Re: The fight is being lost...
From: Terry J DuBose (tjdubose@juno.com)
Sun Sep 26 22:12:07 2004
I also suspect that the Insurance Corps actually welcome anyone doing
nonmedical sonography, it reduces the pressure from their customers to
have exams that are covered. It is just increasing their bottom line by
reducing the expenses... they really aren't about good health care.
--
Terry J DuBose
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:35:29 -0500 Dave Berck <djberck@yahoo.com> writes:
> That may be true, but I don't think that too many
> insurance companies take this seriously, certainly a
> small minority. And ACOG has kept the bar pretty low
> in terms of what they consider acceptible ultrasound
> credentials, e.g. and ob/gyn residency.
>
> --- "art fougner, md" <evsono@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> > Some insurance companies are taking care of the
> > office ultrasound
> > situation by only paying for services offered by
> > accredited practices.
> >
> > art
> >
> > At Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Dave Berck wrote:
> > >
> > >I totally agree!
> > >
> > >--- "DuBose, Terry" <DuboseTerryJ@uams.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >> " This just doesn't seem like such a big deal
> > when
> > >> most ultrasound in
> > >> the US is being done by jokers who wouldn't know
> > a
> > >> nuchal fold from a
> > >> fig newton."
> > >>
> > >> This is the best argument for mandatory licensure
> > >> and ARDMS
> > >> certification for all using sonography... even
> > the
> > >> RNs and MDs.
> > >>
> > >> Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS, FSDMS, FAIUM
> > >>
> > >> Associate 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/dms/default.asp
> > >> http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm
> > >>
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >--
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> From: ultrasound@obgyn.net
> > >> [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of
> > >> Dave Berck
> > >> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:48 AM
> > >> To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
> > >> Subject: Re: The fight is being lost...
> > >>
> > >> I'm not a big fan of fetal foto, but the only
> > strong
> > >> argument against them is that
> > >>
> > >> 1) it's bad for the baby.
> > >>
> > >> But
> > >> Does anyone really think that this is true? Is
> > >> there any ultrasound professional who uses any
> > >> genuine
> > >> restraint in indications for ultrasound in order
> > to
> > >> abide by ALARA principles? If not, it's time to
> > get
> > >> off the high horse. I don't think the prohibition
> > >> analogy holds here -- diagnostic u/s isn't bad
> > for
> > >> babies.
> > >>
> > >> 2) the techs won't know what to do with an
> > anomaly
> > >> (e.g. cleft lip or anencephaly).
> > >>
> > >> But
> > >> Does anyone familiar with the quality of
> > >> ultrasound
> > >> in the US (i.e. low) think that the overall
> > quality
> > >> of
> > >> fetal fotos could possible be worse than what
> > >> general
> > >> ob/gyns generate in their offices? Who's done a
> > >> worse
> > >> job -- the radiologist who misses anencephaly at
> > 20
> > >> weeks, or the fetal foto tech who misses it at 30
> > >> weeks?
> > >>
> > >> This just doesn't seem like such a big deal
> > when
> > >> most ultrasound in the US is being done by jokers
> > >> who
> > >> wouldn't know a nuchal fold from a fig newton.
> > >>
> > >> -- Dave Berck, MD, MPH, RDMS
> > >>
> > >> --- Allen Worrall <jworrall@alaska.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I am afraid it is going to be like Prohibition:
> > >> > there are some things that the people want and
> > you
> > >> > can pass all the laws you want, but it will not
> > >> stop
> > >> > even law-abiding folks from doing whatever it
> > is
> > >> > (drinking alcohol or having prenatal sonos.).
> > >> >
> > >> > Of course it could be greatly reduced, by
> > >> > considering it something as bad as dealing
> > drugs,
> > >> or
> > >> > a similar really bad thing. Then you would have
> > >> > underground ultrasound "speakeasies". Probably
> > no
> > >> > one on this forum is old enough to know what I
> > am
> > >> > talking about.
> > >> >
> > >> > Allen
> > >
>> > >>> > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> > From: Dr. Wolfgang Moroder
> > >> > To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
> > >> > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:21 AM
> > >> > Subject: Re: The fight is being lost...
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks Terry, well the war ... drags on!
> > >> > Wolfgang
> > >> >
> > >> > Am 23/set/04 um 21:05 schrieb DuBose, Terry:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Wolfgang... no, but it helps. Basically,
> > in
> > >> > the USA there are folks,
> > >> > > some untrained in medicine, who are opening
> > >> > "Fetal Studios" and
> > >> > > charging
> > >> > > large fees to provide the parents with
> > >> pictures
> > >> > and videos. This is
> > >> > > without any medical indication or
> > diagnosis.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > There are at least two sides, probably many
> > >> > more, and a lot of
> > >> > > disagreement in what should be done.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hope this helps.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Terry J. DuBose, M.S., RDMS, FSDMS, FAIUM
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Associate 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/dms/default.asp
> > >> > > http://www.obgyn.net/us/panel/panel.htm
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > > From: ultrasound@obgyn.net
> > >> > [mailto:ultrasound@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of
> > >> > > Dr. Wolfgang Moroder
> > >> > > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 2:00 PM
> > >> > > To: Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND
> > >> > > Subject: Re: The fight is being lost...
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Do I have to be a registered user of NYT to
> > >> > understand what this is all
> > >> > > about?
> > >> > > Best regards
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Wolfgang
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Am 23/set/04 um 16:20 schrieb Philippe
> > Jeanty,
> > >> > MD, PhD:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/technology/circuits/23ultr.html?th
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> =====
> > >> David J. Berck, MD, MPH
> > >>
> > >=====
> > >David J. Berck, MD, MPH
> >
> >
> > --
> > art fougner, md
> > ich bin ein New Yorker
> >
>
> =====
> David J. Berck, MD, MPH
>
________________________________________________________________
Get your name as your email address.
________________________________________________________________
Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!
