Print

Print


Re the BTW the radiologist had four ultrasounds with techs and the
studies spoken of were sides (i.e.1200 individuals per week).  Yes, they
were tired afterwards and keeping qualified people was such a problem
that the service folded (well, that, plus the fact that he started out
billing insurance and got into a LARGE negative public opinion hole).

Bart

Diana Ross wrote:
>
> In a message dated 8/13/00 12:01:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << It seems to me that one of the questions we might ask is the question of
>  whether more patients with disease are getting referred for appropriate
>  (i.e. ICAVL lab)testing after life line comes through a community. As it
>  is we are waiting for patients to have some sort of symptom (yes, some
>  have called bruit a symptom) before we test them. >>
>
> And this is because the HMO's demand it.  They are directly opposed to such
> exams when they should encourage them.  The sense is that all this testing
> pushes up the cost of health care.
>
> I think that it keeps it lower, but who am I?  The same argument has had to
> be made for providing prescription coverage for Medicare patients.  FINALLY
> the Republicans are letting that go through!  Compassionate Conservatism!
>
> I just want to know that Lifeline and all these other places are not MISSING
> disease or misinterpreting the results.  that is my only concern.
>
> BTW, how did that doc do 2400 exams in a WEEK?  That's almost 500 exams per
> DAY!  How did that work?  Wasn't everyone kinda tired?  How many machines and
> sonographers/technologists did he employ?
>
> Diana Ross, RT, RDMS