The checklist from hell

This one-page form illustrates much of what is wrong with medical care today.

Just imagine the amount of time it would take to complete all 11 steps. Wouldn't you love to hear what goes on in a "post Fall Huddle"?

Thanks to @anish_koka for tweeting the form.

Ethics and uterus transplants

Guest post by @UtilityKnife1

It’s easy to be negative. Given that the return in clinical outcomes relative to cost is too often poor for any clinical innovation (e.g., robotic surgery, home uterine monitoring, bone marrow transplants for breast cancer, etc.), it is a reasonable bet anything new in medicine is lemon. Innovation and technology within health care account for significant portions of per capita growth in health spending among Americans over the last 50 years. In some cases this spending has resulted in real improvements in health outcomes but this is not the case in many settings. So what about spending to transplant a uterus?

Uterine transplant is not new. The procedure has been done in animals, has even resulted in live births among humans, and is not conceptually complicated. A donor uterus including the cervix is sutured to the top of the vagina, and the blood supply is hooked up. Since there is no nervous input into the transplant, it will not contract in any sort of coordinated way and delivery of any fetus must be via cesarean section. Similarly, fetal movements will not be felt in the same way. Any “experience” of pregnancy from a transplanted uterus is thus not totally natural (note the recent patient who underwent uterus transplantation at The Cleveland Clinic said “experiencing” pregnancy was an important reason behind her decision to pursue this surgery).

The reason to perform a uterine transplant is most easy to understand in those settings where a woman is born without a uterus (although in these cases they should have ovaries). Getting pregnant with a transplanted uterus requires in vitro fertilization. The organ recipient will have to take anti-rejection drugs, and when pregnancy is no longer desired, the uterus should be removed to avoid prolonged exposure to these drugs. None of this is an ordinary part of the pregnancy experience to say nothing of the implications for the fetus.

Some venous thromboembolic events can’t be prevented even with optimal care

I have written several posts about how I get things right before others see the light, but none better than one from three years ago pointing out that some of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) "never events" can't really be completely prevented and therefore should not be considered "never events."

One specific "never event" I questioned was hospital acquired venous thromboembolic (VTE) disease which encompasses deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE). I wrote "I am unaware of any DVT study in which no patients in the experimental arm developed DVTs or PEs. Patients will develop DVT or PE even with the best evidence-based care."

Along comes a brief research letter published last month in JAMA Surgery by a group from Johns Hopkins led by surgeon Elliott R. Haut.

Of 92 patients in their institution who had VTEs in a single year, 43 (47%) had received defect-free care. That is, each of those patients received all doses of risk-appropriate pharmacological prophylaxis ordered for the entire hospitalization.

To put it another way, VTEs for those 43 patients were not preventable. There would be no way to do a quality improvement project for a group of patients who received the right prophylaxis throughout their hospital stays and still got VTEs.

The Joint Commission/CMS criterion states that a hospital is in compliance with VTE prophylaxis if a patient receives one dose of an appropriate drug within 24 hours of admission. The Hopkins study showed that of the 49 patients (53%) whose care was suboptimal, 36 (73%) missed at least one dose of prophylaxis that was correctly ordered. Other studies have shown that missing even one dose of prophylaxis at any time during a hospitalization increases the risk of VTE.

So about half of VTEs are not preventable even with perfect adherence to the prophylaxis protocol, and the standard for compliance established by the JC/CMS is inadequate to judge the quality of an institution's performance for VTE prevention.

The study shows that 1) a lot of good information can be delivered in a two-page paper, 2) JC/CMS criteria for compliance with VTE prophylaxis need to be revisited, and 3) VTE should be removed from the list of "never events.”

Should every man over the age of 65 be on a statin?

If you believe the latest arteriosclerotic cardiovascular risk calculator, the answer is yes.



A previous version seemed to recommend statins for everyone over a certain age. I decided to plug in the optimal values, conveniently stated in a footnote beneath the data entry fields, for a 65-year-old man. Here is what the data entry looks like.



As you can see below, the risk calculator recommends "moderate to high-intensity statin therapy."



Below the recommendation, it says, "Adults 40 to 75 years of age with LDL-C 70 to 189 mg/dL with no diabetes and estimated 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5% should be treated with moderate to high-intensity statin therapy." This is a apparently high-level (A1) evidence-based recommendation.

What am I not understanding here?

I would very much appreciate it if some cardiologists would comment and explain to me how such a sweeping recommendation came to be.

Is this accepted as gospel? Do all cardiologists recommend statins in the above situation?

Medicine, like air travel, once was fun

A Wall Street Journal blog about a reunion of employees of American Airlines lamented the good old days of air travel. Here's an excerpt:

"They came together to celebrate the days when flight attendants in white gloves hustled to serve you, gate agents doled out upgrades and arranged seating so families could be together, and managers worked flights with the single mission of ensuring excellent customer service."

The employees told tales of the fun they had and the camaraderie they shared. The passengers had fun too.

One retiree said of today's airline employees, "They don't look like they are having any fun at all."

Certainly the same can be said of today's passengers.

I'm usually not a fan of the airline-medicine analogy, but I'm going to make an exception here.

Back in the day, those of us in medicine had fun too. Don't get me wrong. It wasn't at the expense of the patients.

We always approached our patients with a proper attitude of respect. But it was OK to enjoy those encounters and also the fellowship of colleagues. We helped each other out, and we did it with spirit and camaraderie.

Not anymore.

All we read about now is how doctors are burned out, stressed, depressed. We battle with electronic records, hospital administrators, clipboard carriers, third-party payers, the government and just about everyone else.

What happened to the fun? It's all about the money.

David Shaywitz in Forbes: "The view from the front lines suggests that hospitals and care delivery systems are obsessing like never before on doing whatever they possibly can to maximize their revenue. They are consumed, utterly consumed, by this objective."

He added: "Many (I’d say most) providers and provider groups feel that they are locked in a deadly battle with payors (and increasingly, other providers) for their livelihoods; many feel they are having to work harder and harder to bring in the same (or less) money then doctors a generation ago. Many feel that the profession has lost the autonomy and respect it used to enjoy, and that providers are now viewed as mechanized assembly line workers, held to strict quantitative “quality” metrics that rarely capture the complexity, or essence, of the patient experience."

I believe what Shaywitz said is true. Can anything be done or is it hopeless?

Follow-up: Meaningful Use Stage 3 is coming

Yesterday, I posted "Meaningful Use Stage 3 Is Coming: Should Be Fun" which discussed some onerous new rules that Stage 3 will impose including this one:

More than 25% of patients seen by an eligible professional (EP) or discharged from a hospital or emergency department (ED) must "actively engage" with their electronic health records (EHRs).

I said that in my experience most of the patients I took care of would have been unlikely to engage their EHRs and expressed concern that physicians would be penalized for their patients not reaching the 25% threshold.

A reader commented that the VA has had a patient portal called the Blue Button since 2010. He pointed out that in May of 2012, more than 500,000 unique patients had accessed their EMR. He meant this as a rebuttal to my opinion about the potential level of engagement.

However, it turns out that in 2012 over 6.3 million patients were treated by the VA system.  [See page 4 of this link.] If you divide 1 million by 6.3 million, you get 15.9%.

It seems like they have quite a way to go to get to 25%

I rest my case.

Meaningful Use Stage 3 Is Coming: Should Be Fun

An alert reader tipped me off to something many of you may not be aware of. Stage 3 of Meaningful Use is close at hand.

The "proposed" rules will be officially published on March 30. The good news is that comments will be received for a couple of months.

The bad news is that if the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology is anything like every other regulatory body I've ever dealt with [e,g., the ACGME's Residency Review Committee for Surgery], the "proposed" rules will be the real rules and the comments will be simply a way for disgruntled physicians to vent.

If you don't believe me about the venting, take a look at the 185 mostly negative comments posted on Medscape’s story about Stage 3.

Here are a few of the new rules that will be in effect by 2017 or sooner.

Do surgeons still do postop care?

Here's an email I received the other day (edited and posted with the author's permission):

I am a recently retired internist. I have noticed some evolving trends over time and had an interesting experience that illustrates this issue.

A 77-year-old friend went for check up due to urinary incontinence. He was found to have a large prostate and a PSA of only 2 so was given Flomax . This helped somewhat.

At the time, an asymptomatic hernia was found. He was immediately scheduled for surgery which went well. His Foley was removed, and he was sent home.

At home he could not void, called the surgeon, and was told to go to the ER, There the Foley was replaced, and he was to see his urologist in 2 days. The urologist removed the Foley. Later he was in agony and walked the floor all night. He called the urologist and the service said that the office was closed. He was told to drive to the other office in the next town only 15 miles away. They replaced his Foley again.

Aortic dissection leads to man's death in the ED: His wife's perspective

A woman wrote to me about the day her husband died. I have edited her email for length and clarity and changed some insignificant details to protect her anonymity as she requested.

Joe passed away outside in the parking lot while they were getting on a helicopter for transport to a hospital equipped to do his surgery.

He had presented to the ED in terrible pain with lots of thrashing and writhing. His right hand was very cold. His right arm tingled to the point of hurting bad. The vision in his right eye was cloudy, and his hearing was muffled on the right. This was in addition to being very pale and diaphoretic upon admission. This is when I felt a dissecting aorta should have been suspected.

I don’t recall the vitals in the beginning, but they were changing and his blood pressure was dropping very fast. As soon as they finished the EKG-in the first 5 minutes of the visit, I asked the doctor about John Ritter's death [the actor died of a dissecting thoracic aneurysm in 2003]. First I asked if he could check for the condition that caused John Ritter's death. I called it an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The doc corrected me and said that it wasn’t an AAA it was a dissected aorta. I said OK, then check for that. This was 1 hour before the CT scan that led to his diagnosis.

Health Care and the $20,000 Bruise: A different take

Twitter is buzzing about yet another medical billing horror story. This one appeared in the Wall Street Journal and was written by Eric Michael David who is an MD PhD JD and an officer at a biotech company.

He saw a large, swollen bruise on his three-year-old son's head several days after falling off his scooter. Other than the bruise, no other abnormalities were mentioned. He took the boy to "one of the top pediatric emergency rooms in the country" to have a CT scan done. It showed "a small, 11-day-old bleed inside his head, which was healing, and insignificant."

Dr. David received a bill for $20,000, $17,000 of which had been paid by his insurance company. He was responsible for the remaining $3000.

He noted a $10,000 charge for a trauma team activation which he said never happened. After a lengthy series of exchanges with the hospital's billing department and Dr. David having to prove that a trauma team activation was unwarranted and not permitted by certain regulations, he was able to have the charge rescinded.

The essay went on for some 1200 words listing the steps that he went through. He correctly described what a mess American healthcare delivery is and why as long as overuse and upcoding are rewarded, the Affordable Care Act will not fix it.

Dr. David was right to contest the $10,000 charge for a trauma team activation that wasn't indicated and didn't even occur.

What he didn't address was this.

Why would a doctor who said that he had "served on trauma teams in two of the busiest hospitals in New York City" feel the need to take his apparently asymptomatic son with an 11-day-old injury to an emergency room for a CT scan?

Doesn't this imply overuse of a different type?

Secondary questions:

Did anyone bring up the issue of radiation from the CT scan?
Did the docs in the ED think a CT scan was necessary?
"Inside his head" is a rather odd phrase. Does it mean intracranial? Intracerebral?
Was "one of the top pediatric emergency rooms in the country" the only option or could this asymptomatic boy have been seen in a doctor's office?
Why is the charge for a trauma team activation $10,000?

Pain is not the "5th vital sign"

No, contrary to what you may  have heard, pain is not the 5th vital sign. It's not a sign at all.

Vital signs are the following: heart rate; blood pressure; respiratory rate; temperature.

What do those four signs have in common?

They can be measured.

A sign is defined as something that can be measured. On the other hand, pain is subjective. It can be felt by a patient. Despite efforts to quantify it with numbers and scales using smiley and frown faces, it is highly subjective. Pain is a symptom. Pain is not a vital sign, nor is it a disease.

How did pain come to be known as the 5th vital sign?

The concept originated in the VA hospital system in the late 1990s and became a Joint Commission standard in 2001 because pain was allegedly being undertreated. Hospitals were forced to emphasize the assessment of pain for all patients on every shift with the (mistaken) idea that all pain must be closely monitored and treated .

This is based on the (mistaken) idea that pain medication is capable of rendering patients completely pain free. This has now become an expectation of many patients who are incredulous and disappointed when that expectation is not met.

Talk about unintended consequences. The emphasis on pain, pain, pain has resulted in the following.

Diseases have been discovered that have no signs with pain as the only symptom.

Pain management clinics have sprung up all over the place.

People are dying. In 2010, 16,665 people died from opioid-related overdoses, a four-fold increase from 1999 when only 4,030 such deaths occurred. And the number of opioid prescriptions written has doubled from 109 million in 1998 to 219 million in 2011.

Meanwhile in the 10 years from 2000 to 2010, the population of the US increased by less than 10% from 281 million to 308 million.

Doctors are caught in the middle. If we don't alleviate pain, we are criticized. If we believe what patients tell us—that they are having uncontrolled severe pain—and we prescribe opioids, we can be sanctioned by a state medical board or even arrested and tried.

Some states now have websites where a doctor can search to see if a patient has been "doctor shopping." I once saw a patient with abdominal pain in an emergency room. After looking up her history on the prescription drug website, I noted that she had received 240 Vicodin tablets from various doctors in the four weeks preceding her visit.

That's a lot of Vicodin, not to mention a toxic amount of acetaminophen if she had taken them all herself during that month.

What is the solution to this problem?

I don't know, but as long as pain is touted as the fifth vital sign, I do not see it getting any better.

The solo general surgeon is a dying breed. What is next?

This is a guest post by Dr. Paul A. Ruggieri, a general surgeon in Fall River, MA and author of a new book “The Cost of Cutting: A Surgeon Reveals the Truth Behind a Multibillion-Dollar Industry.”

A potential casualty of employment in a hospital system may be the ability to openly disagree with the organization. Will surgeons, as highly paid employees, be confident enough to speak up against hospital policies affecting patient care without worrying about corporate retaliation? Will employed surgeons be able to speak out against hospital cost-cutting measures that infringe on patient care without being labeled whistleblowers or troublemakers? Can they voice their displeasure without worrying about the security of their job? If you are branded “not a team player,” referrals may dry up. Or, you may suddenly be “asked” to take more emergency room call. You may also be asked to travel farther to see patients and generate surgical business in another town. You may be replaced. You could end up as a surgeon without a practice. If let go, you may discover that the clause in your contract prohibiting you from practicing within the area drives you out of town.

Will employed surgeons be able to openly highlight waste and fraud without fear of losing their jobs? As highly paid employees, surgeons risk much if they criticize the organization that employs them, even when the intent is improved patient care. Knowing the economic stakes of speaking against the corporate team, I suspect many may choose to be silent.

Are surgeons responsible for everything that happens to their patients?

Several months ago, a post called "Everything's my fault: How a surgeon says I'm sorry" appeared on KevinMD. It was written by a plastic surgeon who feels that no matter goes wrong with a patient, surgeons should never blame anyone else.

She gave some examples such as the lab losing a specimen, a chest x-ray that was ordered and not done, a patient eating something when he was not to be fed, and a surgeon having to cancel a case because the patient's blood pressure was elevated. She felt that all of these incidents should be owned by the patient's surgeon.

I agree that if I order a chest x-ray and find out later it wasn't done, I would accept the responsibility to have made sure it was done. I have always believed that you should not order a test if you aren't going to do something with the result.

But if the lab loses a specimen or a patient who was not supposed to eat does so, how is that my fault?

What to do with abnormal PSA results in a young man?

A 45-year-old man in excellent health with no family history of prostate cancer had a screening PSA done three years ago which was in the range of 4.0 ng/mL. He has been followed by a urologist, and the test was repeated several times without much change.

In June of this year, his PSA was 4.6 and the free PSA was 0.6 for a ratio of 0.13. He was given a course of antibiotics for presumed prostatitis, and repeat testing a month later showed a PSA of 3.8 with a free PSA of 0.5. Because the PSA was less than 4, a ratio was not calculated.

The patient obtained copies of the reports. The from June one states the following: "When total PSA is in the range of 4.0-10.0 ng/mL, a free PSA/total PSA ratio of less than or equal to 0.10 indicates a 49% to 65% risk of prostate cancer depending on age. A free PSA/total PSA ratio of greater than 0.25 indicates a 9% to 16% risk of prostate cancer depending on age." It does not comment on the significance of a ratio of 0.13, which I have looked up. The cancer risk is in the area of 20%-25%. However, no source gave estimates for men under the age of 50.

On examination, his urologist can feel no nodules. He has recommended that the patient undergo an MRI of the prostate.

Stating that an MRI is not indicated in a man of his age with his history, the patient's insurance company will not pay for the test and suggested a trans-rectal ultrasound. The urologist advised the patient not to have an ultrasound due to his age and the potential for complications. A hospital quoted him an out-of-pocket price of $2500 for the MRI.

The urologist has told him that random biopsies may not be accurate and there is a risk of complications.

When he had his first PSA done three years ago, I had expressed surprise and wondered why it had been offered to him. The patient said his internist told him he should have the test.

He is concerned about these recent results and has asked me for advice which I am not qualified to give.

What would you advise?

Follow-up August 6, 2014

Numerous urologists responded on Twitter with more than 60 tweets about this post. Suggestions for the next step were as follows: trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) and biopsy as mentioned by Dr. Cooperberg below; going ahead with the MRI; repeating the PSA in 3 months; go for a second opinion by a recognized expert in prostate cancer.

One urologist emailed me to point out that even if the patient has cancer, it is probably not an aggressive type because his PSA has not risen in 3 years.

Another urologist gave me the name of an expert in the patient's geographic area. 

The patient has already scheduled an appointment for a second opinion.

Medicare spends a lot of money unnecessarily

You may find this story hard to believe, but it's true.

A 75-year-old non-smoking man with no serious medical problems and a relatively low-risk family history [father, a life-long smoker, died of a stroke at age 76] has been undergoing routine physical examinations by his primary care physician in Florida every 6 months for several years.

The visits include a full battery of laboratory studies, nearly all of which have been completely normal on every occasion.

The patient told me that he has been on a statin for about 20 years. At the time it was started, his total cholesterol level was 201 mg/dL. The genrally accepted upper limit of normal is 200 mg/dL.

After his last visit, the doctor told him to take his pill every other day because his most recent total cholesterol was 109 mg/dL.

Can hypocholesterolemia cause health problems? How low is too low? No one knows for sure, but cholesterol is a constituent of cell membranes and many hormones.

I've blogged before about the overuse of medical care, particularly Pap smears, in Florida.

Why does Medicare pay for all these unnecessary tests and drugs? Medicare probably has no way of knowing that a statin was started and is being continued for no good reason. But what about the cost of the office visits and routine blood work every 6 months?

It's probably not much money per person, but of all the states, Florida has the greatest proportion of people who are at least 65 years old (17.3% in 2012).

The population of Florida in 2012 was 19.32 million so it has 3.28 million people over the age of 65. There's potential for a lot of money to be wasted.

As one of its Choosing Wisely items, the Society of General Internal Medicine has recommended that routine general health exams not be done for asymptomatic adults.

A Cochrane Review of 14 studies comprising 182,880 patients came to the same conclusion and noted that important harmful outcomes of routine check-ups were often not studied or reported.

In June I wrote about the doctors who received seemingly excessive Medicare payments identified by various journalists and wondered why Medicare couldn't have discovered these obvious outliers on its own.

Routine check-ups every 6 months seem easy enough to identify and squelch. Why can't Medicare do something?

PS: For all you fans of rating doctors according to patient satisfaction scores, the patient in the above anecdote really likes his doctor and is worried that, because he is fed up with everything about the practice of medicine, he may retire.

My grandson survives a visit to the ED

Last weekend, my 16-month-old grandson was at a backyard barbecue with his parents. He had been eating some potato chips when he suddenly stopped breathing and turned blue.

Having had CPR training, my son started rescue breathing and suspecting aspiration, performed toddler airway clearance maneuvers. No obstruction was found. The child slowly awakened but was very drowsy.

Because of the concern for aspiration, an ambulance was called and the child was taken to the nearest hospital.

My son called and told me what happened. My wife and I drove to the hospital, which was 15 minutes from my home, but not one where I knew any staff.

By the time we arrived, child had been in the ED for about 10 minutes. Two nurses were trying to start an IV in his chubby arm, he was crying loudly. We took that to be a very good sign. He had already been examined by a doctor.

After successfully starting the IV, the nurses secured it and calmed down my daughter-in-law. She asked where she could buy a bottle of water. One of the nurses said not to bother and brought her a glass of ice water.

The nurses were gentle and professional, so much so that my wife, who is a former ED nurse, didn't mention that fact until nearly 5 minutes after we got there.

The initial vital signs taken were remarkable for a temperature of 104° F, prompting the emergency physician to suggest that the child probably had suffered a febrile seizure. He ordered a chest x-ray because of the history of possible aspiration.

The boy stopped crying and began to watch a cartoon on his father's iPhone. Soon he was smiling and laughing.

The x-ray was negative, and the fever came down with ibuprofen. I resisted the strong urge to point out that lowering a child's temperature has never been shown to prevent a febrile seizure.

We were all relieved that he was okay.

If you were expecting a tale of mistakes, sloppy nurses, and arrogant doctors, I am sorry to disappoint you.

Several essays, blog posts, and media articles about poor care received by doctors or their family members have recently appeared.

This is not one of them.

PS: The nurses complimented us for not trying to run the show.

Are we on our way to third-world medicine?

In a post last week, I discussed why elderly patients don't get out of bed and walk when hospitalized. I wrote that a major reason that staff does not have time to walk patients is that they are too busy documenting useless checkboxes on the electronic medical record.

The New York Times article about the negative effects of bed rest on the elderly which led me to comment stated that "hospital nurses seemed grateful" when the author offered to walk her father. She also mentioned that she had to supply a walker, robe and slippers.

My next question is "Could this be the first step toward third-world medicine?" [Pun intended.]

We've all heard stories about how in certain countries, families must provide hospitalized patients with bedding, food and basic hygiene.

A recent article about a family's experiences with a relative who had surgery in Cuba illustrates the point.

The author wrote, "Prior to the trip [to Cuba], my wife wisely purchased towels and two sets of sheets and pillowcases for her mother’s use during her hospital stay. In addition, we packed several aerosol cans of spray disinfectant, special soap used for sponge baths and a room air-freshener that plugs into to an electrical outlet.

Regarding the postoperative stay, he says, "The next two days for me was [sic] spent shuttling food and juice to the hospital for my wife and her mother."

"At the end of the third day, my mother-in-law had arranged to trade her used sheets and towels for a week’s supply of Vicodin and Percocet with another MD on staff."

Is this where we are headed?

First, families start walking the patients because the nurses are "too busy" to do it.

Next will we have to bring linens and food and barter for medications?

Maybe it won't be that difficult. The way it is now, a family member should be present at the bedside of any relative who might be sedated or confused to help prevent some of the thousands of medical errors that occur each day.

If someone is going to be sitting there on watch anyway, he might as well bring food and sheets and get the patient out of bed. Maybe we could enlist the relative to do some of the charting in the electronic medical record too.

Of course, there are always loose ends.

What happens if the patient has no relatives who are free to spend days in the hospital caring for the him or has no family at all?

Where is all that money that hospitals are making by overcharging everyone going?

Performance goals for hospital CEOs discourage change

A big problem with changing the focus of healthcare in the United States is that hospital chief executive officers are incented to produce profits for their institutions.

This chart from Kaiser Health News shows that the goals for most of the CEOs of major hospitals and health systems are profits. Growth and more specifically, admissions growth, are also mentioned.

It also lists CEO compensation figures, which are quite impressive. In addition to their hefty salaries, most CEOs also command large performance bonuses based on meeting financial goals.

According to Becker's Hospital Review, CEO pay has risen over 4% per year since 2009 with an increase of 4.8% this year.

All this in the era of the $546 charge for 6 liters of saltwater and the $73,002 charge for an emergency department visit for a urinary tract infection.

If you were a hospital CEO, why would you want to emphasize preventive care and outpatient services when your bonus is tied to profits, admissions and growth?

Everyone is entitled to make a living. And for sure most doctors do very well. But doctors are being squeezed on many fronts—declining reimbursements, need to purchase expensive and time-sucking electronic medical records software, more ICD codes, rising overhead to name a few. They are being forced to sell their practices to hospitals. Once the majority of physicians become hospital employees, their incomes will no doubt be squeezed further.

The public is demanding more accountability and transparency from hospitals and more emphasis on keeping people well rather than treating the sick.

Yet those who run hospitals have no reason to stress wellness and every rea$on not to. Don't look for anything to change soon.

Employers, health insurance coverage and PSA testing

Help me with this please.

A 56-year-old man just got a new job. As part of the pre-employment process and in order to be covered by his new company's health insurance, he had to undergo a physical examination and some blood tests. A digital rectal exam was not done.

He has no risk factors for prostate cancer or urinary symptoms and by most guidelines is not a candidate for PSA screening.

He was not told of the possible harms of the test, nor was he told to abstain from ejaculation within 48 hours of the blood being drawn.

Of course, his PSA is 5.9 ng/mL.

The cost of the repeat PSA test will be borne by the patient. There is already talk of biopsies.

Not only will the patient have to deal with the anxiety generated by the test, he is being pro-rated by his health insurance carrier. He will be paying $200 per month extra for his coverage.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this?

More baffling stuff about ICD-10 codes

The ICD-10 list may be inadequate.

ABC News reports an actor was hospitalized after his foot became caught in an elevator raising the stage during a performance of the Broadway show "Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark."

As a connoisseur of ICD-10 codes, I decided to see if I could classify this injury correctly.

To my surprise, I could not.

The only codes having to do with elevators are the W303XXs Contact with grain storage elevator.

Since I had once read that the codes were originally developed in Europe, I even searched for "lift." But all I got were Y93F2 Activity, caregiving, lifting and W240XXs Contact with lifting devices, not elsewhere classified.

Contact with lifting devices, not elsewhere classified hardly seems appropriate for elevators, which are so common. People are frequently hurt on them or by falling down their shafts. All you get when you search "shaft" are hundreds of codes dealing with bones.

We know that ICD-10 has given us such gems as

V9027XA Drowning/submersion due to falling or jumping from burning water-skis, 

V982XXA Accident to, on or involving ice yacht,

W5609XA Other contact with dolphin,

V9542XA Forced landing of spacecraft injuring occupant and

V9733XD Sucked into jet engine subsequent encounter.

[Click on the links to read my comments about those codes.]

So how is it that there's no code for contact with an elevator? For that matter, what about injury during a Broadway show? Surely both elevator and Broadway show injuries are much more common than say V8022XA Occupant of animal-drawn vehicle injured in collision with pedal cycle.

Filippe Vasconcellos ‏(@fvguima), a Twitter follower, suggested W230XXA Caught, crushed, jammed, or pinched between moving objects, initial encounter, but it is not clear that there was more than one moving object. And the stated aim of ICD-10 is to introduce much more specificity into the codes for better tracking of things like injuries.

What we need is even more codes. Maybe we need to get going on ICD-11 sooner than we thought.