Posted on 02/24/2017 2:34:09 AM PST by markomalley
An irate man contacted me recently to complain he’d been turned down for back surgery because he’s a smoker.
“It’s just not right,” said the Charlotte man, who suffers from chronic hip and leg pain. “I need this surgery. It’s to the point where I can’t walk around the block with my dogs.”
He acknowledged smoking is a “bad habit,” but after 35 years, he’s not sure he can quit. And he doesn’t think he should have to.
(snip)
Spector said it’s part of a national trend for doctors to run down a checklist of behaviors in preparation for elective surgery. Before spinal fusion, Spector said he might tell a patient: “Listen, I want you to stop smoking, but if you can’t stop smoking, at least cut it in half. A two-pack-a-day smoker is going to have a higher risk (of complications) than a two-cigarette-a-day smoker.”
(snip)
At OrthoCarolina, Spector said doctors agree that all patients who register for the bundled payment plan must go through “surgical optimization” so they’re as healthy as possible before surgery. At some point, insurance companies may even begin to refuse to pay for elective surgeries on smokers.
(Excerpt) Read more at macon.com ...
1) On a financial basis, I can't blame a business for reducing risk. When I have a firm fixed price contract to install a satellite ground station, I always do everything I can to minimize risk. Where I can't remediate the risk, I mitigate it through increased price. And if I can't remove risk by remediating the contract or mitigating the risk, then I won't bid on the work. How can I blame a business that specializes in surgery for doing essentially the same thing?
2) Having said that, this is the fundamental problem when you have a third party (either an insurance company or the government) make the contract with the business rather than the party who actually receives the services. The insurance company / government is going to have a primary interest in controlling their costs, thus minimizing the risk that the premiums they receive from the pool of insured people doesn't exceed the money paid out to providers, while the providers seek to minimize the risk that the amount they're paid exceeds their costs to provide the services.
If the individual contracted with the surgeon rather than the insurance company / government making the contract, then they could take all of the individual contingencies into account when doing the contract. And the individual would have a big financial incentive to reduce behaviors that would cost him more in medical expenses (like hip surgery).
How about none of that? Tobacco has been consumed since the dawn of man.
Only now has it been vilified. It’s turning out that their studies, and research is about as valid as global warming research.
if i cannot turn away homos for demanding i participate in their deviant ‘ceremonies’ ...
then doctors cannot turn away smokers ... or fat people ... or democrats ... or ...
Good points.
I firmly believe people should be allowed to smoke, drink, and eat themselves out of existence - except if my tax dollars have to go to any part of the care related to their self-abuse.
Switch to MJ and all will be well.
Bmk.
Nicotine significantly hinders bone healing and smoking can complicate the recovery from general anesthesia.
Healthy weight, good nutrition, exercise and hygiene are also important when it comes to surgery.
Can’t say I blame the doctors...I am related to a life-long smoker (30+ years) who went in for routine surgery and had complications related to the damage smoking had done to their body...ended up severely disabled as a result. Doctor and hospital ended up paying a high 7 figure settlement...which of course drives up the insurance costs for all doctors.
I run a small business (not a doctor thank god), and once in awhile a potential client will want me to take on a project that would leave me financially devastated if it went wrong...I should (and do) have the right to decline that risk.
People should people able to smoke and kill themselves if they want, just don’t blame everybody else when it all goes sideways.
Ya, I'd much prefer they live an extra 20 years, all the while soaking up our tax dollars while eventually dying of an even costlier disease.
I guess they can stop treating homos for diseases associated with their deviant life style.
Since your tax dollars are being spent on care related to their self-abuse, how would you stop people from smoking, drinking and overeating?
This has been coming for a while.
Whether you smoke or not and whether you accept treatment to stop smoking is part of the permanent electronic medical record.
Just like gun ownership.
The Government/Insurance/Healthcare Magog collects this information for a reason.
“Since your tax dollars are being spent on care related to their self-abuse, how would you stop people from smoking, drinking and overeating?”
_______________________________
You legislate lifestyle - Big Brother style.
I wonder if any of these same doctors perform or approve of the performance of abortions.
Will these concerned doctors and insurance companies adjust their policies to restrict or eliminate services to people who use/abuse illicit drugs?
I had a vary serious cancer surgery and before I qualified they tested my lungs etc to insure that I had a chance of surviving it. A heavy smoker might not have passed those tests.
And you support this? Sad.
Can’t help but notice that none of these activist medicos refuse treatment to gang bangers, drug addicts, and other various criminal scum brought to ER’s by LEOs. Illegal alien invaders, from every country, are included within the scum category.
Yes, it is. Smoking is not "the problem." The problem is the imposition of an intermediary between the buyer and seller of the service. (This is also a problem in housing, education, etc.)
The patient wants the intermediary to pay but doesn't want the intermediary's rules. (This is also a problem in housing, education, etc.)
What to do, what to do ...
A two-pack-a-day smoker is going to have a higher risk (of complications) than a two-cigarette-a-day smoker.
In a society where malpractice claims are almost routine in medical care, can anyone blame a medical practitioner for turning away a patient who has an elevated risk for complications?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.