You know you're a health wonk when you get excited at the sight of the word "laparoscopic" in your inbox on a Friday evening. But after four years of thinking about health policy all the time, here I am.

Researchers at Emory have found that "laparoscopic surgery to remove pancreatic tumors or cysts leads to fewer complications and shorter hospital stays."

More:

Compared to standard surgery, laparoscopy resulted in fewer complications (57 percent vs. 40 percent). Patients who had the laparoscopic procedure also had less blood loss and spent three fewer days in hospital (six vs. nine).

Last year I published a column that discussed laparoscopic (minimally invasive) prostate surgery. Blogger/hospital CEO Paul Levy had written about having to buy a new, million-dollar robot that was surrounded by questions of whether it improved quality over "regular" open prostate surgery. Results were mixed.

A skim of my column might leave you to believe that I hate technology, don't have a computer (maybe I'm dictating!) etc. That's not accurate. I just bought a fancy new laptop. I have an iPod.

What I don't like is technology that doesn't improve value (value means quality that's worth the money). If a hospital spends a million dollars on a new piece of equipment that doesn't do a better job, there is no value added. Instead, the cost of insurance rises for all insured, because the premiums of the healthy go towards paying for the prostate surgery of others. And the last thing a country with 47 million uninsured people needs is more reasons for insurance costs to rise.

Technology is valuable, even if it costs more, if it improves outcomes. While the jury is still out on prostate surgery, the new Emory study states that the quality of pancreatic surgery is better when performed with a minimally-invasive procedure.

Comparative effectiveness is not a way to keep new innovations from patients; rather, it is a way to determine what works best, for whom, when. In this case, new technology results in better outcomes.