Hi everyone,I'm starting nocturnal in-center hemo the first of the year. I have read many studies that show that nocturnal is much better than regular hemo, but after presenting this information to my neph she seems to think that the benefits aren't that different than regular hemo. I decided to talk to the experts, you guys, and find out the truth. I'd like to know if the benefits are truly worth the 6-8 hours on the machine three times a week.Thanks
I suspect there are financial pressures that induce nephs to "conveniently" conclude that the cost savings treatments are as good as those that consume more resources. Incentives can be subtle and insidious so that the doc is never asked to "choose between quality and cost", but given a framework which just happens to make it very easy to conclude that the cost saving treatment is indeed "as good" even if it isn't.Trust but verify what your doc tells you.
I'm not from the US so I really can't appreciate the system there, and perhaps I'm too logical as well What I don't understand is that regardless of how or where one receives treatment someone is still paying for it. In my case it costs the government NZ$200 per hour ($160 US) for facility based sessions. In Singapore it cost me NZ$125 per hour, and in the Philippines NZ$25 per hour. However for HomeD it costs the government less than NZ$12 per hour. So if a person qualifies medically and superlatively for HomeD then it should appear fairly obvious for the payer what should happen.And this is before we even get to the part where HomeD can be better for the patient's health and well being.Oh, if only logic ruled the world. Perhaps someone can educate me as to why the US is reported to have one lowest percentage of HomeD patients in OECD?
I guess we are more socialist than I thought lol