Re: 4D IMAGING
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Wed Nov 20 13:25:46 2002
right 8 - 9 and more if indicated - but the pay scale might be different
lol. with hmo's you might afford a vintage pre-owned yugo. also - just
because a code exists doesn't mean a reimbursement exists.
just my opinion - i could be wrong.
art
ps - it was great to have a major international meeting in NYC
At Wed, 20 Nov 2002, Dave Berck wrote:
>
>At the recent ISUOG meeting, sonographers from Germany
>claimed that the average woman has 8-9 "routine" scans
>per pregnancy. Either u/s is not at all harmful or the
>Germans are doing something harmful. I suspect the
>former.
>PS: how much can I charge for a 4-D ultrasound? I need
>a new Mercedes.
>
>--- "Terry J. DuBose" <duboseterryj@uams.edu> wrote:
>> But what about health care? True, we have found no
>> documented harm from the sonic energy at sonographic
>> levels and with "normal" medical usage, but what
>> about missed and wrong diagnoses? Don't we care
>> about that any more?
>>
>> As far as the "Pro-choice" issue, I don't think
>> anyone in sonography ever argues that
>> >"it's just a lump of cells"
>> , at least not by the time we can see anything.
>> The problem is the gray area(s)... who is willing to
>> tell every mother with a fetal anomaly that she must
>> carry the pregnancy and let nature take it's
>> course... or who is willing to make the call on
>> every case that "this one is fatal" but "this one
>> will only have minor problems." Can our legislators
>> write a law to deal with these issues in every case?
>>
>> Eventhough I agree that we have much better,
>> economical, safer, and humane means of birth control
>> than elective abortion; I am still not willing to
>> play "God" and tell the parents that they have no
>> choice in every case.
>>
>> Peace, Terry J DuBose, M.S., RDMS
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> ultrasound@obgyn.net writes:
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> >In a message dated 11/19/02 22:25:24,
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> gaperina@mindspring.com writes:
>> >
>> >As long a s there is no established harm, and the
>> power
>> >levels are within FDA acceptable ranges, there
>> should be absolutely no
>> >restrictions on ultrasonography. Most of the
>> innovations we have been able
>> >to make have been the result of technical
>> improvements and those pioneers
>> >who were able to break new ground with them.
>> >
>> >Couple of observations:
>> >
>> >1) if there is truly no harm (in an otherwise
>> medically nonindicated ultrasound), then there is no
>> a priori medical contraindication for the procedure.
>> >
>> >2) if there is no medical contraindication, then
>> you can talk about secondary "contraindications,"
>> the most debated is money.
>> >
>> >3) if money is the question, then the patient can
>> pay for what she wants, right? Otherwise, we're
>> practicing a bad form of paternalism. As long as
>> you're not scamming the third-party payors, then the
>> patient's wishes should rule.
>> >
>> >4) back to #1 above - if BONDING is a legitimate
>> aim, then there's actually a medical BENEFIT, and
>> the discussion SHOULD be over.
>> >
>> >Anything to add? hehe
>> >
>> >Joe P.
>> >
>> >P.S. Not to add gasoline, but how many of you have
>> seen people, medical professionals, who have "grown
>> up" with the development of ultrasound (when they
>> started learning/school, ultrasound was in its
>> infancy - as they practiced, ultrasound became 2D,
>> 3D, 4D, technicolor, etc.), who have changed from
>> "pro-choice" to "pro-life" by "bonding" with the
>> babies on the screen, changing from the gut feeling
>> of "it's just a lump of cells" to "it's a baby"?
>> I've seen it more than once. So I think the
>> >"bonding" idea is valid for both the patient and
>> the doctor. Whoosh!
>>
>> Peace, Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS
>> Assistant Professor & Director, Diagnostic Medical
>> Sonography Program
>> University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, CHRP
>> 4301 West Markham St. Mail Slot #563
>> Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205 USA
>> 501-686-6510
>> DuBoseTerryJ@UAMS.edu
>> http://www.io.com/~dubose/
>> http://www.uams.edu/CHRP/dmshome.htm
>> http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm
>>
>=====
>David J. Berck, MD, MPH
>
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
