Insurers Should Stop Paying For Robotic Hysterectomies
A new study confirms what previous studies tell us: a robotic hysterectomy  is not a safer or a more efficient way to remove a uterus for non-cancerous (benign) surgery than a traditional laparoscopic approach. This study  indicates that there is little difference between the two types of surgery with one glaring exception, a robotic hysterectomy was $2,489 more expensive than a laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Several months ago the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued these statements:
Robotic surgery is not the only or the best minimally invasive approach for hysterectomy. Nor is it the most cost-efficient. It is important to separate the marketing hype from the reality when considering the best surgical approach for hysterectomies.
there is no good data proving that robotic hysterectomy is even as good as—let alone better—than existing, and far less costly, minimally invasive alternatives.
Robotic hysterectomies for benign disease provide nothing additional from a medical perspective although they are a welcome marketing ploy for doctors and hospitals (Hey, we have a robot! Come see us! That’s so cool!). Some hospitals and GYN practices have literally built their marketing around the robot. And obviously the more robotic hysterectomies performed the greater the profits for the makers of the da Vinci robot.
There is enough data for insurance companies to say, “We won’t pay the price difference.” If insurance companies capped hysterectomy fees at the cost of a laparoscopic procedure then if hospitals and doctors wanted to eat the price difference or pass that price difference along to their patients, so be it.