by YoursChelbie 10 Replies latest watchtower medical
IF anyone is familiar with health insurance claims, could you elaborate on the cost difference between a patient being admistered whole blood during surgery as opposed to blood expanders? Are health insurance companies hesitant to pay for non blood products? Is this the reason Doctors don't use them as standard practice?
Why would medical opinions be given by the WTS advocating a certain procedure if they can't help to defray the costs of it?
YC
Last time I heard, the value for a single unit [approx 350 cc] of donated PRBC's (packed Red Blood Cells) is about $200 in Canada. This factors in the cost of all the testing that is done, the separating of the whole blood into its 4 major components and various fractions.
Plasma volume expanders that are listed on the Blood Card like Normal Saline [9% concentration] and Ringer's Lactate is a fraction of that.
Other options like Pentastarch and Hetastarch (which are colloidal suspensions included in a Saline base solution) are more expensive than Normal Saline and / or Ringer's Lactate, however I'm not privy to the purchasing information to say exact amounts. clarification by edit: Still definitely much less expensive than using blood.
Here Scully, have a look at this http://www.noblood.org/forum/showthread.php?t=370
Dave
Dave, do you think the author of that post is a JW?
Cell savers are definitely a good thing, but I thought JWs aren't supposed to agree to their use due to blood loss happening externally first before salvage. Has this changed?
Watchtower 2000 10/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***... during certain surgical procedures, some blood may be diverted from the body in a process called hemodilution. The blood remaining in the patient is diluted. Later, his blood in the external circuit is directed back into him, thus bringing his blood count closer to normal. Similarly, blood that flows into a wound may be captured and filtered so that the red cells can be returned to the patient; this is called cell salvage. In a different process, blood may be directed to a machine that temporarily carries on a function normally handled by body organs (for example, the heart, lungs, or kidneys). The blood from the machine is then returned to the patient. In other procedures, blood is diverted to a separator (centrifuge) so that damaging or defective portions of it can be eliminated. Or the goal may be to isolate some of a blood component and apply that elsewhere on the body. There are also tests in which a quantity of blood is withdrawn in order to tag it or to mix it with medicine, whereupon it is put back into the patient.
The details may vary, and new procedures, treatments, and tests will certainly be developed. It is not our place to analyze each variation and render a decision. A Christian must decide for himself how his own blood will be handled in the course of a surgical procedure, medical test, or current therapy. Ahead of time, he should obtain from the doctor or technician the facts about what might be done with his blood during the procedure. Then he must decide according to what his conscience permits....
QUESTIONS
TO ASK YOURSELFIf some of my blood will be diverted outside my body and the flow might even be interrupted for a time, will my conscience allow me to view this blood as still part of me, thus not requiring that it be ‘poured out on the ground’?
Would my Bible-trained conscience be troubled if during a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure some of my own blood was withdrawn, modified, and directed back into (or onto) my body?
Scully,
Iv read a lot from that forum, The guy who wrote that seems to be a doctor who is more on the administrative side than anything else and he pushed bloodless surgery more for economic cost savings for his bottom line more than anything else.
Dave
Are health insurance companies hesitant to pay for non blood products? Is this the reason Doctors don't use them as standard practice?
Scully's post is correct, most often expanders are cheaper to use than blood. Blood goes through an expensive process to ready it for transfusion.
Contrary to what most people think, it is not physicians who are penny pinchers. They have some knowledge about the costs of supplies, but not in-depth. Their job is to treat the patients to the best of their ability, not to be concerned about a few hundred bucks the insurance might not cover (which is a drop in the bucket considering what a hospital bill costs).
Case Managers are more familiar with the specifics about costs and what each individual plan will cover, but I seriously doubt their input is a major factor in the decision to recommend blood vs. expanders, which most likely occurs in emergencies.
Keep in mind in the US there are thousands upon thousands of different health insurance plans, all with different coverage rules. (For ex, people think if they have Blue Cross it is the same policy nationwide, SO not true.) Physicians do not even try to memorize tens of thousands of ever-changing insurance policies.
Blood units are never an issue for a health insurance carrier. Ever.
Medicare pays for your first three units, they you do a co-insurance I believe.
Case managers are looking to treat cases aggresively and minimize hospital time, not withhold treatment.
Lisa
Still definitely much less expensive than using blood.
The point is: What are their oxygen/CO2 carrying capacity? Regulating blood pressure does nothing for tissue oxygenation. Sometimes, packed RBC are the only chance to save your life, and infection or rejection can be managed.
Blood units are never an issue for a health insurance carrier. Ever.Medicare pays for your first three units, they you do a co-insurance I believe.
Case managers are looking to treat cases aggresively and minimize hospital time, not withhold treatment.
It is an issue. I've had to pay out of pocket for blood products and other emergency care. There is no coverage guarantee ever. Insurance companies are in the business to make a profit and they will do whatever they can to minimize their payments.
3 units, IF a person is on Medicare, is an insignificant amount for some of us.
Of course Case Mgrs are not looking to withhold treatment. I didn't say that. To clarify, any good Case Mgr will assist a patient in understanding their health insurance coverage when possible. That means they may inform the patient about what their insurance is willing to pay for as far as treatment options.
