Them Companies
Joined: 25 May 2003
Posts: 1
Posted: Sun May 25, 2003 5:50 am Post subject: I can hear it now.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the companies whinning away about having to provide more and longer dialysis for those patients who want it. <
>I can guarentee you that they will complain that they do not have the extra slots for extra runs, that it will screw up their precious schedules to provide longer runs for those who want it, and that staff will refuse to work longer hours, they can't afford to hire more staff for the extended hours as they are understaffed as it is, the cost will just be too high and will cut into their precious profits. I am sure that they will come up with more excuses, but these are the ones I have heard over and over again for years. <
> Every few years the companies encourage the patients to write letters to petition for more funds for dialysis. Some even go so far as to provide the letter that just needs your name filled in and to sign it along with an envelope, stamped and addressed. Sorry but I can't help but think this is another ploy in a long list of ploys that didn't work in years past. :">
*******************************************************************
David
Joined: 25 May 2003
Posts: 2
Posted: Sun May 25, 2003 6:26 am Post subject: dialysis worth paying more for
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been in 4 different units so far and its the same "f" rated care everytime. Seems pretty outrageous that companies want more bucks when they aren't delivering quality service. If there are some quality units I'd like to know where they are.
*******************************************************************
plugger
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
Posts: 236
Posted: Sun May 25, 2003 7:22 am Post subject: price FYI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the price of the Iraq war about $60 billion? Compare that to the price tag for this bill. Last I heard, it was $400 million. $400 million over 5 years! It was described by one congressional aide as "budget dust". And a quote from Dr. Blagg "This reflects not taking into account the very significant savings in Part A Medicare from hospital savings and an overestimate in the penetration rate."<
><
>Worried that patients who want more frequent dialysis won't get it? Yes there might be some problems, but at least there will be some incentive.<
><
>I can understand being worried these companies will find loopholes and ways to abuse this bill. But I still believe it is a chance worth taking. Whatever your position is, you believe this bill will improve dialysis as it is, you believe it needs standards along with it, or whatever. It would be hard to argue it couldn't hurt to write and state your position. I provided a link to write congress at the bottom of my website.<
><
>sky.prohosting.com/cschwab/
*******************************************************************
ridgerunner
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
Posts: 101
Posted: Sun May 25, 2003 8:29 am Post subject: hr1004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COST when dialysis first came ouy the cost was supposed to be at the most a few million bot look what we have got is billions. if the bill passes the cost will be between 3 to 4 billion not million and grow from there. the corps will cut the treatment to 2 hours are less. THEY ARE DOING SOME REASERCH ON THIS NOW. then they will makes their claims just like reuse. they want to destroy home treatment because it shows them up. for the ones now on home care do not think you have it made there can be a change in ownership and you are back in the clinic. i know of this happening to.
*******************************************************************
Marty
Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 160
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 2:25 am Post subject: More Treatments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we are getting the cart ahead of the horse. First of all more treatments need to be paid for so there is an incentive to give more dialysis. What will happen after this remains to be seen. If and I say IF the dialysis companies use this to rip off the government then CMS can change the rules of payment. I think there is a whole lot of worry and anticipation going on about what "could" happen and the benefit to the patients is being minimized. After all it wasn't that long ago that CMS wanted to reduce the payments for home patients. This gives me a strong indication that if more treatments are provided and paid for and there is $$$ abuse in the system it won't be overlooked. I don't think there is anything wrong with doing a study on 2 to 3 hr. treatments daily compared with in-center and slow nocturnal. I for one would like to know what does provide the best health for patients. Our center is starting a daily program with the Askys simply because they believe daily dialysis is better than 3x a week and some patients prefer to run sometime during the day and not at night. The patients that work seem to prefer this as they can do dialysis after work and don't have to concern themselves with being awaken during the night by a machine alarm. It also gives them more time to do the chores that go along with home dialysis. More working patients would also relieve the cost burden to Medicare.<
><
>Let's not forget there are many dialysis patients with different lifestyles and we need to do what is best for them to maintain a quality lifestyle as well as good health. From all the research it has proven that 3x a week doesn't make it for everyone; in fact very few. I truly believe the time has come to take more treatments seriously and the problems that come with that if any should be dealt with when they arrive. With every change in this world there is a risk involved but without taking these risks we would never move toward something better. <
><
>I truly don't want to see the day, when only the rich can afford more treatments because they have the means to pay for them out of pocket. <
><
>My last in-center visit convinced me that it wasn't only the patients suffering with 3x a week. It was the families too. The husband were so fatigued and dealing with low BP the wives had to quit their jobs to drive the husband to the center. This also contributes to the cost of dialysis you have family members no longer paying taxes because they can't work and provide transportation at the same time. With more treatments these men could very well become independent again and drive themselves and the wives could go back to work. I can tell you the 2 years I quit working so I could drive my dad to the center would have paid for the extra treatments if I had been paying my usual taxes.<
><
>I'm not going to respond anymore on this subject; I think everything has been covered and those who believe it is worth it to try and stop the companies from making more money are not going to see it any other way.
*******************************************************************
Lin
Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 337
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 2:33 am Post subject: The biggest reason
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that they don't want to pump more money into extra txs/more dialysis is because the myth persists about older people, and most of the dialysis pts. are older. For years I've heard all of the ills of the elderly blamed simply on old age, but it's just a myth, as many who have received adequate treatments can attest to!<
>Ridgerunner feels younger and better, and is even able to work. Marty's reports that her dad feels so much better and is happier and has a better quality of life. ALL pts. can have this, not just home hemo pts.. We have the technology, and it really shouldn't cost much more, if anything at all. The units can offer longer slower txs., slow nocturnal both in or out of units, home hemo, ect.. Each person has different needs, and just like each of us has to wear a different shoe size, so shall we have a different need when it comes to dialysis. The industry has been too narrow minded and tried to shove one way down our throats for far too long. Choice is the answer, and this bill may very well provide the choices in tx. we all deserve. In the long run it will benefit all involved by giving those who need it and want it tx. at home, thus opening up chairs and beds to other pts.. If one chooses
to stay in center it will provide more hours, or nightime hours and better txs. so that many can return to gainfull employment (pay taxes!) so I see the whole deal as a win/win situation. Just my thoughts! Lin.
*******************************************************************
testing
Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 1
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 8:04 am Post subject: testing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a b c d e
*******************************************************************
ridge runner
Joined: 26 May 2003
Posts: 1
Posted: Mon May 26, 2003 10:37 am Post subject: hr1004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here i go again. I AM FOR MORE FREQUENT AND LONGER DIALYSIS. I THINK THE CLINICS SHOULD BE PAID MORE. IT IS COST EFFECTIVE. THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE DO NOT TRUST THE CLINICS ANY MORE THAN I DO THE SERVICE STATIONS TO GIVE ME FULL MEASURE IF THEY ARE NOT CHECKED BY THE GOVT. the adverage service the corner have their scales checked by the govt as well as the octane rating. the people supply us our food or our gas clothing cars and anything else must meet certain standards. i know that the people that run our health service are no more dishonest than the person that runs the corner meat market. i know because i was one of them for 43 years.
*******************************************************************
Not Bright
Joined: 05 Jun 2003
Posts: 1
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2003 3:56 am Post subject: $$$$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not educated enough to understand the article completely but on renal web there are links to articles which takes you to a subject about the government checking the cost of dialysis compared to patient benefit. Seems as though they are looking to adopt a different payment method. I have no way of knowing if this is a good thing or bad thing because I don't understand any of it. But I am making this post as I agree with Marty this isn't the place to argue about the money, the government is definitely watching that with a close eye. In facts it is almost amazing how "fast" they can work on the money aspect of health care and be sooo slow at aiding and abedding new technology or medicines that improve health care of patients in all categories.
*******************************************************************
plugger
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
Posts: 236
Posted: Sat Aug 16, 2003 12:27 am Post subject: we need both
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To John,<
><
>Rather than having to rehash some of the previous discussions, I thought I would
ing up this thread. <
><
>But to continue this discussion, I'm for standards and this bill both. With both this industry could really turn around. I'm hoping and praying both happen. But even without standards, I have to ask myself would dialysis still be better off? I firmly believe yes it would be!
