[X]
Feedburner count

4
Helpful
Votes

Doctors/Hospitals Complaint - Doctors/Hospitals and over treating

Review by Doctored-2-Death on 2006-01-15
ANY CITY USA -- This isn't a complaint about a company but rather about health care in general. This is quite the opposite of not having enough insurance but having too much insurance and getting doctored2death in the process.

We believe that 100% insurance coverage ended up nearly killing someone because the doctor and hospital want to poke and prod and test and re-test and do labs, labs, labs, and any procedure they can get away with because they want to milk insurance for all it's worth - even at the risk of the patient's health!

Has anybody ever had such an experience or suspected it? Even if you don't have 100% coverage? Just the fact you have insurance - they seem to FIND something to do!

The Angry Patient
Comments:21 Replies - Latest reply on 2006-01-17
Posted by ejack053824 on 2006-01-15:
Well when your hospitalized and doctor merely walks by sticks his head in the door and asks how your doing and afterwards charges you $120.00 for a consult...thats when I get pissed off.
Posted by Doctored-2-Death on 2006-01-15:
that's very interesting actually - about the liability part because the fact that they were wanting to doctor this patient to death seemed like the bigger liability. you see, patient went into hospital for something very minor - the internal medicine doctor and heart doctors released patient to go home after a couple of hours - just the primary care doctor said he wanted to keep patient for "observation" for 24 hours - before they knew it - it was cat scans, ekgs, ultrasounds, catheters, mri's, colonoscopy, psychiatric evaluations, and on and on and on and then the bed sores started and the skin infections and strange rashes and much more, and over three weeks later - FINALLY released. doctors and hospital told patient it would be "illegal" to leave until primary care doctor releases and that nobody else could release patient.

it was, to say the least, scary.

Posted by Angry Tulsa Consumer on 2006-01-15:
Health care is such a scary thing today. It's kind of sad that it is no longer the glorious profession it once was and that doctor's are backing out because of malpractice costs.

Oklahoma just got a D+ grade on emergency room care but to be fair I guess the entire country only got a C but the experience we had at the hospital was an F- to the tenth power. Recently the Oklahoma nursing home board just went through major overhaul and major bad publicity. Now it's time for the same to happen with the hospitals. Seems like they aren't much more than slightly glorified nursing homes.
Posted by miketech on 2006-01-16:
Yeah, My cousin had a bout with something recently and was in the hospital for about 5 days $32,000 worth of it. My aunt asked me how long I thought she would be there and my answer was "Till her insurance runs out." Same thing with my Grandfather he died about 6 months ago and was in the hospital for about 6 months off and on. All the tests and scans one could imagine. The specialist evaluations that last 2 mins and cost $320 each. He had excellent 100% insurance from his old union. It was sad we finally told them no more tests just leave him alone. I mean when they say he has 3 days left and still draw blood 3 or 4 times a day and no one can give a reason for it. I knew the reason. Profit.
Posted by jsix1441 on 2006-01-16:
Everyone can thank the lawyers for high health care costs. The doctors are only protecting themselves from being sued. Everyday I turn on my TV there is a magot lawyer wanting to know if someone was wronged. Thank the magot lawyers for this.
Posted by guchiedad on 2006-01-16:
jsix1441 is partly right why healthcare costs are so high. Malpractice rates have become so high because of the amount of lawsuits which are filed, regardless of whether they are justified or frivolous. More importantly, healthcare costs are so high because of the amount of uninsured patients in this country that enter a hospital for care; a hospital cannot turn these people away, and these hospitals have to eat the cost for all the medicines, nursing, testing, and physician services provided, even though a paying/insured patient could be taking up that space. No other business in the world would allow non-paying customers to come in and take away products for free while others have to pay. So the 'profit' comment was uncalled for; most hospitals are non-profit because of this reason. And also, having 100% insurance does not mean that everything done in the hospital is covered. It just means that you as a consumer don't have to pay anything. Here's how it works: When a patient is in the hospital, they get a diagnosis. The insurance gives the hospital a predetermined amount of money based on that diagnosis. The more tests, consults, labs, scans, etc. which are ordered, are taken out of this lump-sum money. The hospital can only gain by treating a patient with the least amount of tests possible for a given diagnosis. The problem is that if certain tests are not done, and something goes wrong, then a lawyer can find fault with the doctor for inadequate care. Therefore, doctors now have to practice 'defensive' medicine and cover all their bases JUST IN CASE they get sued. All this test ordering happens for the uninsured population as well, since they are more often the ones who sue. And sure enough, people sue for the most ridiculous of reasons...

So if you think a hospital is running test after test on you to try and make a buck, think again. Hospitals in this country are just trying to stay alive.
Posted by spiderman2 on 2006-01-16:
Doctors and hospitals are damned if they do and damned if they don't anymore.
Posted by Anonymous on 2006-01-16:
Yeah, it's like you win some, and lose some.
Posted by miketech on 2006-01-16:
I dunno people, for some reason I'm not feeling sorry atm for doctors,hospitals or lawyers.
Posted by guchiedad on 2006-01-16:
I hope you also don't feel sorry for the people who speed-dial their lawyers when something rubs them the wrong way...
Posted by Angry Tulsa Consumer on 2006-01-16:
That's true about lawyers and malpractice but it's the old - which came first - the chicken or the egg? Which came first - bad medicine or bad lawyers? You could just as easily argue that bad medicine, incompetent doctors, dirty hospitals, dangerous nurses (remember the Angel of Death) resulted in an explosion of malpractice litigation. The consumer first has to have had a bad experience. So they go to a lawyer and sue. If the suit was frivolous - it should be thrown out and never make it to litigation. Now, that's up to a judge.

Whatever the case may be, whether it's a valid complaint or just the litigation lovin' lawyers, the health, safety and welfare of the patient is a priority and that priority doesn't necessarily rest on OVERTREATMENT.

It matters not whether it is a non profit hospital or for profit - bills still have to be paid, paychecks generated, etc. etc. Health insurance DOES fund the coffers of the hospital's bottom line. You can pretty much bet that if every single person was uninsured, there would be no hospitals or we would become a socialist medicine society.
Posted by Doctored-2-Death on 2006-01-16:
The Hippocratic Oath for Doctors states in part:
"...I will apply for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those TWIN TRAPS of OVER TREATMENT and therapeutic nihilism. I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug...."
and ABOVE ALL........."Do No Harm"



Posted by anndillman on 2006-01-16:
You always have the right to refuse any treatment and leave the hospital at will!
Posted by NeveragainAmazon on 2006-01-16:
I work in the health care field and I can tell you that no one is ever "overinsured"....quchie dad was right..the insurance companies pay the hospital a fixed rate based on diagnosis, and it does not even come near the cost that the Hospital uses for that patients care. So no one rapes a deal not even the physician...as a matter of fact the insurance companies have it so the physician has to see triple the number of patient he did 5 yrs ago. It is a sad state of affairs that we have a cultural craze that is so ready to sue, and that alone has changed health care tremendously! A patient does not get a "bed sore" from having too many tests...nor do the tests that you mentioned cause any type of illness! Yes you have the right to refuse treatment if you feel it is not necessary...however, Did you question the physician as to why all of the tests were ordered? Maybe an educated explanation from the physician could have avoided alot of anger on your part!
Posted by Anonymous on 2006-01-16:
Thanks for your input, I think. We don't need angry comments from the cleanup staff. That's not going to help anyone. Please, let's keep the comments to qualified healf-care professionals.
Posted by First Amendment on 2006-01-16:
We have family in medicine and they hate it. One has been in practice 30 years and the other 10. They are frustrated with the incompetence of nurses and arrogance of doctors.

Actually, 'amazon' supported the posters concern about over treatment by saying that "the insurance companies have it so the physician has to see triple the number of patient he did 5 yrs ago." Therein lies the problem. Quantity of work increases + quality of work decreases = more malpractice cases.

In the Journal of American Medicine (July 2000?) there is an article that found that doctors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S. causing an estimated 230,000 to 284,000 deaths per year. Cause of death defined by "iatrogenic causes" meaning a complication of treatment by a doctor.

Wonder if that figure is higher or lower today?



Posted by NeveragainAmazon on 2006-01-16:
First Amendment, in no way did I support the "over treatment" theory posted. I simply made a factual statement that the physicians work load is directly affected by what the insurance companies will pay! Meaning that the treatment of any given patient is much more(in dollars and cents) than allowed by the insurance carrier. In no way did I imply that the physician "over treats" a patient. Iatrogenic: A condition that has resulted from treatment as either an unforeseen or inevitable side-effect. Please if you are quoting statistic give all of the information.
Posted by miketech on 2006-01-17:
I'm going to my lawyers office tommorrow Quchiedad. It's to install and network a computer program he just got. You might say he speed dialed me today :) So if anyone in Tennessee, Florida or Georgia wants to sue a doctor or hospital please post before say 9 am and I'll see if he will take the case.
Posted by guchiedad on 2006-01-17:
I have to say that, quite often, Amazon contributes meaningful posts, not incorrect rhetoric. The clarification of 'iatrogenic' and telling parrot to grow up were both very valid points. I second both of them.
Posted by Consumers Rule! on 2006-01-17:
Just do a search for bad doctor, angry patient, or malpractice. Whatever your opinion about the state of medical care, or doctors or nurses today - you only have one life. If someone has to be in the hospital for any length of time and they can't really help themselves then someone must be by their side 24/7, every minute of every day!! People are rarely in a more vulnerable position in their lives than when they are in a hospital sick and incoherent and with people able to go in and out of their rooms at will. Their are no cameras in the room. In fact, I am a proponent of cameras in every hospital room if a patient approves it - turn it on!

I remember the news coverage on the angel of death and how it totally blindsided everybody. Trust no one.
Posted by NeveragainAmazon on 2006-01-17:
Granted Consumer, you have only one life. However, to take one bad example of a health care worker and place a stigma on the rest that do not fall into that category is totally unfair. If my loved one was hospitalized and incoherent, you better bet that I would be by their side because that in itself is a very ominous sign. So then why would I need a camera in every room?

Your Name:
(displayed with your comment)
Your E-mail:
(required)

Your Experience/Advice:
Check spelling


By clicking submit you agree that you have read and accept the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy.


Note: All comments are reviewed by a moderator before being published. Please be sure to read our guidelines before commenting.