-VISIT OUR OTHER FORUMS- OB-GYN-L Ultrasound Ultrasound History Fibroid Forum Physicians-in-Training Tech Talk OBSTET-L (portuguese) OBGIN-L (spanish) Nursing

Re: New Pap Screening Technology From: jay kulkin (jkulkin@mindspring.com) Thu Oct 30 14:27:04 1997 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: Len2976@aol.com: "Re: neonatal circumcision" Previous message: lynn.montgomery@northmail.NMMC.Com: "Ultrasound screening in adavanced maternal age." Maybe in reply to: Walter Evans MD: "New Pap Screening Technology" Next in thread: Myer S. Bornstein: "Re: New Pap Screening Technology" I think the technology is great, but the price isn't. Far less false negatives and what's wrong with that. Then again, Wall street is driving this one. Tune in when managed care really gets a hold on this one. Jay At 08:51 PM 10/29/97 -0600, you wrote: >In patients at low risk for dysplasia, I really do not think that the >new tests (Papnet/ThinPrep) are cost efficient. Thankfully, the process >for which we are screening, dysplasia, is a slowly progressing one. Of >the 2, I prefer the ThinPrep because it produces a "better" smear for >interpretation. > >In our practice, we have a homemade handout that explains the 2 >technologies, and explains that it will cost you $50 to $60 out of >pocket, cash money to the lab, and you can try to deal with your >insurance carrier (we won't get involved; we have enough aggrevation >already). Our group does the ThinPrep in those who want it, about 5 to >10%. When patients ask, if they are low risk, I tell them that I think >it is unneccesay, but that it is up to them, and their money. > >This approach has been necessitated by the market demand, as a fair >number of people are asking about Papnet especially, in response to >their advertising. > >At Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Walter Evans MD wrote: >> >>I would like to solicit the group's thoughts on new Pap >> technologies. I have been slow to jump aboard Thinprep >> and the computer screens due to cost/benefit concerns. >>There appear to be fewer false positives and false negatives. >>However, the cost of $40 compared to $8 is quite a spread. >>Any thoughts? >> >>-- >>Walter F. Evans II MD >>Dallas, TX >>Texas Rep OBGYN.net >>wfevans@worldnet.att.net >> > >-- >Garry E. Siegel, M.D., FACOG >Private Practice >Roswell, Ga. > Next message: Len2976@aol.com: "Re: neonatal circumcision" Previous message: lynn.montgomery@northmail.NMMC.Com: "Ultrasound screening in adavanced maternal age." Maybe in reply to: Walter Evans MD: "New Pap Screening Technology" Next in thread: Myer S. Bornstein: "Re: New Pap Screening Technology"

Return to

Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 05:24:54 2009

The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.