Often times we justify our actions based on less than completely objective criteria or lack of fully exploring all options. For many reasons, I submit researching and selecting cancer providers may well be given less time than selecting a new car.
There has been ongoing discussion and debate about receiving the best outcomes for HNC patients from the many provider options: local, regional, and national. Most focus has been on local vs national and not much discussion on metro/regional options.
Many of us live in or close proximity to metro/regionally ranked facilities and wonder how much we give up by selecting a regional facility due to location and access, time, etc. In other words finding a balance between good outcomes and managing many months of numerous short and long trips for service.
Over the years I have worked very hard to quit second guessing decisions and this applies to all my cancer decisions. That said, I still revisit past decisions not to do the woulda coulda shoulda thing but just to assess the pluses/minuses of my decision.
Maybe living in the SF Bay Area is an unearned luxury as it seems there is an abundance of excellent national and regional choices for cancer. I did not have the luxury of having a blank check nor the time to really assess my options so maybe more by dumb luck and circumstance the providers who have and are treating me turned up in the top metro/regional rankings.
http://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/san-francisco-cahttp://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/san-jose-cahttp://health.usnews.com/best-hospitals/area/sacramento-caWhat I wonder and maybe others facing similar choices would like to better understand is at what point do the differences become small enough that other factors can lead to a regional vs national selection?
