I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Dialysis Discussion => Dialysis: General Discussion => Topic started by: JennyQ on December 02, 2017, 03:34:47 PM
-
Just wanted to know if everyone here is aware of the many times that Dialysis companies have been fined for hundreds of millions of dollars because of corruption.
-
Oh, I have never trusted private medical companies, but if you need them, you need them.
-
As usual, it is not well publicized. Nor is it when Drug Manufacturers are cited/fined.
Current stink within the VA Hospital system for NOT bad listing Dr's that have moved on to other employers. You won't hear a lot about that either.
-
I am concerned about conflicts of interest. My neph recommends I take a KDPI <=60. The transplant neph recomends I accept anything offered (ie, < 85). Funny thing - if I turn down an 80, it will probably be offered to a patient at one of at least a half dozen other transplant centers in town, so there is a strong incentive to ask me to accept it and get the job.
-
YEP it is on here. Search DaVita..... Money grubbing greedy on and on
I wonder what we will get for Christmas this year?? Last year we got zip
We got a note from our Manager that said if we came to all our treatments and stayed the whole time we could pick a prize from Santa's pack. OMG
-
I believe it was last year, they changed everybody's schedule so if you were MWF you were changed to TTS because they had more patients on MWF and could get paid an extra treatment for more patients before the year turned over. Theen again, The payments are being lowered by Congress also.
-
And the nephrologists jailed in Germany for putting people on D who didn't need to be.
Give me some time to find the reports if wanted.
-
And the nephrologists jailed in Germany for putting people on D who didn't need to be.
Give me some time to find the reports if wanted.
Many thanks Cassandra, I would be very grateful for further information about this and I don't quite understand how this could possibly happen?
I don't quite understand, because every citizen is insured with a health insurance company, i.e. factory-workers are usually insured with a health insurance company called the AOK ( the cheapest health-insurance which is nevertheless reliably good) and "white-collar-workers" are usually insured with the BKA which is a little more expensive and provides those "little extras"etc.
Furthermore, to my knowledge, every patient who needs special treatment (i.e.dialysis) is usually sent by their health-insurance-company to have a medical second opinion and make sure the patient really needs the treatment...
Bearing all this in mind, how could a doctor send patients to have dialysis if they don't need it? To my knowledge, there are at least two or three other doctors/specialists involved who check-up on the patient and make absolutely sure the patient really needs dialysis etc.
Could it be that my above information is a bit ancient and "things" have moved on ?
But what could be the point on putting people on dialysis when they don't need it?
Many thanks for further information and best wishes from Kristina. :grouphug;
-
And the nephrologists jailed in Germany for putting people on D who didn't need to be.
Give me some time to find the reports if wanted.
A cardiologist told me about a Tenet hospital in CA where if you broke you ankle on the sidewalk in front of the hospital and had good insurance you got a bypass.
-
And the nephrologists jailed in Germany for putting people on D who didn't need to be.
Give me some time to find the reports if wanted.
Many thanks Cassandra, I would be very grateful for further information about this and I don't quite understand how this could possibly........
Many thanks for further information and best wishes from Kristina. :grouphug;
[/font]
[/font]
Een nefroloog uit Duisburg die gezonde mensen dialyseerde is in hoger beroep veroordeeld tot drie jaar celstraf. Dat is een half jaar minder dan het vonnis van de kantonrechter. Hij moet zijn praktijk verkopen, en mag niet meer als arts werken.[/font]
De 64-jarige nefroloog, die sinds 1984 een eigen praktijk had, voerde dialysebehandelingen uit die niet medisch noodzakelijk waren. Hiervoor declareerde hij 123.000 euro bij de ziektekostenverzekeraars. In tegenstelling tot waarvan in eerdere berichtgeving sprake was gaat het niet om meer dan duizend patiënten, maar om meer dan duizend behandelingen, bij zes of zeven mensen. Maar het gerecht beschouwt elke aparte ten onrechte uitgevoerde dialyse als een geval van het toebrengen van lichamelijk letsel. [/font]
Afgelopen jaar werd de nefroloog veroordeeld tot drieënhalf jaar cel, waar de eis drie jaar was. In hoger beroep is hij gisteren tot drie jaar cel veroordeeld, en is hem zijn registratie als arts afgenomen. Bij geen van de 'patiënten' die hij behandelde was de nierfunctie zo slecht dat dialyse noodzakelijk was, volgens een opgeroepen deskundige. Ook het maar een uur dialyseren, wat hij bij sommige patiënten met een betere nierfunctie deed, veroordeelde deze specialist scherp. Dat zou een methode van ruim dertig jaar geleden zijn, uit een periode dat dialyse nog experimenteel was en er een tekort aan machines bestond. Volgens de veroordeelde was dit een manier om de gedeeltelijk uitgevallen nieren van zijn patiënten te ondersteunen en probeerde hij slechts de kwaliteit van hun leven te verbeteren. [/font]
De rechter achtte het bewezen dat hij de gezondheid van meerdere mensen in gevaar heeft gebracht, de verzekeraars heeft opgelicht en moderne richtlijnen heeft genegeerd. [/font]
[/font]
Gepubliceerd: donderdag 22-01-2009Bron: der Westen (http://www.niernieuws.nl/mobiel/click_out.php?sess=isrvvb1e700k2p8rjfeq4tag61&artid=1465) | Nog geen reacties (http://www.niernieuws.nl/media/comment.php?artid=1465)[/font]
This article is in Dutch, I tried to get the original article in German from 2009 from Der Westen but I couldn't open that.[/font]
I'll translate[/font]
[/font]
A nephrologist from Duisburg who dialysed healthy people was sentenced to three years jail after appeal. That was half a year less than the original sentence. He has to sell his practice and is not allowed to practise as a dr.[/font]
The 64 yr old nephrologist, who had his own practice since 1984, carried out D treatments which were not medically necesarry. He declared €123.000 from the health ensurances.[/font]
In contradiction to what was earlier published it did not concern more tha a 1000 people, but more than 1000 treatments to 6 or 7 people. But The Court treats every single unjustified treatment as a case of Bodily harm to a person.[/font]
Last year the nephrologist was sentenced to 3 and a 1/2 year, when 3 years was asked. In appeal yesterday that was reduced to 3 years and removal of his registration as a dr. None of [/font]
the 'patients' he treated had a renal function bad enough to justify dialysis, according to called experts. Also the only 1 hour dialysis sessions which he did to some patients were harshly condemned by the expert. That would be a method of more than 30 yrs ago when D was still experimental and there was a shortage of machines. According to the convict that was a way to support partially malfunctioning kidneys from patients and that he was only trying to improve their q.o.l.[/font]
The judge saw as proven that he endangered the health of several people, cheated the ensurance companies, and ignored modern guide lines.[/font]
Published Thursday 22' Sept '09[/font]
Original article: der Western | no reactions[/font]
[/font]
:angel; [/font]
-
Sorry I don't know why the font is so large. But Kristine this is not the first time this happened (nor the last) in Germany or other countries. I think it's because people (drs with their own practice) are being paid per treatment carried out.
In the Netherlands it was (when I was there '80s) the same system and when a dr deems necesarry, insurance pays.
-
Just follow the money.
-
If memory serves me one of the big two dialysis companies was caught by CMS for billing a vial of medicine per patient while using the vial to treat several patients after a audit a large sum of cash was returned to the government.
-
Sorry I don't know why the font is so large. But Kristine this is not the first time this happened (nor the last) in Germany or other countries. I think it's because people (drs with their own practice) are being paid per treatment carried out.
In the Netherlands it was (when I was there '80s) the same system and when a dr deems necesarry, insurance pays.
Many thanks Cassandra for the article and your time in translating it for us, it is very much appreciated and the contents of the article are quite shocking and as Simon rightly put it : Just follow the money ...
But it is shocking all the same and my heart goes out to those poor patients, whose trust in the professional decency of a doctor/nephrologist was so terrible abused ...
Thanks again from Kristina. :grouphug;
-
If memory serves me one of the big two dialysis companies was caught by CMS for billing a vial of medicine per patient while using the vial to treat several patients after a audit a large sum of cash was returned to the government.
I think the issue was using part of a vial of EPO, wasting the rest, and billing for the full vial rather than using the entire vial on multiple patients.
-
I think the issue was using part of a vial of EPO, wasting the rest, and billing for the full vial rather than using the entire vial on multiple patients.
That couldn't happen here. EPO is supplied in a sealed package along with a syringe and needle. The quantity of EPO in the package is exactly one dose (there are different sized packages for different doses). You get one package per patient, nothing left over to "over bill" for.
Although I think the reason it is done this way is not to prevent fraud but to prevent over/under dosing. At the clinic one nurse dishes out the EPO, leaving the sealed package beside each patient. Then a second nurse checks that the first nurse put out the correct dose before injecting the patient. And back when I was injecting myself (before dialysis) and collecting it from a pharmacist, it took two pharmacists to serve me. One to pick out the packets, and a second to check that the first had given me the correct dosage.
-
The Mircera I take now comes in a dose specific pre-filled syringe.
When I was on EPO, my doses came on a 1cc/20,000 unit vial, and I was instructed to use up each vial with multiple doses.
I think the EPO "wasting" settlement was with FMC, and around the same time they were using the multi dose vials.