The doctor is proposing a breast lift (mastopexy) surgery performed thru the armpit by suturing the breast to the pectoralis muscle and then placing an implant. He describes the surgery appropriate for women with little ptosis. Looking at his picture, you can see that whatever effect he's proposing is nonexistent as the patient doesn't even have ptosis (droop) of the breast. Any illusion of a "lift" is by placing an overly large implant for her frame and actually lowering her breast position to centralize the implant. There is clearly no "lift" going on whatsoever, but rather he's stretched out her lower breast.
I do not predict a good long-term result from this as that skin will frequently continue to stretch unless she develops hardening of her implant. I also would be reluctant to have suggested such a large implant for this patient as you had to violate her native breast boundaries to place it, again a poor strategy for long term results. These are elementary principles of modern breast augmentation.
It's been pretty well established thru collective world-wide experience among plastic surgeons that the maneuver of trying to sew the breast to a higher position to exaggerate the upper pole does not work, which has been demonstrated on a number of follow up studies when this has been attempted.
Breast ImplantsBreast implants are used to increase the size and fullness of a woman’s breasts. Breast implants can be filled with silicone gel or a saline solution, and come in a variety of shapes and textures designed to achieve a certain aesthetic effect. Implants are typically inserted into a pocket created beneath the breast or behind the pectoralis muscle. Depending on certain circumstances, the implant may be inserted through the areola, the armpit, the belly button, or at the breast crease.
Greater self-confidence is one of the main benefits of breast implants. Women also happily report that they are able to expand their wardrobes to include styles of clothing that they couldn’t wear before.
Breast LiftBreast lift surgery (mastopexy) is used to treat breast sagging – the natural loss of elasticity, firmness and shape caused by pregnancy, nursing, excessive weight loss and aging. A breast lift typically consists of the removal of excess skin, tightening the skin and, in some cases, it is combined with breast augmentation in order to restore shape and volume.
Breast lifts result in “perkier” breasts and a more youthful overall look. Because of this, breast lifts are a popular component of the “Mommy Makeover,” a series of cosmetic procedures that is designed to reverse the effects of childbirth and nursing.
Breast ReductionExcessively large breasts can cause neck, back and shoulder pain which can lead to chronic health complications. Breast reduction surgery helps correct this issue by removing fatty tissue, glandular tissue and excess skin so that your breasts better match your frame size and become smaller.
Breast reduction helps alleviate strain on your neck and back and makes it easier to shop for clothing and exercise. Because of the long-term health benefits of breast reduction, these procedures are sometimes covered by insurance.
Dr. Taleisnik performs these breast surgeries and others at his Orange County plastic surgery practice. For more information, visit his website or call to schedule a free consultation.
I'd like to thank the guys at Plastic Surgery Studios for working with this over the last few months on this project. It was a lot of sweat equity to get to the finished product and we're very happy.
You can view 2 video news clips on the story here & here.
This is a really frightening story as it highlights the proliferation of unqualified and untrained physicians attempting to practice cosmetic plastic surgery procedures. If you are not trained in plastic surgery you should not be performing these procedures PERIOD. The inability of this eye surgeon to handle routine issues during breast implant surgery and the patient safety issues it raises should cause state medical boards to get involved with scope of practice issues and office based surgery regulations.
Ill-fitting trays and the inconvenience of overnight multiple treatments topped the list. The issue with DIY tooth whitening is that they are designed by law to be foolproof. The active ingredient in at-home tooth whiteners (carbamide peroxide) is a much weaker dose than what is used at the dentist’s office. That’s because if applied incorrectly or for too long, carbamide peroxide can eat away at your enamel and lead to persistent, stabbing pains in your teeth that last for several minutes at a time (called “zingers” by dentists).
When tooth whitening is performed by a cosmetic dentist, a number of measures are taken to ensure safe, effective results. For whitening pastes that use trays, a custom-fitted tray is professionally made for the patient so it conforms to their teeth perfectly. Patients wear the trays under close supervision for about an hour per session. Another way that cosmetic dentists get better results with less risk is by using laser tooth whitening. After a concentrated whitening agent is applied to the teeth, a special light is used to activate the peroxide molecules for more dramatic whitening. This procedure, too, is risky if performed by anyone other than a trained professional. For optimal results, a high energy light must be used in order to “excite” the molecules—but too much heat could damage the soft tissue of the tooth. The results of professional tooth whitening are more effective by several orders of magnitude when compared to at-home treatments.
Laser tooth whitening sessions typically last 30 minutes to an hour and desirable results can usually be achieved in a single visit. Results typically last between six months and a year. Touch-ups can usually be performed concurrently to your yearly or twice annual cleaning and hygiene appointment.
For many years, young minds have been greatly influenced by their favorite Hollywood stars – from their clothing and hair, to the products they sell or buy. Recently, with the sudden increase in publicly admitting that one has had some type of cosmetic plastic surgery procedure, teens are voicing their thoughts on the matter, and most are against cosmetic enhancements.
“I keep up with the world literature and frequently discuss the latest and greatest with the elite surgeons from around the world,” says Dr. Diamond. Upon hearing of the “Stem Cell Facelift,” he researched the procedure in order to learn more of this new phenomenon; and after reading various advertisements for this technique, Dr. Diamond has found that it is the same procedure that he has been performing for over 10 years. More commonly known as facial fat transfer, this method of enhancement has been around since the 1970s. Dr. Diamond uses the patient’s own body fat from the abdomen, thighs, or other areas in order to fill in wrinkles and lines on the face, as well as to create a more youthful and attractive contour.
Due to the lack of regulations placed on doctors on what they can or cannot advertise, many are taking advantage of the term, “Stem Cell Facelift,” and using it to sell a new procedure, according to Dr. Diamond. He says that fat cells help to restore loss of volume, and although they may contain some stem cells, there is no consistent or proven evidence that there is in fact a stem cell effect beyond what the fat cells can offer.
In practice for more than 10 years, Dr. Diamond has frequently combined the fat transfer technique when performing facelift surgery in order to provide optimal results. He stresses that if this “new spin on fat transfer” were a legitimately new procedure there would be published proof of it and every surgeon around the world would have been immediately informed. Dr. Diamond encourages patients to fully inform themselves on the technique and not allow doctors’ advertisements to mislead them.
Through open communication with patients and the use of innovative technology, Dr. Diamond uses his expertise to provide individuals with a truly refreshed facial appearance. “I have performed more facial procedures than most doctors,” says Diamond.
Typically, most implant reconstruction surgery involves placing a temporary implant called a "tissue expander" at the time of mastectomy that is later replaced by a permanent implant. As compared to a regular implant, a tissue expander is shaped different to maximize shape of the lower breast. It is decidedly more rigid and firm and then permanent devices, particular when silicone implants are later used. The advantage of such specialized devices is that they allow either 1) expansion of the skin by periodically adding fluid to them and 2) better resisting shrinkage of the skin following mastectomy.
Planned 2 stage surgery was popularized by Dr. Pat Maxwell (my mentor) and Dr. Scott Spears, and is well established as the most popular way to do breast reconstruction world wide. There has always been some interest in trying to skip the intermediate step, but doing it predictably is elusive. The big problem is tissue shrinkage of the skin, which as I mentioned is better resisted by the more rigid expander implant versus the softer permanent ones. The best candidates are those with smaller breasts who are having nipple-sparing procedures so that the native skin is 100% conserved. Even in that group, I find I'd be increasingly likely to go back and fat graft to camouflage the implant in a 2nd stage surgery. To my way of thinking, the benefit of single stage surgery just work enough to give up the benefit of the expander structural advantages.
After dispensing Allergan's Latisse medication for enhancing eyelash growth for over a year now, I'm officially impressed. It is hand's down the single most reliable treatment we offer to patients, and I have not seen anyone who does not respond well with it. Part of it's popularity is also the relatively low price tag (~ $120-$130 for a 2 month supply).
The "off the record" advice I have for Latisse users is that I think you can actually use it less frequently then daily and maintain results. I advise patients that once they get to a good clinical result that they try every other or every third day for application. Rationing the medication like that can make a single box extend for 3-4 months instead of 2 without much diminishing results. A good cosmetic budgeting strategy in these times!
If the roll out of 21st century health care could have been more poorly handled, I'm not sure how. From a slow bleed over the spring involving an ill-conceived re-imagination of American health care delivery by the Democrats we are now presented with statements from President Obama's electronic medical record (EMR) czar that a medical record does not have to actually reflect what your medical history is.
Dr. David Blumenthal, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, said in an interview with CNS news (see here) that patients can choose to omit procedures such as abortions, positive HIV tests, or other perceived embarrassing information from their electronic health records (EHR).This is concerning in that a purported health record reporting a patient's comprehensive history could be edited so as to be politically correct. As a provider it would be important (for instance) to know that a patient had hepatitis or HIV before scheduling major elective procedures so as to protect oneself and operating room staff from unnecessary exposure or even advise patients to avoid some procedures altogether. Much as a physician has an informed consent with a patient, a provider must be aware of any and all material issues when delivering care.
Breast augmentation, along with liposuction, is one of the most popular cosmetic surgery procedures today. But while many women are flocking to plastic surgeons to have implants put in, few consider the long term impacts – both in terms of their health and their pocketbook. A recent study by implant manufacturer Allergen found that about one in three women return to the doctor for a follow-up operation within four years of receiving a breast augmentation. This, however, comes as no surprise to most plastic surgery patients who have undergone the proper consultation. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) noted long ago that the majority of patients will need to have their implants removed or replaced either due to a rupture or other complications.
For the consumer, these concerns have touched off much consternation over which breast implants have the highest safety record and the most longevity. Lingering cautionary tales warn that certain breast implant types may require “surgical tune-ups,” which would mean increased medical risk and out-of-pocket expenses for life.
But much of this scrutiny and self-guided research is misplaced. Many breast implants carry lifetime warranties that cover the cost of the implant itself if it ruptures. The operating room expenses and the surgeon’s fees, however, are not covered. This is because the techniques and skill level wielded by the surgeon are far more variable and critical than the type of implant that is used. Choosing which implant and breast augmentation surgery will be best for a patient’s specific goals is a conditional judgment call which draws upon the expertise and experience of the doctor. Because of this, it is best for patients to engage in thorough consultations with a board certified plastic surgeon.
Recognizing this importance, many doctors, such as Dr. Miguel Delgado, a Marin breast augmentation specialist, offer free consultations for prospective breast implant patients. Dr. Delgado’s consultation includes a detailed discussion of the long-term impacts as well as computer imaging which allows patients to visualize their surgical plan. Extended consultations are the key to ensuring that patients have realistic pre- and post-surgery expectations.
This post is kind of an "inside baseball" topic about what surgeons look at when we judge our own or others work. One thing I fixate on more and more with cosmetic breast surgery is the position of the inframammary fold (IMF). The IMF (in layman's terms) is an anatomic landmark created by adherence of connective tissue to the chest wall. It defines the inferior border of the anatomic breast, and it's location makes it the most popular place for an incision to place breast implants via the "inframammary" approach.
One of the things I look for in someone I've operated on or whom comes in for revision surgery by another provider is where a prior inframammary scar is. If the scar is stable and in the position it was originally made in then I'm satisfied the surgical dissection was performed well. If the scar is now residing up on the skin of the lower breast, that suggests over release of the native IMF during prior surgery. Once violated, that anatomic border is hard to reliably recreate. Just a little extra attention during surgery can prevent a lot of issues down the road as it relates to this.
He is proud to offer men and women the chance to refresh their appearances through laser rejuvenation. Maintaining a youthful look and clear complexion is valued by most individuals, which inspires them to seek the assistance of a professional specialist, such as Dr. Vanek.
Those who suffer from such problems as wrinkles and fine lines, post-traumatic scars, acne scars, sun spots, freckles, and/or aging and sun-damaged skin, need not fret when in the care of Dr. Vanek. Using the Sciton ProFractional™ laser resurfacing system, he can improve these wide range of skin conditions with ease while refreshing the overall appearance of the skin. A laser resurfacing specialist near Lake County, Dr. Vanek ensures a safe experience, which offers patients the opportunity to be in and out with minimal downtime.
In addition to using the Sciton laser for the facial fractional resurfacing procedure, the special, innovative laser can be used for a variety of skin and body procedures, such as laser peels, skin tightening, laser hair removal, and phototherapy. The Sciton laser is also an effective tool in treating vascular and pigmented lesions.
Every patient’s skin is different; this is why the consultation is so important. It gives Dr. Vanek the chance to assess the patient’s condition and do a thorough evaluation of the skin. The type of treatment best recommended by Dr. Vanek will be determined by several factors, such as the patient’s goals and severity of his or her problem areas.
Medical tourism is the latest trend in both cosmetic surgery and travel. Here’s the set up: patients can fly to an exotic location, such as Dubai, and get cosmetic plastic surgery performed for a fraction of the price they’d pay back at home. With the money they save, they can afford to splurge on a fancy hotel or resort, where they can recover in peace, quiet, and luxury.
It seems like a win-win situation. Patients get a vacation and a makeover all at once and can come back looking “refreshed” after recovering away from the prying eyes of neighbors and co-workers. Meanwhile, the local economies get a nice financial shot in the arm while they are there. It sounds too good to be true, and it just might be.
A language barrier between you and your cosmetic surgeon isn’t particularly conducive to getting bespoke results from your breast augmentation or facelift. But that’s not the biggest danger. In the United States, patients can recognize qualified doctors by their board certifications, from such recognized associations as the American Board of Plastic Surgery (ABPS). Overseas, there is no such luxury and even less recourse – both medically and financially – if something goes wrong.
The worst case scenario was illustrated recently, when a woman from Chula Vista, California chose to visit a cosmetic surgeon just across the border in Tijuana. The woman went in for a liposuction treatment – a procedure which is very low risk when performed by qualified plastic surgeons – and tragically died from a heart attack, presumably related to medical complications during or after surgery. Investigations are still underway, but already, officials have found deficiencies in the clinic’s operating areas and record-keeping procedures.
While death is a rare and extreme consequence of visiting an under-qualified cosmetic surgeon, getting disappointing results or altogether botched procedures which must then be corrected back at home, happens all too often.
With this in mind, patients may want to re-evaluate the merits of medical tourism over visiting a Newport Beach liposuction clinic or an Orange County breast augmentation specialist closer to home. Destination plastic surgery is not a wholly bad idea if in the presence of a qualified doctor. It should not be just about getting a bargain discount.
Facial surgery is among the most popular procedures performed in the United States, especially in Beverly Hills; however, there has been a recent increase in nose surgery in Mansour, a suburb in Iraq. Dr. Abbas al-Sihn has reportedly seen his patient rate jump 50 percent in the past year, and has performed approximately 1,400 nasal procedures in recent years. Along with nose surgery, Dr. Sihn performs other facial procedures, including corrective surgery for individuals who have congenital deformities or war injuries.
Due to decreased violence in the area and low cost of the procedure, Dr. Sihn’s clinic is filled with many interested candidates every day. In addition, the summer season is likely to see an even further increase in patients as students are on vacation and will have the necessary time for recovery post-surgery. Many of the female patients who undergo rhinoplasty surgery do so in order to achieve a more attractive facial appearance, which they believe will lead to marriage at an earlier age than most. Others opt for nose surgery in order to look like the women they see in movies and magazines. Rhinoplasty has often helped women feel prettier and more confident in their facial appearance.
Many international patients will also seek doctors in outside countries. Beverly Hills rhinoplasty surgeon Dr. Jason B. Diamond is one of the most sought-after facial plastic surgeons attracting patients from all over the world. This increased interest in cosmetic surgery and medical tourism has influenced the overall demand for surgeons worldwide.
This raises a valid question among plastic surgeons, parents and teenagers: How young is too young to receive cosmetic surgery?
According to statistics from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), 209,553 procedures were performed last year on patients between ages 13 and 19, making up about two percent of all surgical and non-surgical cosmetic procedures performed in 2009. The most common surgical procedures included otoplasty (ear surgery), rhinoplasty, breast augmentation, liposuction and male breast reduction (gynecomastia). Granted, reconstructive surgeries – for example, to correct birth defects or a broken nose – account for some of these procedures. But others, such as liposuction, breast augmentation, and breast reduction were certainly elective.
There is, of course, no hard and fast rule for determining the right age to receive plastic surgery. Sometimes their insecurities will be outgrown once the teen matures physically and emotionally. Doctors, parents and teens must approach the question on a case-by-case basis. There are extenuating circumstances, such as a teenager who experiences back pain due to overly large breasts, as well as gray areas, such as the 18-year old Australian girl who received a vaginoplasty, tummy tuck, and breast augmentation two years after giving birth (such procedures are commonly referred to as part of a “Mommy Makeover”). Who plays which role in the judgment call—the doctor, the parent or a minor or adult teenager—will likely remain a topic of debate as cosmetic surgery patients trend younger and younger.
Dr. Delgado opened his cosmetic surgery centers with the vision of having the best-equipped, best-staffed, and patient-friendly surgery centers in the Bay Area. He is able to achieve this distinction due to the fact that he personally supervises all aspects of running the surgery center. He spends a great deal of time mastering the latest in surgical procedures, many times requiring new equipment. If it is of benefit to his patients, he will carry it.
Since he began practicing plastic surgery in 1988, Dr. Delgado has perfected many surgical techniques of the face, breast, and body that are unique to his practice. His patients have attested to his expertise based on their surgical outcome. Many of his San Francisco Bay Area breast augmentation patients state how natural their breasts look with hardly any visible scarring.
As Dr. Delgado celebrates his practice’s 10-year tenure in the Bay Area, he also reflects on years of achievement and innovation. Over the years, Dr. Delgado has been featured in several documentaries worldwide, including a documentary by English pop singer Louise Redkamp, who wanted to show the journey of a woman seeking a “mommy makeover.” He is also internationally recognized as an expert in gynecomastia surgery, which lead to the launch of his gynecomastia specialty site and inclusion on the informative industry site gynecomastia.org.
His strive for excellence and dedication to his patients and his practice have set him apart from other San Francisco area cosmetic surgeons and have made this milestone something to celebrate.
Confirming what many Plastic Surgeons have noticed, a study just published suggests that patients who maintain their treatments with BOTOX for several years need fewer treatments to maintain their results.
On average, someone receiving treatment of their forehead or glabella (area between the eyebrow) requires retreatment every 3-4 months. The new study from the OHSU School of Medicine in Portland,OR shows that after 2 years of consistent treatments, the interval between treatment could be extended to 6 months with no difference in results.
Sometimes things that are so obviously intuitive still have to be validated. After a number of years of controversy, an increasing utilized surgery to prevent breast cancer is now being shown to be quite effective in both risk reduction and cancer-related mortality. The study "A Population-Based Study of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy and Survival Outcomes of Breast Cancer Patients" is published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and can be seen here.
Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, (CPM), a preventive procedure to remove the unaffected breast in patients with disease in one breast, clearly appears to offer a survival benefit to breast cancer patients age 50 and younger, who have early-stage disease and are estrogen receptor (ER) negative. We've known for several decades that CPM reduced the risk of developing breast cancer, but it was always more elusive to show that it actually saved lives at the end of the day. The practice of CPM has expanded significantly, with >150% growth in the number of such surgeries since the late 1990's.
How effective is CPM? Those younger than age 50 with early stage cancer with ER negative disease had a survival benefit of almost 5% at five years. For a therapeutic intervention for cancer, 5% is really substantial. You can take it to the bank that following these patients out even farther that we will show increased survival benefit with longer follow-up in the population. This is due to the fact that
- the patient's likelihood of getting a second breast cancer in the non-removed breast increases with time
- patients with prior breast cancer are among the highest risk group for developing breast cancer
Women older then 50 have a little more complicated decision. In cold, hard actuarial terms you are more likely to die from something else before a new breast cancer would kill you. On the other hand, steadily increasing lifespans of adult Americans has made some of these kind of statistical bets have to be reexamined. I would guess that the reported benefit of CPM gradually increases towards 60 years in future clinical guidelines.
In honor of this, I'd like to point out the "slick deal" Allergan is offering on it's products thru July. Allergan is the world's largest breast implant manufacturer, but they also make BOTOX, the dermal filler Juvederm, and the eyelash growing solution Lastisse. Thru July they are offering a $50 rebate coupon on either BOTOX or Juvederm purchases when you try Latisse. Details are available here.
- Monarch Medspa in King of Prussia, Pa.
- Spa 35 in Boise, Idaho
- Medical Cosmetic Enhancements in Chevy Chase, Md.
- Innovative Directions in Health in Edina, Minn.
- PURE Med Spa in Boca Raton, Fla.
- All About You Med Spa in Madison, Ind
FYI If you are interested in reading about mesotherapy, I've written several entries about it since 2007 which can be seen here.
If you'll remember in 2009, we had a hailstorm of controversy here in America when it was suggested that our current guidelines of starting screening mammograms at 40 was neither cost-effective nor evidence-based for affecting breast cancer mortality. There was a lot of ignorant political grandstanding on this as a woman's issue (step forward congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz D-FL) and Democrat's were furious that this kind of recommendation was coming out during their poorly-conceived sales job on health care reform. God forbid there be any notion that evidence based medicine might infringe upon you right to insist on your ______ (Mammogram, CT Scan, MRI, back surgery, etc....) without considering considering the cost or efficacy. It was a lie then and it's a lie now.
California is an iconic part of the United States that sets many trends. Unfortunately one of these trends is the growth of under or untrained physicians performing cosmetic surgery procedures.
A snapshot of who is performing cosmetic procedures in California, published this month in the journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, examined 1,876 cosmetic practitioners from San Diego to Los Angeles. Only 495 of them were actually trained in plastic surgery. Primary care physicians with no surgical training to speak of made up the 4th group of liposuction providers following plastic surgeons, dermatologists and otolaryngologists.
Scary, Scary stuff! It seems obvious, but always look for a board certified Plastic Surgeon if you're considering plastic surgery.
Florida has a bill being considered in it's legislature that would extend the concept of "sovereign immunity" to providers in the Emergency Room. Such status makes providers de facto ``agents of the state'', and consequently immune from medical malpractice lawsuits. In that setting the state would administer any successful claim, which would be subject to the sovereign immunity cap of $200,000. To recover more, victims would need to file a claims bill in the Florida Legislature. This turns the malpractice system into more of a no-fault worker's comp type of arrangement.
You can't help but think that would be a more efficient and fair way to administer such claims. Of course, trial lawyers are screaming bloody murder, but keeping them happy is low on society's to-do list (unless you are a Democrat politician accepting their
Read more at the Miami Herald about this interesting idea.
The potential of conflicts (COI) for physicians who accept stipends or consulting fees has led some medical schools to formally prohibit their clinical faculty from accepting such compensation. This movement led to the resignation of a number of distinguished doctors who participate in industry sponsored research, consulting arrangements, and educational events. While not universal among medical schools at this point, this trend is likely to keep some of the best and brightest out of academics. Some consultants and speaks make tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to supplement their clinical practice. As academic overhead tends to run high, this opportunity to make alternative income allowed some people to stay in academic surgery who might otherwise leave for pure private practice setups.
Stanford University has now (read here) taken the dramatic step of restricting even volunteer clinical or "adjunct" faculty from this as well. This type of restriction could have a potentially devastating effect on Plastic Surgery training as a number of the most prominent programs in plastic surgery (NYU, University of Texas-Southwestern, Emory, Johns Hopkins, Georgetown, Michigan, etc...) feature many active and adjunct surgeons whom recieve industry support or give educational seminars. The loss of access to these surgeons for training for real (or imagined) COI would be a big blow to the field. In January, the issue was highlighted in a when Boston doctor and well known Allergist-Immunologist, Dr. Lawrence DuBuske, resigned his Harvard medical school position rather than give up his speaking engagements. DuBuske got almost $99,000 from pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline in three months last year, more than any other doctor in the country.
While most speakers don't score that much in fees, it can add up to a substantial supplement to someone's clinical practice. COI have been managed in recent years by more stringent required disclosures by speakers at meetings and in our medical journals. The FDA has made efforts to remove panel members from hearings with any potential COI from drug and medical device hearings, including the hearings over silicone gel breast implants earlier this decade. The loggerheads with that idea is that many of the experts in these specialized fields inevitably have some COI from funding, speaking fees, stock holdings, or even intellectual property (shared or owned patents). Scott Spears (chief of plastic surgery at Georgetown University) is one of the world's experts on breast implants, but his testimony before the FDA during the hearings on silicone breast implants was attacked by activists trying to prevent the reintroduction of those devices by any means necessary because he is involved with dozens of companies in R&D, educational endeavours, and speaking sessions.
IMO, as long as clear disclosure by physicians is made these COI issues are manageable as long we always maintain some skepticism about what we are told and review data critically.
As a physician, I have a vested interest in following the debate on reinventing the American health care system. Listening to these discussions, I find there is a distinct lack of candor about where the costs are in the system and little insight into where true potential savings are.
- MYTH: Electronic medical records (EMR) will save money
FACT: No one can plausibly explain how any money will be saved. EMR does offer portablility of records, but does nothing to control cost in and of itself. The costs for physicans and hospitals to purchase equipment and pay ongoing subscription and IT costs will be a HUGE burden.
WINNERS: EMR vendors, IT companies, database miners and researchers
LOSERS: productivity of an office
OFF THE RECORD: Why should I be expected to subsidize a national EMR system through my office overhead when it's uncompensated and will surely be used down the road to squeeze providers?
- MYTH: Primary Care Providers (PCP) are the sacred cow in reform and hold the key to holding costs down
FACT: The PCP workforce is under and ill-equiped to treat a mass influx of patients into the system. It will take years to retool the training infrastructure to handle the volume of patients. Massachusetts experiment in universal care for it's citizens has been crippled by an insufficent number of participating PCP MD's.
WINNERS: PCP will be getting a small increase in fees for routine office visits per the federal government at the expense of some specialists (Cardiologists, Radioloists, & GI docs mostly)
LOSERS: specialists physicians
OFF THE RECORD: Medical students will continue to avoid primary care because they percieve it tedious and they realize that nurse practictioners can do 85%+ of what they do for 50 cents on the dollar. It's also intuitive that specialists who work more and have trained 2-3x as long would be expected to earn a good deal more then PCP's.
- MYTH: It's hard to find savings in healthcare!
FACT: There are some big savings in proceduras that could clearly be achieved with little affect on quality of care. Rigidly restricting (thru evidence based indications) the use of knee/shoulder arthroscopy and joint replacement surgery by orthopedists, upper/lower endoscopy by Gastroentreologists, coronary catheterization and stents by Cardiologists, lumbar spine surgery by Neurosurgeons, and the overuse of CT/MRI scans by all of us are the low hanging fruit in cost containment.
WINNERS: whoever's paying the bill (the feds or insurers)
LOSERS: whichever doctor's procedures are restricted and the idea (endorsed by my mother, wife, and many non-thoughtful doctors) that procedure or study "x" should be done "Just to be safe."
OFF THE RECORD: There's no way to make the numbers work without doing these kinds of restrictions. BTW I would not want to be a radiologist who expects to make big bucks in the next few years as they're about to get scalped.
One thing that makes me shake my head is the disconnect in the popular press when they talk about how individual doctor's practices are coping or planning to cope with whatever's coming. My favorite is the young PCP who is featured just out of residency boldly proclaiming things about how they're going to reinvent the doctor patient relationship by their use of technology.
I'm not exactly sure how you would trigger it, but presumable you could stab into the implant with a wire or pin and wire it to a celphone or battery (this type of liquid material can be ingnited with an electic charge)
The issue of health insurance denying authorization for surgery or denying claims for procedures already performed is one of the most frustrating parts of being in practice. The New York Times featured a story on this entitiled , "Fighting Denied Claims Requires Perseverance" as it related to a patient fighting her insurer for coverage of an arthroscopic hip surgery.
To me the article is less about a hip operation, but rather represents the collisions of four forces
1. Insurers trying to control their cost and make money by limiting care
2. The people who pay for employee's health care trying to control their expenses by restricting unlimited utilization
3. Patients who want what they want, when they want it (but are removed from the actual costs of these procedures)
4. Physicians who are interested in advanced techniques and technology for procedures (who are slightly less, but still somewhat removed from the costs of these procedures)
As a society, America has not learned to reconcile our desire for expensive (and often futile) treatments with the fact that someone has to pay for all this. The congressional healthcare "summit" yesterday was a grotesque kabuki theater filled with political spin and lip service to the tough choices that have to be made to make the health care system sustainable. In summary: Democrats reflexively refuse to offend unions and ambulance chasers while afraid to limit or trim entitlement growth, while Republicans offer tepid (but useful) reform at the margins and refuse to budge on likely required tax increases.
The article about some advanced new orthopedic technique parallels the series the Times ran this week on an advanced melanoma treatment which described (what I presume) what was a very expensive palliative treatment which offered no cure and "worked" such that lifespan was extended for short periods of time. This kind of treatment is not sustainable for our health system, and focusing on it adds little value for considering "bending the curve" of costs. Ultimately, we'll have to decide whether we want society to pay for such exotic medical care, or expect patients to finance their own surgeries and treatments that go above and beyond approved evidence-based medicine (EBM) treatments.
Mayo exists as a really weird historical quick of American Medicine. It established a reputation for excellence generations ago and managed to make that name a "franchise" for medical care. While Mayo has some fine clinicians, it's kind of well known among most surgeons that a place like Mayo has had a hard time keeping the talent happy in terms of compensation and selling rural Minnesota as a destination to live. It takes a certain kind of personality to accept the trade-offs of that clinic system, but security of such a protected & salaried position is certainly going to become more common.
Exactly how Mayo operates as to your insurance has always been confusing to many people, and the Medicare announcement had a lot of people looking for answers. I found a great letter to the Editor in a Boston Globe article that is the most succinct summary to date
I am a surgeon practicing in Phoenix, Arizona. I also grew up in Rochester, MN where my father was a physician at Mayo for 35+ years. It's time to set the record straight on the misconceptions of the Mayo Clinic as a model for efficiency.
1)Mayo does not take Medicare, as outlined in the article.
2)Mayo does not take Medicare supplements for new patients.
3)Mayo has never emphasized primary care and in fact closed their family practice program here in Phoenix at a time of acute shortage in our state, citing costs. Primary care is labor intensive
4)Mayo refuses to provide care to citizens of Phoenix, the city in which they reside, in need of specialty care in situations where their specialists have availability and where there are acute shortages in the community. Their decisions for taking patients is made by administrators, not doctors, based solely on insurance. Doctor to doctor requests are frequently denied.
5)The Dartmouth Study, touted by many as the proof of efficiency of the Model compared Medicare expenditures county by county, throughout the country. Mayo Rochester resides in a rural farming community, where Medicare usage would be expected to be low. But since Mayo does cares for virtually none of these Medicare patients, extrapolating the cost efficiency of Mayo is simply wrong.
6) Mayo's model is very much a boutique model, catering to the wealthy, those willing to pay extra or out of pocket for their care or those with very good indemnity insurance coverage. Mayo is not in network for virtually every HMO and PPO plan, based simply on the high reimbursements demanded by Mayo. Mayo quotes 2-4 times the cost for surgical procedures that those in the community at large get paid.
7)Mayo relies heavily on the$ 200-300M/year in endowment money each year, to supplement their payrolls, build their buildings, fund research, and fund their pension plan. The cost structure of the Mayo Clinic is prohibitive without this additional funding. In this recession, Mayo is having considerable difficulty because it has been having appealing to those who used to come out of pocket for perceived more individualized care.
7) Community physicians in Jacksonville and Phoenix/Scottsdale assume virtually all the care for those in need, regardless of ability to pay.
I have always been of the belief that Mayo has the perfect right to practice Medicine the way in which they believe. Their doctors are dedicated to their mission and contribute each and everyday to the growth of medical knowledge.
Please, however be honest about what the Mayo model is: exclusive medical care for those with means and those willing to pay considerably more for their services.
The bane of existence for plastic surgeons who treat breast cancer is the deliverence of external beam radiation (XRT) after surgery. It creates a hostile environment in the tissue exacerbating stiffening of the skin and scar formation. Above all else, it is the most disruptive factor for getting good results from breast reconstruction surgery.
The negative experiences of plastic surgeons with XRT in this setting has produced the interesting survey results among us, that we would overwhelmingly suggest our spouse (or self in the case of women plastic surgeons) get a mastectomy instead of lumpectomy and XRT. Most women recieving mastectomy would not be suggested XRT except in rare instance involving more aggressive tumors, innvolvement of the chest wall, or extensive spread to the armpit (axillary) lymph nodes. In contrast, European physicians are much more likely to perscribe XRT to the chest and axillae. The practice patterns have to do with how the different countries interpret the same literature regarding this practice. IMO, the rationale Europeans emply to justify XRT is pretty sketchy and is hard to show much difference in outcomes.
On the front page of the New York Times today (click here) is an absolutely horrifying story on the frequent misdosing of patients recieving XRT in the NYC metro area entitled, "Radiation Offers New Cures, and Ways to Do Harm ". Some of the stories are jaw-dropping in how the series of events led to serious adverse events. It is absolutely incovievable that the delivery of XRT, a largely computer driven process, should be doing this. The number of radiation therapists, nurses, and techs who had to drop the ball or ignore clear warnings for these events to happen is staggering. Heads will roll in the Big Apple hospitals for this!
Since I last wrote, the Senate voted their version of the health care reform bill to consensus conference with the house. Even for Washington, the "sausage making" of this bill was pretty ugly. The naked bribes required to get Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) & Mary Landrieu's (D-LA) votes were particularly offensive, and quite possibly illegal (see here).
One story that is very symbolic but did not get much play in the media was the announcement that one of the Mayo Clinic satellites in Arizona would no longer see Medicare patients. Mayo is doing this because it lost $840 million last year on Medicare patients, and specifically it's Arizona hospital and four primary-care clinics lost over $120 million. No matter how efficient you are, that is unsustainable. It must be particularly embarrassing to Pres. Obama to see his "model" franchise for health care telling him to his face that he does not understand the effects of the legislation both he and his party are foisting on America.
To doctors in practice, it was always amusing to see the Mayo clinic proposed as a replicable model for our health care system. For starters they operate in a coccon on a largely wealthy, educated, and homogenous patient group. Even more ironic is the fact that the Mayo clinic doesn't even really take Medicare, but exists as a "non participant (non-par)" where they reserve the right to balance bill the patient for what they think their services are worth. From the Mayo website
"Mayo Clinic is a non-participating provider in the Medicare Program. We do not accept assignment on claims submitted to Part B Medicare except:
•where the law requires us to;
•in the case of documented financial hardship;
•when the supplemental insurance is a contract payer;
•when the patient resides in the state of Minnesota.
When claims are sent to Medicare on a non-assigned basis, the benefits for the services are sent directly to the patient. Mayo Clinic is entitled to bill the patient for the difference between our billed amount and Medicare's approved amount. We do not have to accept Medicare's approved amount as payment in full. Mayo Clinic limits its charges according to the limits set forth by HCFA for the Medicare program. Mayo hospital claims are sent assigned."
Expect to see real push back from providers at other places who treat these patients.