In Washington State, if you want a disabled parking permit you need your doctor to fill out a form. Effective 7/1/15, a new law also requires a written prescription to help combat forgery. Physicians already have to deal with far too much paperwork. Their latest form ridiculously asks us to write down the place signed. As the photo above shows, I made up a stamp that has the latitude and longitude of my office. They want to know where I signed it? They got it!
Medical billing and epidemiology relies on a classification of diseases maintained by the World Health Organization. On the first of October, 2015, we will transition from ICD-9 to ICD-10, a major change that increases the number of available diagnoses from some 17,000 codes up to more than 155,000. In a strange cosmic twist, that’s the same day that most retails need to install readers for credit cards with chips or be liable for bad purchases.
With that in mind, I present a short story in ICD-9, with a translation into English.
It was E900.0. That, combined with E904.1 and E904.2, not to mention V69.4, is what led to 780.2. I admit it, I have V69.0 and V69.1. I usually sleep well, but that night was different, thanks to 780.55 due to 780.92. That morning I understandably drank 969.7, leading to 785.1. During E924.2 while E013.0 I felt 780.4. Stepping out I had 368.45 before I 780.2.When I was V49.89 after my E884.9. I had a 784.0, as if I had a 305.00. I used my E011.1 to call work to say I’d be late and hoped to avoid V62.1. He greeted me with a 784.42 indicating 300.4.
Last year I V49.89. The flights are arduous, subjected to E918 or being in V01.9 with a 780.92 E979.6 at E902.0. After landing I’m 780.79 due to V69.4 and 780.55, leading to excessive 786.09.
I was in 309.29. At least, thank to the ubiquity of E849.6, I didn’t have to suffer from 292.0.
If you think this makes for 315.00 and is a 729.1 to read, just wait for ICD 10! Ever see a V91.07XA?!
It was too hot. That, combined with lack of food and water, not to mention lack of sleep, is what led to my fainting. I admit it, I don’t exercise or eat right. I usually sleep well, but that night was different, thanks to interrupted sleep from my son’s crying all night. That morning I understandably drank one too many cups of coffee, leading my heart to skip a beat. During a hot shower I felt lightheaded. Stepping out my vision narrowed before I passed out. I awakened after my fall to the floor. I had a headache, as if I had a hangover. I grabbed my cellphone to call my work to say I’d be late and hoped I wouldn’t be in trouble with the boss. He greeted me with an edge to his voice, indicating he was wasn’t completely happy.
Last year I traveled to foreign countries. The flights are arduous, subjected to being squeezed in with other passengers, or being next to a crying, germy child at altitude. After landing I’m worn out due to lack of sleep and jet lag, leading to excessive yawning.
I was in culture shock. At least, thank to the ubiquity of vendors, I didn’t have to suffer from caffeine withdrawal.
If you think reading this is difficult and is a pain in the butt to read, just wait for ICD 10. Ever see a burn due to water-skis on fire?!
A few days ago CNN hosted the 2nd Republican presidential debate. Unfortunately, the topic of vaccines came up. Donald Trump had previously suggested that vaccines can cause autism. When asked about this he responded, “You take this little beautiful baby, and you pump — I mean, it looks just like it is meant for a horse, not for a child, and we had so many instances, people that work for me, just the other day, 2-years-old, beautiful child went to have the vaccine and came back and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.”
He went on to say that he’s not against vaccines, but just thinks the same total dose should be given in smaller doses and spaced out more.
Donald Trump is not a doctor, so why is he giving medical advice? Republican presidential hopeful Dr. Ben Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon, said, “We have extremely well-documented proof that there’s no autism association with vaccinations. But it is true that we are probably giving way too many in too short a period of time.” Although he at least discredited the theory that vaccines cause autism, he agreed with an alternative dosing schedule. Fellow debater Senator Rand Paul, who is also an ophthalmologist, said, “I’m all for vaccines, but I’m also for freedom. I’m also concerned with how they’re bunched up.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics put out a statement saying there is no alternative dosing regimen. Based on lots of scientific literature and much expert opinion, the current schedule was designed to optimize benefit versus risk. Delaying vaccinations increases the risk that children will catch the disease before they have been protected. It’s also psychologically more traumatic. Studies have shown that a child is just as traumatized if they get one shot or three shots at one visit, but 3 visits with a shot at each one is worse than one visit where they get 3 shots. Spacing out the vaccines also means more cost, and more exposure to sick kids each time they are brought for a vaccination.
So where did this idea of spacing out vaccines come from? Pediatrician Dr. Sears published “The Vaccine Book” in 2007 that proposed alternative vaccination schedules. But that was just his opinion, and was not based on studies to show that it’s safe and effective.
The belief that vaccines can cause autism came from a study published in 1998, that has since been retracted because it was found to be based on fraudulent data. Some people still choose to believe it.
You might argue that spacing out the vaccines is better than nothing. That’s true, however that’s like saying that only wearing seat belts every other day is better than nothing. That’s true, but it’s still much better to use it the way you’re supposed to.
Republicans don’t have good record when it comes to vaccines. Four years ago Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) attacked Texas Governor Rick Perry for mandating that young women get HPV (human papilloma virus) vaccine. He later backed down. That vaccine prevents women from getting cervical cancer.
I may not agree with politicians when it comes to issues regarding such things as immigration, taxation, use of the military, domestic spying, or abortion, but those are legitimate areas for politicians to debate and legislate. They can even debate the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), but they should stay out of the science of medicine. That includes politicians who happen to be physicians, unless they are stating medical facts, rather than pandering to what their constituents want to hear.
I received a fax from a medical supplier saying that Medicare had sent them an, “additional documentation request” for diabetic supplies for a patient of mine from June 2013. I didn’t see her on the date of service they listed, nor even see that I prescribed any diabetic testing supplies then, though it’s possible I filed out a faxed form and it wasn’t saved to her chart.
They requested that I include copies of the patient’s blood glucose testing logs. I do not routinely scan those into the chart, so I don’t know how that’s supposed to happen.
They also say to verify that the records contain the following other items, though it could be considered fraud to go back and add them now:
- Patient’s Diagnosis and Prognosis
- Patient’s Testing Frequency
- Condition and Treatment History
- Quantity and Day Supply Prescribed
- Physical Limitations Due to Condition
- A1c Lab Report
- Insulin Injections/Pump
- Medication lists
In addition, they want all documentation from 6 months before the service date up to the present day, and they want it, “ASAP.” That’s 2 years and 9 months of documentation, all for a few diabetic test strips I prescribed (which I don’t make any money from, for the record)!
What’s more, it says that we are not allowed to charge the supplier or the beneficiary (the patient) for providing this information.
That’s your government, hard at putting us primary care doctors to work.
I’m sure this was an attempt by the government to save money, but in the vast majority of cases the ordering physician has no secondary gain, and they order the test because they think it’s the right thing to do. I can understand it for some expensive tests or procedures, but many are just plain obvious.
I think lawmakers should have a taste of their own medicine. When they need office supplies, they should have to give a reason. Here, I’ll help them out with a few items to help them understand how it works:
Staples – To attach separate pieces of paper.
Notepad – To write down information.
Pen – To apply in conjunction with a notepad to convey information.
Chair – To help counteract gravity to prevent leg and back pain and fatigue.
Laser Printer Toner – To print out things using a laser printer.
Light Bulb – To counteract darkness.
Congress passed a law in 1977 linking Medicare payments for physician services to growth in the economy. Because it failed to take into account inflation and other factors, Congress has had to act 17 times to prevents cuts to physician pay under the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula. This year physicians were set to get a 21% pay cut this year. This created a lot of stress and uncertainty for physicians, and caused some physicians to stop accepting Medicare patients.
The Senate recently voted to repeal this formula, 92 to 8. The bill was already approved by the House, and now President Obama has signed the bill.
That sounds like a great triumph for physicians. Although this may prompt some to pull out their imaginary violins in mock sympathy, I’m not so sure it will turn out to be such a great deal for physicians, which actually only consumes 12% of the Medicare budget.
The bill freezes the current rates, then increases them 0.5% a year from 2016 to 2019. For 2020 through 2025 there is no increase, and from 2026 onwards it increases by 0.75% per year. That is far below the current rate of inflation, and there is no provision if inflation gets worse than the currently low rate. That effectively means a real loss every year into the indefinite future.
There is a provision to transition payments to reward physicians for quality, rather than quantity. That is good in theory, but we’ll have to see how that works out in practice. Quality healthcare is very difficult to measure, and there is a risk that quality will be defined based on what’s easy to measure, and that will lead to physicians and other healthcare providers to concentrate on what they are rewarded to do, and not what may be in patients’ best interest. I hope I’m wrong.
I’m often asked to fill out FMLA paperwork, formally known as Certification of Health Care Provider for Employee’s Serious Health Condition (Family and Medical Leave Act). This is either because my patient is ill and they or a family member need to take time off work, or because my patient needs to take time off to care for a family member. Employers want the form as proof that the time taken off is legitimate, even though it is not paid time off.
The four page form is onerous to fill out. If you read the fine print you can see that the Department of Labor estimated it would take 20 minutes to fill out. That’s more time than I get to see a complex medical patient, and at most we charge $25, and often don’t get paid at all. It may be a service to patients, but most of the information requested is not needed, and is not the employer’s business. This task usually falls to primary care physicians. If it’s something we need to do, it should be as simple as possible and not waste our time filling out irrelevant information.
Below is a letter I sent as a suggestion to simplify the form to a single page (formatting of the form altered a little for web display). It has been over two years without a response. Continue reading “FMLA Paperwork”
The FDA is proposing a new rule in regards to tobacco regulation. As detailed recently in the New York Times, the benefits of stopping smoking, such as less heart and lung disease, would need to be discounted 70%, making it that much harder to justify spending money on smoking cessation. It sounds like something inserted at the bequest of tobacco lobbyists. Tomorrow is the deadline to make a public comment. Here is what I submitted:
I think it’s a dire mistake to discount the economic and health benefits of stopping smoking because of the loss of enjoyment. Although smokers may get temporary enjoyment from smoking, they also get enjoyment from being healthy. Surely one gets more pleasure taking a walk in a park and living at home, than pushing an oxygen tank down a hall in a nursing home because of severe emphysema. Smokers die at a younger age than they otherwise would. What about the enjoyment their partners, children, and grandchildren lose when the smoker dies prematurely? Loss of enjoyment should not be part of the equation, unless it’s a negative number which would serve to magnify the cost smoking places on individuals and society.
If you apply for health insurance, you may find you have to pay higher rates if you’re a smoker. Now federal regulators are trying to decide if insurers who participate in the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) exchanges can add a surcharge for those using e-cigarettes or vaporizers. They already can for cigarettes in most states.
Some argue against this, in the name of harm reduction, the idea that if people are going to smoke, it’s better to smoke something safer. For example, Reynolds American Inc spokesman David Howard, said, “We don’t believe policies should be implemented that might deter current smokers from considering switching to smoke-free alternative products like e-cigarettes.”
Numerous studies have, shown, however,that the best way to get people to cut back on smoking, is to make it more expensive. E-cigarettes and vaporizers are cheaper than cigarettes, so paying more for insurance for all forms will encourage more people to stop smoking. No one is suggesting that those smoking alternative forms of tobacco be charged more than those who smoke cigarettes, so even if insurers charge extra for those who use e-cigarettes or vaporizers, they will not pay more than if they stuck with cigarettes, so really it won’t deter smokers from switching. People switch because it costs less, it’s more socially acceptable, or they perceive it to be safer.
In that last regard, vapor may be safer than cigarettes, but we really don’t know. Recent studies show they can definitely have known carcinogens, such as formaldehyde. Would you really want to inhale a chemical used to embalm corpses? I tell my patients that if they use e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking, which may or may not help, then I’m alright with that, but the goal should be to stop using tobacco products, and not just switch from one habit to another.
Such caps on damages do not restrict payments for financial losses, such as future income not earned due to no longer being able to work as a result of injury or death because of something a doctor did, or neglected to do. Rather it limits awards to compensate for such things as pain and suffering.
Physicians in Washington State, and elsewhere, have lobbied for tort reform. Although some physicians have been guilty of gross negligence, in many cases doctors are sued, and juries award large amounts of money, because a patient has suffered, but not necessarily because of something the physician did wrong. Because physicians worry about getting sued, they tend to practice defensive medicine, and order more tests and procedures than necessary as a result. Besides wasting money, it can cause harm. I’ve had patients who have had dozen of CT scans, because every time they go to the emergency room for abdominal pain, they get one to make sure they don’t have such things as appendicitis. The radiation from the CT scan increases the risk of developing cancer in the future. Although such scans are certainly warranted at times, I believe they are excessively ordered because of fear of getting sued.
Between 1929 and 1974, North Carolina forcibly sterilized 7600 people it deemed socially or mentally unfit. Recently the state agreed to set up a $10 million dollar fund to compensate living victims. So far they’ve identified 177, though as of 2010 the State Center for Health Statistics estimated that 2,944 victims may have still been alive. If they end up with 200 such people filing claims, they would each get $50,000. That’s only one tenth of the amount allowed in that state for non-economic damages, and one hundredth if 2000 filed claims, and infinitesimally less in a state that has no such cap. Physicians may be well off, but their pockets are not nearly as deep as a state.
If a physician inadvertently sterilized a patient while treating them for something else, they could be sued for large sums of money for depriving them the chance of procreating. If states can cap non-economic damages for doing the same, isn’t it only fair that limits be placed on non-economic damage for malpractice for physicians who were trying to do the right thing? Although that’s true in about 30 states, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled such caps unconstitutional in Sofie v. Fiberboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636 (1989). Although that was not a medical malpractice case, the reasoning goes against the decisions made by a majority of other states, and ignores the fact that resources are limited. No caps in theory means a jury could bankrupt an individual or company, no matter how large, and no matter how many hurt if that happened, all in the name of “justice” to benefit one person, and their legal team of course.