just some questions...
Kim
I'm a newbie who's been lurking here...sometimes just feeling as if I
wouldn't ever post because I've never been diagnosed with TS, meaning I've
had a distinct lack of experience of TS. I've always been interested in
learning more about TS (and other neuro disorders), but I've found lately
that I've been experiencing some things that maybe you guys could help me
out with.
In the past 3 or so years, I've been experiencing a need to make movements
of parts of my face while in different situations. Mostly just wrinkling of
the nose, eyebrow raising...that kinda thing. This mostly occurs when I'm
in a "nervous" type situation, or stressful time. I have also found that
after going through experiences such as interviews, meetings with people,
public speaking, I find myself for hours afterwards replaying the situation
in my head, and often having to say some of the things that I said over and
over again. I actually say these out loud, but in a whisper...often these
were things I said that didn't come out quite the way I wanted to, or were
said in response to criticism, etc.
I never really experienced anything like this before I turned 22 or
so...and they don't happen every day. I've never told anyone about them,
and often just thought "well, just something I've taken to doing..." I was
just wondering if some of you could share how things "started" for you, if
you remember...and maybe some of the "requirements" by the medical
profession to be diagnosed with TS or OCD. I'm not really into
self-diagnosis, but I would like to hear if my situation compares to others.
Thanks so much in advance...
Kim
James
>I have also found that
>after going through experiences such as interviews, meetings with people,
>public speaking, I find myself for hours afterwards replaying the situation
>in my head, and often having to say some of the things that I said over and
>over again. I actually say these out loud, but in a whisper...often these
>were things I said that didn't come out quite the way I wanted to, or were
>said in response to criticism, etc.
That in itself is hardly unique to the human population.
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
I actually say these out loud, but in a whisper...often these
> >were things I said that didn't come out quite the way I wanted to, or
were
> >said in response to criticism, etc.
>
> That in itself is hardly unique to the human population.
Nope. I have a cat that does this too.
"-))
Seriously, this is anxiety, and whether or not it reaches the level of a
'disorder' of anxiety or OCD proportions depends a great deal upon the
perceptions of the individual going through it, and the diagnostician
studying her.
KAT in CT
>
>
>
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
Kim <ham...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X6eo5.14844$i5.5...@news1.rdc2.on.home.com...
> Hi all,
> I'm a newbie who's been lurking here...sometimes just feeling as if I
> wouldn't ever post because I've never been diagnosed with TS, meaning I've
> had a distinct lack of experience of TS.
I'm glad you posted Kim.Welcome aboard!!
I was
> just wondering if some of you could share how things "started" for you, if
> you remember...and maybe some of the "requirements" by the medical
> profession to be diagnosed with TS or OCD. I'm not really into
> self-diagnosis, but I would like to hear if my situation compares to
others.
>
> Thanks so much in advance...
> Kim
>
I may not be the one to help you the most, since my symptoms started much
earlier than yours, and consisted mostly of motor tics at that time: facial,
head, neck, vocal, etc. However, your descriptions are pretty good
renderings of 'tics' and some obsessive compulsive traits. It could just be
anxiety on your part too, being overly concerned about what you said and how
it came out and what people thought, etc etc. Many people without OC traits
have these tendencies as well, and it's hard to say that what you experience
reaches the level of 'disorder.'
The key is how YOU feel about yourself, and whether or not these mannerisms
bother YOU significantly. And, the extent to which you are able to 'stop'
them, if at all.
Keep writing!!
KAT in CT
Kim
I really doubt that I would be diagnosed with TS or OCD as these things
haven't interfered with my life enough to get me to go to the doctor...they
do bother me, because sometimes it will occur quite often and I do feel as
if I can't stop them...and I also feel that the more I think about stopping
them, the more they happen. Overall, I think like you said, its just a bit
of my own personality and how I deal with anxiety. I suppose if it were to
get any worse, I would see about it. I just wanted to hear some opinions
about it as compared to what some of you had gone through.
Shall definitely keep reading...I quite enjoy the mixture of personalities
on this newsgroup! Cheers to you all...
Kim
TSNowWhat?
>
> Thanks for the welcome Kat...
> I really doubt that I would be diagnosed with TS or OCD as these things
> haven't interfered with my life enough to get me to go to the doctor...
Hi Kim,
Roger Freeman, M.D. - who posts here and is a member of the TSA Medical
Advisory Board - has advised us that the "significant distress"
criterion will be dropped in the next revision of the DSM. That will
mean that TS doesn't have to significantly interfere with your life in
order for it to be diagnosable.
Somehow, though, I still think that some physicians will continue to
avoid the diagnosis in droves for the same reason some of them do now:
they may feel that the TS diagnosis is overly stigmatizing, and will not
confer the diagnosis when the person is getting along fine. When my
son's TS surfaced about four years ago, several neurologists refused to
diagnose him, and the claim was that they didn't want to stigmatize
someone who was doing well academically ... <sigh>.
--
Tourette Syndrome - Now What?
http://members.home.net/tourettenowwhat
Not every hill is worth dying for.
I chose this hill today.
Kendall P. Bullen
<tourett...@home.com> wrote:
> son's TS surfaced about four years ago, several neurologists refused to
> diagnose him, and the claim was that they didn't want to stigmatize
> someone who was doing well academically ... <sigh>.
How does this stigmatize? I mean, who would know about the diagnosis
except those you told for one reason or another (probably very good
reasons)? I would prefer to have a diagnosis than just a list of
inexplicable symptoms. ;-)
Kendall
--
Kendall P. Bullen Web: http://www.his.com/~kendall/
E-mail: kendall@-->^^^^^^^
I hate spam & UCE. Please fix my address if you must e-mail me.
But please, NEVER send me COPIES of Usenet postings.
Join Gaylaxicon 2000! Go to http://www.lambdasf.org/g2k
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
Kendall P. Bullen <see-m...@his.com> wrote in message
news:see-my-sig-7EC19...@news.his.com...
> > diagnose him, and the claim was that they didn't want to stigmatize
> > someone who was doing well academically ... <sigh>.
>
> except those you told for one reason or another (probably very good
> reasons)? I would prefer to have a diagnosis than just a list of
> inexplicable symptoms. ;-)
>
> Kendall
>
KAT in CT
Mesas
anxiety--although anxiety could certainly exacerbate it.
Theresa
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Mesas
Asperger's traits (my son has high-functioning autism), but probably not
enough to get me diagnosed. That's okay. Learning more about it helps me
learn how to cope.
The nice thing is that no one has to give you permission to come here
and learn more. We don't check ID at the door. ;-) Welcome! It's a
pleasure to have you here!
Theresa
Kim <ham...@hotmail.com> wrote:
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Mesas
> Roger Freeman, M.D. - who posts here and is a member of the TSA Medical
> Advisory Board - has advised us that the "significant distress"
> criterion will be dropped in the next revision of the DSM. That will
> mean that TS doesn't have to significantly interfere with your life in
> order for it to be diagnosable.
>
> Somehow, though, I still think that some physicians will continue to
> avoid the diagnosis in droves for the same reason some of them do now:
> they may feel that the TS diagnosis is overly stigmatizing, and will not
> confer the diagnosis when the person is getting along fine. When my
> son's TS surfaced about four years ago, several neurologists refused to
> diagnose him, and the claim was that they didn't want to stigmatize
> someone who was doing well academically ... <sigh>.
Makes you just kind of want to smack them, huh? Do they think the label
is any more stigmatizing than the actual behaviors? Do they think the
label will make things any more difficult than they already are? For me
and my son, the label meant that maybe there was a different way of
coping and of learning to raise my child. And, knowing that it wasn't my
imagination freed up a lot of mental energy for other things.
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Kendall P. Bullen
TAUBERT" <KATA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Your insurance company, for one.
Okay, my ignorance of this kind of thing is rearing its ugly head.
Hmm, now that you mention it, I think that's why my PCP checked some
kind of 'malaise' thing. Funny, I would've thought that THAT would be
something the insurance company would pooh-pooh. Is the problem more
that they wouldn't want to cover legitimate-sounding, but potentially
expensive, disorders? What are we paying for insurance FOR, then?
Cheers,
Kendall (just 'bout BRANDISHING my ignorance, now ;-)
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
Mesas <clan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1efx0o8.cgn...@pool0316.cvx30-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net...
> But KAT, it sounds like ruminating, which is OC behavior, not
> anxiety--although anxiety could certainly exacerbate it.
>
> Theresa
>
Frankly, I'm not entirely sure that it's easy to distinguish between
'anxiety' and OC behaviors anyway.
KAT in CT
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
Is the problem more
> that they wouldn't want to cover legitimate-sounding, but potentially
> expensive, disorders? What are we paying for insurance FOR, then?
>
> Cheers,
> Kendall (just 'bout BRANDISHING my ignorance, now ;-)
>
You're not ignorant. You're asking legitimate questions. However, it's
really pretty complicated, and I don't entirely agree with the presumptions
made by insurers, although they are reacting, primarily to clinicians who
write the books (DSM, for one), that insurance underwriters use to
adjudicate claims.
You pay insurance premiums against possible medical needs. You are rated as
one of a 'class' of insureds (under 25 males, or people with prexisting
conditions, etc). Whether you have group insurance or individual plans also
makes a difference in what you pay.
Insurance underwriters judge individual premiums based upon the anticipated
claims made by the class in which you belong. The more people in that class,
and the fewer relative claims they make annually, the better the 'risk' for
the insurer, and the lower the premium for you.
People with TS are, in the minds of insurers now (because of the DSM
primarily), are in the 'mental health' category, which generally pays LESS
than 'regular medical' claims will. This is because there are SO many
'mental health' conditions, that are not easily quantified and therefore,
more difficult to determine when they are 'cured' or 'successfully treated.'
Mental health conditions are NOT as fully covered as biologically based
medical conditions.
It also depends upon who is filing the claim for you: often times, a
neurologist will 'code' TS as a 'neurological' condition: which PAYS more.
If you are seeing a psychiatrist, and he/she codes the claim as a
psychiatrist normally would, then the underwriter will pay out according to
the 'mental category,' if at all.
The downside to getting a DX is in NOT knowing what your insurer and your
physician is going to consider this: mental or neurological. (Let's not get
into the discussion of the differences here. That's a whole nother thread!!
I'm just stating the facts, as seen by the parties involved. Whether they
are right or wrong is another discussion).
IF you get a 'formal DX', make certain that the people submitting your
claims code the DX as a 'neurobiological' condition or disorder.
IF you get a denial of claim by your insurer, CHALLENGE IT. You CAN do this.
And sometimes, get them to REVERSE the decision.
You may not have any choice about how the underwriter ultimately decides to
CODE the condition, even if your doctor has coded it neurological. It all
depends upon the insurer.
It's wise to ask these questions up front. I've heard of some physicians who
will suggest a DX of TS, but who will NOT indicate it on the final claim,
for all of these very reasons. I"m not suggesting that they SHOULD be doing
this, merely that they are especially sensitive to the needs of the patient,
and their wish to be paid fully!!
The ONLY reason to get a formal DX, in my humble opinion, is to 'know', and
to be able to learn more about the condition from that perspective. AND,
children who need special school accommodations related to TS WILL NEED a
formal DX. Also, perhaps adults with special needs.
However, if one is past the need for accommodations (assuming they were
needed at all), one can live without a "formal" DX, assuming the symptoms
are not disabling.
A 'formal' DX comes after having discussed the symptoms with a clinician,
done some tests to rule anything else out. However, in all honesty, these
are not really needed in most case to diagnose TS.
Many people in my age group have DXed ourselves. I got a 'formal' DX as part
of a research program in which I participated shortly after determining my
OWN DX from a magazine article.
KAT in CT
Rhonda
I thought that in New York, insurance companies were not allowed to exclude
you to a pre-existing condition anymore; my husband's company changed
insurance companies and nothing happed (have a daughter with Down Syndrome
and my son TS)
Rhonda
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
Rhonda <mini...@i-2000.com> wrote in message
news:TnYp5.145$_E1....@newsreader.i-2000.net...
It's possible. And if it's so, then companies doing business in NY may not
be able to exclude pre-existing conditions in ANY state in which they
practice, if they intend to practice in NY. NYS has its own 'laws' with
insurance issues, that often affect how an underwriter does business in
other states as well.
KAT in CT>
Mesas
That's fer shur, especially when the very things you're ruminating about
are causing you anxiety ("He should have been home by now. I wonder why
he's not home? Oh, I hope he didn't get into an accident! I hear sirens!
No, wait!...").
Theresa (the queen of perseveration/rumination lately--just call me
"Daisy," the cow)
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Mesas
(neurological), not psychiatric (Yeah, yeah, I know. Psychiatric *is*
medical, but for purposes of this discussion, let's pretend it's not),
diagnosis. They don't, however, do the same for ADHD, autism, or mental
retardation, at least with the plans *I'm* familiar with.
Some kids in California who are covered by Blue Cross, who have TS and
ADHD or whatever, get their stuff paid for under the TS diagnosis--and
this is medical, not psychiatric coverage--the latter usually having
higher co-pays and other limitations, if it's paid for at all.
A lot of it is going to have to do with the policies of the insurer in
question.
Theresa
KATHRYN A TAUBERT <KATA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Mesas
exclude that condition for members.
KATHRYN A TAUBERT <KATA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
> question.
>
> Theresa
>
This is a very long post, y'all:
Absolutely. Which is why I suggested that one CHALLENGE any decisions by the
underwriter that you do not agree with. They CAN be changed. You just have
to get to the right person (generally the Medical Director), with the right
information. Insurer's 'rules' are not necessarily engraved in stone. And
one of the things that makes the insurance business so complex is the
differences in state laws in the USA that confound the insurer's ability to
be 'consistent' from state to state. That's a mixed blessing for insureds,
and certainly a matter of much additional paperwork, management, for the
insurers (for those of you I've managed to confuse royally, an insurer is
also known as an "underwriter.")
Generally speaking, however, there are some principles that apply to
insurers , until and unless some specific mandate makes it otherwise:
Pre-existing conditions for INDIVIDUAL policies often make getting one
difficult, if not impossible. SOME underwriters will give the individual a
policy that EXCLUDES the condition, while others won't write the policy at
all.
Pre-existing conditions for GROUP policies are generally not as 'important'
to the underwriter, since the 'risk' of significant outlays of money is
'spread across the group'. For example, a company may be insuring 20,000
employees, for whom the insurer is receiving premium payments. The percent
of those employees with pre-existing conditions whose claims will be
generally higher will not be as significant an expense, proportionately, for
the insurer as they would for a company with only 50 employees, or a SINGLE
policy written for an individual. This may be one reason why no one
questions the existence of a pre-existing condition when a company changes
group policies.
This may also NOT apply to ALL pre-existing conditions, by the way. Again,
that depends upon the underwriter.
All claims are adjudicated generally by "claims adjusters." Depending upon
the company, these people may be very well trained, or not. They will
virtually ALL use the DSM to determine WHICH claim is for a condition that
is covered under 'mental' disorders or 'biologically-based' disorders. They
may never admit that this book is used as it is, but trust me on this one,
it IS. (I was employed by insurance companies long enough to know this for a
fact. And they are sometimes VERY secretive about this).
Once you are 'listed' in the databases as having a pre-existing condition,
you are automatically put on a 'master list' of same, which is accessed by
ALL insurers if and when you apply for insurance ANYwhere. This " Medical
Information Bureau", headquartered in the N.E., treads a very fine line
between discrimination and merely 'providing information.' They make it VERY
clear that the purpose of their business is merely to do the latter, even
though that information is used by insurers to, in effect, do the former.
You have the RIGHT to obtain information from this business about whether or
not YOU are listed in their database, and how many times within the past (6
years, I believe), your information has been accessed.
Therefore, when applying for insurance, it is VERY silly to 'lie' on an
application, if you have already had your information processed by ANY
insurer at ANY time for ANY pre-existing condition, since the new
underwriter WILL find out about it, and decline your policy JUST because you
lied. It's better to tell the truth, and then work with the underwriter to
attempt to get coverage IN SPITE of the pre-existing condition, which is
sometimes possible. I know. I did.
Insurance companies are in business to make money. In the USA, we believe we
have the RIGHT to health care, and insurance coverage. However, insurance
companies CANNOT function without a profit. And the only way they can make a
profit is to cut their losses. ONE of the ways they do this is by
determining WHO they will cover, and who they will NOT cover. It is highly
unlikely that ALL insurance companies will, at any time, accept any mandate
to include ALL pre-existing conditions of ALL possible insureds, since to do
so would eliminate the companies ability to make money.
I can tell you that one major company for whom I worked ELIMINATED the
underwriting of INDIVIDUAL health insurance policies for just this reason:
they were losing money by the millions. They were also losing money on auto
insurance, and barely making ANY thing on group health. The ONLY place they
were making ANY money was on homeowner's insurance, and some commercial
property casualty insurance.
Why?
Largely because, in the USA, people are law-suit happy. Eight million
dollars here for a hot cup of coffee, thirty million there for a misplaced
belly button after cosmetic surgery, etc etc. I could go on and on. SOMEONE
has to pay for that. And it ultimately works out to be each and every one of
US.
Insurance companies make mistakes too. They are often big, bureaucratic
organizations with too many layers of people between the 'top' and the
'bottom.'
Inefficiencies get in the way of productivity, and that costs money too. And
sometimes, if you get to the 'right person' in your quest to challenge and
overturn a claim or application refusal, you WILL get some satisfaction. But
be prepared to have to work at it.
Insurance companies are probably NOT the way that everyone in the USA is
going to receive the appropriate health care. Managed Care was/is an attempt
to correct that situation somewhat, but it was/is designed 'all wrong' with
consequences for providing appropriate care skewed to actually reinforce
clinicians for doing otherwise. It's a nightmare, IMHO, and not doing what
it was intended to do. If you have a family of small children who ALWAYS
need a doctor or medications for something, it's the CHEAPEST health care
available.
But if you require less overall health care, and are concerned, someday,
about access to specialists in any region of the country, at your choosing,
and the best possible coverage for yourself, or your family, do your best to
get INDEMNITY coverage: that's the 'old fashioned' kind of coverage that
pays for services rendered, whatever and wherever they are provided, as long
as they are provided by qualified clinicians, and that includes some
alternative care providers. MANAGED CARE insurance is the same as HMO, PPO,
etc. INDEMNITY insurance is the 'other kind' and the kind we had before the
advent of managed care.
Until Managed Care gets the kinks worked out of it, I intend to avoid it
like the plague. When my husband had the opportunity some years ago to
switch his primary care group insurance to an HMO, we did NOT do so. And
just this year, had he not chosen to stay with indemnity, he would have LOST
his coverage altogether, since the HMO he was recruited for stopped doing
business in the State of CT, leaving thousands of seniors uninsured.
There's much more. But this is long enough!
KAT in CT
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
>
> That's fer shur, especially when the very things you're ruminating about
> are causing you anxiety ("He should have been home by now. I wonder why
> he's not home? Oh, I hope he didn't get into an accident! I hear sirens!
> No, wait!...").
>
> Theresa (the queen of perseveration/rumination lately--just call me
> "Daisy," the cow)
>
> --
> Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Oh yes, I know this 'trait' well...sigh.....
KAT in CT
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
> I think they can exclude a pre-existing condition if they normally
> exclude that condition for members.
>
state laws. There are just about as many 'state laws' as there are states,
although the NYS laws are the ones that strike the greatest "fear" into the
hearts of insurance companies!!
KAT in CT
TSNowWhat?
our records?
KATHRYN A TAUBERT wrote:
> Once you are 'listed' in the databases as having a pre-existing condition,
> you are automatically put on a 'master list' of same, which is accessed by
> ALL insurers if and when you apply for insurance ANYwhere. This " Medical
> Information Bureau", headquartered in the N.E., treads a very fine line
> between discrimination and merely 'providing information.' ...
> You have the RIGHT to obtain information from this business about whether or
> not YOU are listed in their database, and how many times within the past (6
> years, I believe), your information has been accessed.
--
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
Contact:
MIB, INC. (Medical Information Bureau)
PO Box 105 Essex Station
Boston, MA 02112
617-426-3660
This was the address I used in 1991: I assume they are still located there.
You can call them and ask for the appropriate procedure: they may or may not
give it to you via telephone. I wrote a letter, and received a reply with
the pertinent data.
By the way, in reviewing my files: I noted that, at that time, contrary to
what I think I indicated earlier, the MIB told me that "six MONTHS is the
extent of the time period for which MIB retains a list of recipients."
(companies requesting information on your file, if there is a file present).
Good luck. With any luck, you will NOT have a file with the MIB.
KAT in CT
TSNowWhat? <tourett...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39A915C3...@home.com...
> Kathryn, how can we/should we check with this bureau to see what is on
> our records?
>
> KATHRYN A TAUBERT wrote:
>
Kendall P. Bullen
TAUBERT" <KATA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> You're not ignorant. You're asking legitimate questions.
Thanks for the details on how these things work. I guess I'm lucky,
because I have group insurance via the company I work for, so I'm in the
"class of people who work at XYZ" eh? ;-) I haven't had a problem
(with any of several insurance companies -- I've changed a few times) in
getting ongoing meds for something, so if I got a DX on paper, I'm
guessing my current HMO wouldn't balk at giving ongoing meds for this,
either. Maybe I'm naive. (And I understand that everyone's in a
different situation, insurance-wise, so even if I'm right for me, that
doesn't mean the same thing'd work for someone else.)
> Many people in my age group have DXed ourselves. I got a 'formal' DX as
> part of a research program in which I participated shortly after
> determining my OWN DX from a magazine article.
I first read about TS in an ish of Science '87 or '88 or whatever year
it was. I read it on a plain and thought, "Hey, this is me!"
(Of course, now my doc says it's not me, but hey, whatever.... ;-)
Kendall
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
(And I understand that everyone's in a
> different situation, insurance-wise, so even if I'm right for me, that
> doesn't mean the same thing'd work for someone else.)
Exactly. WHATEVER your case, I strongly urge ALL of us to do this as well:
FIND OUT WHAT YOUR DOCTOR'S MEDICAL RECORD SAYS ABOUT YOU.
This is a potentially devastating issue: I know. I've 'been there.' A
incorrect entry in my own 'chart' caused me to lose insurability for many
years. I lived in a state that allowed me some coverage at an exorbitant
cost, and eventually I got full coverage back, but not until after I spend a
small fortune and too much time.
It ALMOST happened to me again: although the SECOND time, and with a NEW
doctor, I was smart enough to request that they give me a copy of precisely
WHAT they were intending to send my potential insurer PRIOR TO SENDING IT.
Damned if there wasn't ANOTHER error on the very first line of the chart. I
was astonished, and quickly saw that it was corrected.
It's common practice for medical office staff to send your ENTIRE chart to
a requesting insurer as you apply, when, indeed the ONLY thing the insurer
wants is just the most recent information. YOU NEED TO BE VIGILANT about
this,when applying for ANY kind of health/disability insurance.
>
> > Many people in my age group have DXed ourselves. I got a 'formal' DX as
> > part of a research program in which I participated shortly after
> > determining my OWN DX from a magazine article.
>
> I first read about TS in an ish of Science '87 or '88 or whatever year
> it was. I read it on a plain and thought, "Hey, this is me!"
Interesting. For me, it was a 1984 issue of 'Science' magazine: subsequently
bought out by Discover magazine.
KAT in CT
Mesas
specialist--and this certainly wasn't the case. *However*, if they got a
subpoena for the records, they were welcome to copy the whole chart.
They would bring special little portable copiers in a briefcase. I know,
because I was the one who pulled the charts for them.
Many of these charts were a couple of inches thick, and some people were
on their second or third folder.
KATHRYN A TAUBERT <KATA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> (And I understand that everyone's in a
> > different situation, insurance-wise, so even if I'm right for me, that
> > doesn't mean the same thing'd work for someone else.)
>
> Exactly. WHATEVER your case, I strongly urge ALL of us to do this as well:
> FIND OUT WHAT YOUR DOCTOR'S MEDICAL RECORD SAYS ABOUT YOU.
>
> This is a potentially devastating issue: I know. I've 'been there.' A
> incorrect entry in my own 'chart' caused me to lose insurability for many
> years. I lived in a state that allowed me some coverage at an exorbitant
> cost, and eventually I got full coverage back, but not until after I spend a
> small fortune and too much time.
>
> It ALMOST happened to me again: although the SECOND time, and with a NEW
> doctor, I was smart enough to request that they give me a copy of precisely
> WHAT they were intending to send my potential insurer PRIOR TO SENDING IT.
> Damned if there wasn't ANOTHER error on the very first line of the chart. I
> was astonished, and quickly saw that it was corrected.
>
> It's common practice for medical office staff to send your ENTIRE chart to
> a requesting insurer as you apply, when, indeed the ONLY thing the insurer
> wants is just the most recent information. YOU NEED TO BE VIGILANT about
> this,when applying for ANY kind of health/disability insurance.
>
> >
> > > Many people in my age group have DXed ourselves. I got a 'formal' DX as
> > > part of a research program in which I participated shortly after
> > > determining my OWN DX from a magazine article.
> >
> > I first read about TS in an ish of Science '87 or '88 or whatever year
> > it was. I read it on a plain and thought, "Hey, this is me!"
>
> Interesting. For me, it was a 1984 issue of 'Science' magazine: subsequently
> bought out by Discover magazine.
>
> KAT in CT
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
Mesas <clan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1eg67md.14l...@pool0420.cvx30-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net...
> I used to work in a doctor's office--a group of 5 cardio-pulmonary
> specialist--and this certainly wasn't the case.
I'm sure it isn't the case for all offices. But do you want to risk the
possibility that it could be the case in yours?
All it takes is a simple request to review your chart.
This happened to me TWICE. In two different doctors' offices.
Had I not learned from the first experience, and requested the information
prior to the SECOND insurance application some years later, I'd still be
battling to have my medical record corrected, and insurance eligibility
reinstated.
It's not worth the risk. And it's not at all uncommon for this to happen.
KAT in CT
Mesas
I see your point--it just wasn't my experience.
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
> > It's not worth the risk. And it's not at all uncommon for this to
happen.
> > KAT in CT
>
> I see your point--it just wasn't my experience.
>
Nor had it been mine for more than 40 years, until the first time it
happened.
That's the rub. If one has different doctors for different reasons and/or
relocates as many times as I did, one is more likely to have this sort of
thing happen, merely because the odds favor it, with greater 'exposure.'
KAT In CT
jai
>
> (And I understand that everyone's in a
> > different situation, insurance-wise, so even if I'm right for me, that
> > doesn't mean the same thing'd work for someone else.)
>
> FIND OUT WHAT YOUR DOCTOR'S MEDICAL RECORD SAYS ABOUT YOU.
>
> This is a potentially devastating issue: I know. I've 'been there.' A
> incorrect entry in my own 'chart' caused me to lose insurability for many
> years. I lived in a state that allowed me some coverage at an exorbitant
> cost, and eventually I got full coverage back, but not until after I spend a
> small fortune and too much time.
>
> It ALMOST happened to me again: although the SECOND time, and with a NEW
> doctor, I was smart enough to request that they give me a copy of precisely
> WHAT they were intending to send my potential insurer PRIOR TO SENDING IT.
> Damned if there wasn't ANOTHER error on the very first line of the chart. I
> was astonished, and quickly saw that it was corrected.
>
> It's common practice for medical office staff to send your ENTIRE chart to
> a requesting insurer as you apply, when, indeed the ONLY thing the insurer
> wants is just the most recent information. YOU NEED TO BE VIGILANT about
> this,when applying for ANY kind of health/disability insurance.
>
> >
> > > part of a research program in which I participated shortly after
> > > determining my OWN DX from a magazine article.
> >
> > I first read about TS in an ish of Science '87 or '88 or whatever year
> > it was. I read it on a plain and thought, "Hey, this is me!"
>
> bought out by Discover magazine.
>
> KAT in CT
I have had the problem of getting access to my medical records. I am
covered by a HMo and they are pretty decent about tests, preventative
care etc. But specialists do seems to come and go fairly often. The last
time one of my specialists left, I knew I would have all the questions
about medications, surgeries, biopsy results, dates, etc. and there is
no way I can keep them straight...I can't even remember which surgeries
I have had when, there have been so many. So I asked the nurse if I
could go through my chart (which is embarrassingly thick) to write a
synopsis of the info. You would have thought I was asking for State
secrets! I was told I could review my charts if I made special
arrangements to review them with a nurse at some future date or I could
make a request, stating why I wanted to review my charts to get
photocopies at something over a dollar a page since they had to send
them to some special place for photocopying medical records!!! I can't
even imagine how much that would cost me. And of course they wouldn't
let me do it myself. I have been with them for over 10 years, and have a
couple of chronic diseases, overseen by 5 different specialists due to
different organ involvement. It's a nightmare, with each having their
files, plus the one big file of my primary care physician. But I would
like to see what they have there. At one point one of the "new"
specialists pronounced me cured of an disease, which my previous
specialist (and other involved specialists) have said will be lifelong,
because he had only read the top page of surgery biopsy results which
showed no involvement of the Sarcoid. The biopsy results of 4 or five
other biopsy sites from that particular surgery showed sarcoid
involvement and I could not convince him otherwise or to review the
whole chart. After I walked out, went to surgeon, who was one my
specialists he changed his attitude, but I changed doctors. It makes me
wonder what else may be overlooked and why we have such restricted
rights to our own health information!!!! Okay, I 'm done whining
now!<VBG>
Jai
--
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves
up and hurry off as if nothing happened.
--Winston Churchill
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
I could not convince him otherwise or to review the
> whole chart. After I walked out, went to surgeon, who was one my
> specialists he changed his attitude, but I changed doctors. It makes me
> wonder what else may be overlooked and why we have such restricted
> rights to our own health information!!!! Okay, I 'm done whining
> now!<VBG>
>
> Jai
Jai, the following information is 'old.' (1986). However, it may be of use
to you. The source is from a publication: "Medical Records, Getting Yours"
published by Public Citizen Health Research Group.
Thirteen states provide for patient access to both hospital and doctor
records: Alsask, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii,
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Wisconsin.
Nine states have provisions for access to hospital records only: Indiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Texas.
Two states have a provision for access to doctor records only: Florida, New
Jersey.
Many states have a provision for access to mental health records.
Since 1986, there have been some changes, in our favor. I recall having read
recently where there was some federal legislation relative to these matters
as well.
If you have trouble getting access to yours, you can 'invoke the law.'
"They" can make it difficult for you, but you have the RIGHT, in California,
to get access to your records.
If they are reluctant to allow it, I would be DOUBLY concerned about what's
in them.
KAT in CT
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
>
> Jai, the following information is 'old.' (1986). However, it may be of use
> to you. The source is from a publication: "Medical Records, Getting Yours"
> published by Public Citizen Health Research Group.
>
> Thirteen states provide for patient access to both hospital and doctor
> records: Alsask,
egads. That was SUPPOSED to be "Alaska." Forgive any subsequent typos, as
well. Was in a hurry. As usual..sigh..
KAT in CT
Kendall P. Bullen
TAUBERT" <KATA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Ain't that a hoot?
> You and I got DXed at the same time by the same mag!
:-) I wonder who else read that and thought, "HEY, that's me!"
> I hated it when that magazine got 'absorbed.' Although I do love
> Discover, it's a little bit less detailed than it's predecessor was.
I think my subscriptions stopped around that time, and I didn't renew.
(Or, since probably my parents were paying for the subscription, as I
wasn't an adult then -- they didn't renew.)
> primary Science demographics were thirty something professional males, a
> category which apparently didn't buy the mag. in sufficient quantities to
> make it profitable. So, in its bankrupting, it was bought out by
> Discover.
That's pretty funny; I wasn't even in college yet when I started reading
it! ;-)
> My late father-in-law subscribed to that magazine for me as a gift. I
> loved it.
I have my parents to thank.
Cheers,
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
>
> > primary Science demographics were thirty something professional males, a
> > category which apparently didn't buy the mag. in sufficient quantities
to
> > make it profitable. So, in its bankrupting, it was bought out by
> > Discover.
>
> That's pretty funny; I wasn't even in college yet when I started reading
> it! ;-)
Well I certainly didn't fit the demographics either!!! HA
>
KAT in CT