Re: 12 visit chiro limit in universal plan

[Guest guest]

Vern and Docs:

All we and/or the public should request re. chiro care in such a

system is this:

That we get the SAME " level " of coverage as ANY OTHER and EVERY OTHER

health professional...no better , no worse!!

Example: To whatever degree medical care or dental care is " covered "

for clinically-necessary care, we should be " covered " for

clinically-necessary care. Are they going to put a limit on the number

of cavities that can be filled per year? (Perhaps, but I doubt

it)...are they going to put a limit on the number of surgeries per

patient per year (Perhaps, but I doubt it) are they going to put a

limit on the number of drugs a person can be prescibed? (perhaps, but

I doubt it).

I say NO COMPROMISE ON THE FOLLOWING:

1-Clinical autonomy: NO MD referral or involvement needed of any kind

for any reason (or no deal).

2-Full scope of practice ONLY (or no deal). No BS, or monky biz re.

our license to perform , order radiography or MRI do adjunctive

procedures, or limits re. type of condition/DX etc.

3-NO MEDICARE STYLE PROGRAM, NOT EVEN THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT IT IS

ALREADY A FAILURE AND MANY OF THE DOCS WANT OUT.

4-NO OMAP-STYLE PROGRAM.

5- No VA style program.

5- NO " WINDOW " OF CLINICAL CARE (IE 60 DAYS ETC)

I hate number limits but I WOULD support a number limit if it were

applied across the board to all providers including MDs.

BETTER YET: If they want to cut costs or keep them down on chiros

(which they do), then they can raise the percent or co-pay that the

patient pays and just leave any limits out of it. But OUR co-pay or

percentage should be the same percent on total care as it is for

medical or dental care.

In my opinion, Kitzhaber and company will never get this concept(if

they do it will be a miracle): More chiro utilization= good!= improved

health= lower ER/surgery rates/lower med cost etc etc. (who can blame

them, we don't have the right kinds of studies that " prove " this yet

and many chiros don't actually believe this fact themselves unfotunately)

>

> Dr. Bebee and colleagues,

>

> What if Oregon went to a universal health care system and every

Oregonian

> got a minimum of 12 chiropractic visits per year. With everything after

> that on their own dime? What if no required occurrence e.g., a specific

> accident or injury that in fact those visits could be used as " wellness "

> visits/care..what if anything we performed that was under our scope of

> practice would be covered? Blood chem. Screens, resting ECGs,

spirometry,

> bone mineral density testing, etc., etc. Would this be something the

> profession would welcome, what would be the downside? There are 3 +

> million Oregonians and if they all had chiropractic coverage what

would be

> the downside?

>

>

>

> Vern Saboe

>

>

>

>

>

> _____

>

> From: [mailto: ]

On Behalf

> Of Sears

> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:20 AM

> Oregon DCs

> Subject: [OregonDCs] Cutting ER costs

>

>

>

>

>

> I see from the Big O today that Washington State is looking at universal

> care as well, noting that half of that state's 2.3 million ER visits

were

> not true (life threatening) emergencies. They are proposing shifting

some of

> this work to local clinics and cheaper options. Here's some data

from 2004

> on top five reasons for visiting ER nationwide. I'd be curious to

see what

> it is in Oregon and what percentages and savings could be garnered by

> chiropractic interventions....

>

>

>

> Top Five Primary Reason for Emergency Room Visits 2004

>

> RFV Code Description Number of Visits

>

> 1050.1 Chest Pain 5,550,355

>

> 1545.1 Abdominal pain, cramps, spasms 5,356,156

>

> 1010.0 Fever 4,166,723

>

> 1210.0 Headache 2,895,088

>

> 1905.1 Back pain, ache soreness, discomfort 2,837,523

>

> http://www.aaos.

<http://www.aaos.org/Research/stats/Top%20ER%20Visits.pdf>

> org/Research/stats/Top%20ER%20Visits.pdf

>

>

>

> Sears, DC

>

> NW PDX

>