There is no comparison between giving a second opinion and making an original diagnosis. Our experience shows it takes an experienced specialist an average of 20 minutes to see a patient, review their pertinent records and explain the proper treatment from that specialty's perspective. Every cancer specialist is accustomed to giving second opinions as they are required to attend tumor boards if they practice in an approved hospital. 

The annual figure of 1,000,000 would average some 3,000 per day, which would mean that an average of 60 people per day are diagnosed in each state. Where the 1,000,000 is an unworkable figure, the 60 state-wide certainly is not. I have heard it estimated in Kansas City an average of 10 people daily are diagnosed with cancer. Our classified telephone book has 21 listings under medical oncologists alone, and this does not include the numerous oncologists at various hospitals who do not have their own office. 

But all of the above is trying to show is that there is sufficient manpower to get the program started! After it has been going a while, there will be a surplus in manpower, just the same way that total treatment expenses will go down. "A stitch in time saves nine" is most applicable here. The time and cost of treating one single recurrence would be greater than many, many second opinions. The time, effort and resources saved in treating one patient properly and promptly the first time will more than cover the time and expenses for many, many second opinions. 

If the conservative estimate of mortality being reduced by only 10% is used, and with survival 50%, then one out of 20 newly diagnosed patients will have the minimal, proper treatments for the sake of 20 receiving second opinions. Assuming an average of 20 minutes per physician and two physicians per patient diagnosed, some 14 hours would be spent giving second opinions per life saved. I can not believe a patient has been treated with a recurrence with as little as 14 hours of physician time nor has one who did not receive the proper treatment and failed. In the long run, second opinions will be a substantial time saver for physicians. 

Universal second opinions certainly will improve the quality of life for every patient, having confidence they are getting the proper treatment the first time. And the value of the lives saved and suffering avoided is immeasurable. Universal second opinions are practical, possible, cost effective, and must be accomplished.