What Does an MRI of The Spine Cost?

MRI is the commonly used layman’s term for Magnetic Resonance Imaging. This is a non-invasive procedure adopted to obtain images of the inner parts of the body. The procedure is based on using powerful magnets and radio waves to capture images of the inner parts of the body. The procedure does not employ any kind of radiation rather it based on the magnetic properties of the atom. So powerful is this method as a diagnostic tool that it can differentiate between organs and also provide information about the tissue of a tumor, informing the diagnostician whether the growth is cancerous or non-cancerous. The results can easily be stored in the computer or as printouts, and the patient can be imaged through his clothes; there is no special reason to undress for undergoing this test.

MRI is a great advance in treating back-related problems. It allows the imaging of the spinal area and clearly differentiates between the vertebrae, the spinal cord and the spaces between the vertebrae through which the nerves travel and pass out to the rest of the body. In addition, it provides pictures of the areas that are hard to view, such as the spinal canal, the bony segments and the soft tissues. It is also an ideal diagnostic tool to explore the possibility of spinal lesions and tumors and to identify the exact location of these items. It is safer and more comfortable for the patient and likewise, more informative for the doctor, thus enabling a more precise diagnosis and quicker treatment option. However, the test does take a lot of time to perform as a number of images maybe required if the test is to be efficient and effective. However, patients who have had any kind of implant may not be able to take the test. In fact, even people like sheet metal workers may need to be prescreened before taking the test. This is to ensure accuracy since the test uses magnetic imaging and magnets attract metals.

According to the Maryland Spine Center, the MRI cost can be bifurcated into two areas. The first is the actual cost of the test or the “technical fees". The second is the cost of reading the test or the “professional fee". Therefore, at times the patient may receive two bills for the same MRI. However this is not always the case, testing services/hospitals may opt to combine the two costs and present the patient with a single bill only. It has generally been found that MRI costs are higher that X-ray costs, but the results prompt quicker diagnostics and treatment options can begin immediately. On the other hand, X-rays cost less, but may delay the treatment until more tests and time is spent on trying other options. On the average, it has been found that the spinal MRI costs in the range of $2300-$2500. This cost may vary from State to State and also from facility to facility. It would be best to obtain an accurate costing from the diagnostic center the patient plans to use.

►Reprint Rights◄

Log in to become a member of Zareen Khan's Fan Club!
Comments on this article:

» left by Dr Xavier Ray from Hereford, UK (1 year 348 days ago.)
In the UK the total cost for a private spinal MRI scan including both the technical and professional fee is £200 (less than $400). This is because the UK has a free market in health care
Respond to this comment

» left by Robert Grossmann from Virginia, USA (1 year 150 days ago.)

In Germany there is also socialized medicine and it's "free" but everybody pays for the socialized medicine from their paychecks....is it the same in England?  And is England still losing qualified hysicians to other countries where they can make more money than socialized medicine "allows"? And does England still assign patients to a specified physician and vice versa .....and is it still against the law to see other patients than those assigned to you or for the patient to see a physician other than the one he/she is assigned to? 

   I realize it is possible to pay for private medical care in Germany  and it used to be so in England.  Is it still possible in England?

   And is it not true that the MRI (and many other specialized services) is not always immediately available either in England or Canada?   Undue waits for medical care in those countries makes for "you get what you pay for" being a valid criticism of socialized medicine.

Respond to this comment

» left by Simon Michael from London (1 year 69 days ago.)
What you call "socialised medicine" is indeed paid for through the taxation system. The problem of losing qualified physicians to other countries has reduced due to new contracts and better rates of pay offered under the National Health Service. You have a choice of your local National Health Service physician, although there are geographical boundaries  - the physician will not agree to undertake free home visits where you live too far away. If you don't like the doctors available, you are free to pay to see any private physician you like. Waiting lists for investigations like MRI scans have been drastically reduced but do still exist, and depend in part on the urgency of your condition. I'm afraid your comment repeats all the usual cliched nonsense about how the health system works in the UK. Go and watch "sicko" - and learn something. I'd rather be sick here than in the USA any day.

Respond to this comment

» left by Matt J. from California (1 year 111 days ago.)

Their is one part of the article I found misleading and confusing, even outright wrong. That is the part where it says, "The procedure is based on using powerful magnets and radio waves to capture images of the inner parts of the body. The procedure does not employ any kind of radiation rather it based on the magnetic properties of the atom."

 

This is b-o-o-o-o-g-u-s! Of COURSE it employs radiation!. Just a constant magnetic field alone would produce NO image. The image is produced by the combination of a strong, mostly constant magnetic field AND high power radio-frequency radiation, of about 10-14 MHz.

 

That IS radiation, and a lot of it. What the article meant to say is that there is no HARMFUL radiation, e.g. ionizing radiation. But instead of saying this, it said nonsense. That is bad.

Respond to this comment

» left by Anonymous (1 year 62 days ago.)

Reasons why your comment are ridiculous:

 

1) written for a lay audience

 

2) people are stupid and easily frightened.  a single word can cause mass panic.  a single AP news article about the economy can send the Dow down 500 points.

 

3) in exactly the same way that this article is worded, MRI is named.

 

the phenomena is called NMR.  if it was called NMRI, people would be hesitant to use it because people are stupid and associate "nuclear" with bombs, power plants, and mutating animals from movies.

 

4) THE POINT OF THE CLAIM WAS TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE TECHNIQUE DOES NOT USE ANY HARMFUL RADIATION. 

 

stupid people would read an article saying "MRI uses pulsed radio frequency radiation to excite nuclear spin states split by a large magnetic field resulting in the release of RF radiation upon relaxation to the ground state giving information about chemical environment and population"

 

they would not understand a word of it, but they would email the author saying:

 

"ZOMG MRI USES NUCULAR RADIATION! OMG AM I GOING TO GET CANCER?!!!ONE!1"

 

 

5)  Things you are flat out WRONG about:

 

I) "a lot of" radiation.  no.  not a lot.  a little.  you get more from talking on your cell phone for an hour than being in an MRI for an hour.

 

common sense buddy:  MRI is pulsed RF.  cell phones are continously broadcasting and receiving RF.

 

II) "high power."  no.  not high power in any way.  RF is the lowest energy end of the spectrum.

 

power is energy/time.  pulsed, LOW ENERGY, electromagnetic radiation is NOT high power.

 

you use way way way more power walking 30 feet than MRI radiation in an hour.

 

III) MRI and NMR use a static field.  Yes.  static.  static as you can possibly get it.

 

remember kids:

 

std(E)*std(T)>h/(4pi).

 

so it cannot be identically static, but very close.  close enough to call it "static"

 

not "mostly constant"

 

 

I hope you learned something today!

Respond to this comment

» left by M from Richmond, VA (350 days 11 hours ago.)

I would not call those people "stupid", the term you use is way too harsh... Some people might be ignorant or lack the "higher" education but they are in no way stupid. They might not understand certain term because they might not be familiar with that particular technology, but they still shouldn't be qualified as "stupid". It is offensive and wrong.

Respond to this comment