obtained using x-ray. While an x-ray can cost less than $150, the cost of an MRI is about $2,500.
Medical imaging accounts for 10 to 15% of Medicare payments to physicians. Ten years ago, medical imaging accounted for less than 5%. The cost of medical imaging is expected to continue soaring at an annual rate of at least 20%. Suffice to say, it's an expensive business.

And sometimes, MRI findings may be overly sensitive, leading to incorrect diagnosis, or over diagnosis of tendon pathology.

This nails home another concept I have discussed on here on many occasions. We treat the patients, not the MRI findings. We need to understand the personality of the injury and how that injury is presenting itself in you, how your lifestyle or quality of life is affected, and whether or not the findings that we have identified on the MRI are in fact the competent producing cause of your discomfort — and then come up with an appropriate treatment plan that will likely involve a period of nonsurgical management— which, if unsuccessful perhaps might lead to an indicated surgical procedure, if your lifestyle changes and quality-of-life dictates that this is in fact an option.