Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Doctors are refusing to operate on smokers. Here’s why the trend will grow.
Macon Telegraph ^ | 2/23/17 | Karen Garloch

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: medicine; pufflist; trends
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-107 next last
To: markomalley
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).

In this case you have an individual who is a high risk for surgery. Take away the insurance companies and I still don't see why the doctor would want to take on the risk of liability on his own. Because of the patient's history of abusing his health, if he dies on the operating table or has complications following surgery then the doctor is still liable to be sued.

81 posted on 02/24/2017 5:36:54 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
First, show me where smoking has anything to do with back surgery!! what a crock of bullshit!!

Read the article. "If you're doing surgery, you're trying to get the bones to unite, and if you don't have good blood flow, the results aren't as good." Smoking restricts blood flow.

82 posted on 02/24/2017 5:43:19 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: fruser1
To address your two points more directly:

Agreed with your comments. Two things to consider:

As they say, different colors of money.

83 posted on 02/24/2017 5:44:07 AM PST by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
In this case you have an individual who is a high risk for surgery. Take away the insurance companies and I still don't see why the doctor would want to take on the risk of liability on his own. Because of the patient's history of abusing his health, if he dies on the operating table or has complications following surgery then the doctor is still liable to be sued.

Sure.

But consider this: the doctor could remediate the contract for services and then mitigate the residual risk with money:

In a free market world (a/k/a one not overly regulated by government), there are a whole lot of steps to reduce vulnerability and to reduce the potential exposure to risks.

84 posted on 02/24/2017 5:55:01 AM PST by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

And hugely obese patients? How about COPD patient? How about cancer patient? How about alcoholic that may begin DT’s during recovery?

This is silly. Where do you draw the line. Nonsmoker here but nobody is in perfect health and anyone can crash, have complications etc from any surgery, tiny or big.

You sign a permit stating what can happen to you from a particular surgery; read it before you undergo the knife.


85 posted on 02/24/2017 5:58:38 AM PST by Hattie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Or he could walk away from it. Why, in any world, would you accept risk when you don’t have to without any way of mitigating it?


86 posted on 02/24/2017 6:08:05 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Correct, however, if you check the price schedule for your available plans, before commie care, you had age, sex, and zip code. Pre existing conditions were typically handled by either exclusion or delay, meaning you would not get a policy, or they would not pay for treatment associated w/your condition for the first year.

So if there is no scaled pricing plan based on condition, any actuarial computations made to that effect are irrelevant, other than to define who is excluded from a policy.

Post commie care, it was by statute that the gov indicated policies w/preexisting conditions could be charged 150% of base policies, and those without “wellness” (smokers, obese) could be charged 130%. Again, no actuarial computation driving the actual price.

It’d make perfect sense to me to have actuarial computations drive the cost for all lifestyles. If it’s based on that reality, it’s simply a market price. I have absolutely no prob w/that - as long as you run that calculation on all lifestyles, not just the ones you dislike!

Per the distribution of tax money, that is an abuse of the taxation to begin with. It is simply a cash cow.

On a population basis, as with social security, dying earlier ultimately means less expense so Medicare and Medicaid benefit from smokers just like SS does. This is because payroll taxes include medicare and you are taxed 2.9% on wages, with the employer covering half of it (so you only see a 1.45% draw from your check). Medicaid is partially covered w/state income tax and partially reimbursed by the feds.

You are right about insurance companies not being reimbursed through tobacco taxes. To me this is simply an abuse of tax authority. I mention it as an argument in response to the argument of “the cost of smokers”. I.e., if you are worried about that cost, then, INSTEAD of using that cost as the basis for excluding them from treatment, you SHOULD argue that tobacco tax be funneled to either insurance companies or hospitals.


87 posted on 02/24/2017 6:11:57 AM PST by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

And yet that isn’t completely true. There are plenty of smokers operated on who do just fine. Anytime surgical results go south they always look for something or someone to blame. Example operating on people over sixty five doesn’t have as good an outcome as operating on someone younger.

Watch out folks this is another step along the way to denying health care to those who are too old. They will mandate euthanasia


88 posted on 02/24/2017 6:21:26 AM PST by Nifster (I see puppy dogs in the clouds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ISTHISONETAKEN

Settlement? That means doc and hospital were sued for doing something wrong. How is that the smokers fault?


89 posted on 02/24/2017 6:23:01 AM PST by Nifster (I see puppy dogs in the clouds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

While I agree with all you say, I am not against insurers, in any insurance arrangements (whether directly by the individual or as part of an employer/union plan) simply charging a higher premium to a smoker. That would be very much supported by the statistics, and it is statistics that insurance actuaries base their rate-making judgements on, not the individual.

I would think an individual joining an HMO type plan, like a Kaiser plan, could meet the same smokers-rate premium argument.


90 posted on 02/24/2017 6:23:43 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

For the sake of the country, perhaps they should refuse to operate on liberals.

Starve a liberal, feed a free country.


91 posted on 02/24/2017 6:24:47 AM PST by meyer (The Constitution says what it says, and it doesn't say what it doesn't say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Let a doctor refuse to operate on a gay patient with HIV, and see what happens.


92 posted on 02/24/2017 6:28:31 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

>>Settlement? That means doc and hospital were sued for doing something wrong. How is that the smokers fault?

Naive much?


93 posted on 02/24/2017 6:36:37 AM PST by ISTHISONETAKEN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

>>In a free market world (a/k/a one not overly regulated by government), there are a whole lot of steps to reduce vulnerability and to reduce the potential exposure to risks.

Also in a free-market world, a doctor who believes a patient is too high risk for a given procedure, should be allowed to not do that procedure - the patient can go find another procedure.


94 posted on 02/24/2017 6:40:53 AM PST by ISTHISONETAKEN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ISTHISONETAKEN

Let me try that again:

Also in a free-market world, a doctor who believes a patient is too high risk for a given procedure, should be allowed to not do that procedure - the patient can go find another doctor.


95 posted on 02/24/2017 6:43:01 AM PST by ISTHISONETAKEN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: ISTHISONETAKEN
Also in a free-market world, a doctor who believes a patient is too high risk for a given procedure, should be allowed to not do that procedure - the patient can go find another procedure.

By all means.

Having said that, I will take on high-risk work in some cases. But the customer will pay me dearly for accepting that risk. High risk does not mean probable failure...it just means that there are a lot of variables that must be managed to keep the project from going pear-shaped in a hurry.

Can't imagine that there aren't doctors who would have similar attitudes.

96 posted on 02/24/2017 7:01:40 AM PST by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: apillar

Death by

Smoking 7x
Alcohol 7x
Both 40x

Now you see your future.


97 posted on 02/24/2017 8:28:16 AM PST by TheNext ("PULL THEIR BROADCAST LICENSE!" - Trump Rally Cry. eg ABC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: greatvikingone
I don’t support except when I’m helping to pay for it.

Which means you support the nanny state.

98 posted on 02/24/2017 1:43:41 PM PST by Ken H (Best election ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: aMorePerfectUnion

You’re preaching to the choir with me. It was the OP who was for freedom... sometimes.


99 posted on 02/24/2017 1:48:59 PM PST by Ken H (Best election ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

You are grossly mistaken if you think the bureaucrats in the swamp ever think of or care for the taxpayers. They don’t even give lip service to the taxpayers.

They do give lip service to the recipients of their programs. But lip service is all it is. In state government, maybe 1 in 100 bureaucrats ever really thinks about what is best for anyone except the bureaucrats and bureaucracy.

I suspect it is 1 in 1,000 in the Federal swamp.

And when the rare bureaucrat expresses something that would benefit the program recipient but hurt the bureaucracy, that person can expect to be ostracized and shunned

What is the ACA really about? Is it really about the poor uninsured? No way. It is about elitist knowing what is better for the rest of us than we do and then building a self-serving bureaucracy to control us and see how high we jump when they issue a change to a regulation.


100 posted on 02/24/2017 1:54:56 PM PST by spintreebob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-107 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson