Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2005
Seeking Treatment/Evaluation Advice for Advanced Glaucoma
|
|
Thread rating:  |
meloan@sbcglobal.net - 10 Aug 2005 15:59 GMT I'm posting this for a friend. He's a very talented artist, and has been told that he may well soon go blind from advanced glaucoma. He's now 55 years old. He was first diagnosed with glaucoma in his mid-20's but did nothing about it until his mid-40's, when he first began to notice vision loss. He's seen an ophthalmologist since 1999, who, upon her initial examination, proclaimed that he had severe optic nerve damage, and advanced glaucoma. The pressure at that time, in each eye, was over 30. Through the continued use of alphagan p, cosopt and xalatan, the pressure has dropped substantially and now ordinarily hovers between 10 and 15.
His doctor mentioned the possibility of surgery (a trabeculectomy), but this was prior to the stabilization of the pressure, with which she seemed relatively pleased. She suggested that although surgery could bring the pressure down even further and could last several years before another surgery would be necessary, it would definitely cause even further vision loss. He recently saw another MD, who looked over his records, did a pressure check, surveyed the optic nerves, and told him that his glaucoma was now in the end stage. On the other hand, he can still see well enough (at least in one eye) to paint.
He's only seen two doctors for his condition, and I don't believe either were at world class medical centers. (He's in the LA basin area.) Any recommendations as to possible new treatments, clinical trials, evaluations he should have, etc.? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
P.S. In addition to waiting far too long to seek treatment (partly driven by financial considerations and no health insurance), he also engages in a number of likely lifestyle no-nos for glaucoma patients. He smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, and drinks 2-3 cups of coffee a day. Also, about three times a month, he parties, and drinks a six pack of beer at a setting.
gudrun17 - 10 Aug 2005 19:06 GMT > I'm posting this for a friend. He's a very talented artist, and has > been told that he may well soon go blind from advanced glaucoma. He's [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > day. Also, about three times a month, he parties, and drinks a six > pack of beer at a setting. Were either of these doctors a glaucoma specialist? I get the feeling they were not. That's the first thing he should do--see a glaucoma specialist. Or two. If they decide that he is still losing vision despite reasonably low pressures, they will probably suggest the trabeculectomy. I'm not sure it's true that trabeculectomy always causes further vision loss, in terms of visual acuity. I've heard of some people that were still 20/20 afterwards. -Gudrun
Dr Judy - 11 Aug 2005 00:34 GMT > I'm posting this for a friend. He's a very talented artist, and has > been told that he may well soon go blind from advanced glaucoma. He's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > her initial examination, proclaimed that he had severe optic nerve > damage, and advanced glaucoma. Unfortunately, by delaying treatment for 20 years, he developed the severe nerve damage. Nerve damage cannot be reversed, the best that can be hoped for is that further damage is delayed. This is made more difficult by the fact that damaged and dying nerve cells release chemicals that stimulate nearby non damaged nerve cells to self destruct and die. Once the damage passes a critical point, it is very difficult to halt further damage.
The pressure at that time, in each eye,
> was over 30. Through the continued use of alphagan p, cosopt and > xalatan, the pressure has dropped substantially and now ordinarily [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > trials, evaluations he should have, etc.? Any suggestions would be > greatly appreciated! With end stage glaucoma, there is little left to treat. Damagaed or dead nerve cells cannot regenerate and, at end stage, there are few non damaged cells left. He could ask his doctor for referral to a glaucoma specialist or specialty clinic for a second opinion, but the outlook is bleak.
> P.S. In addition to waiting far too long to seek treatment (partly > driven by financial considerations and no health insurance), Stories like these make me glad I live in Canada. We may have some waiting lists (short), but at least there is a line to wait in.
he also
> engages in a number of likely lifestyle no-nos for glaucoma patients. > He smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, and drinks 2-3 cups of coffee a > day. Also, about three times a month, he parties, and drinks a six > pack of beer at a setting. Smoking is never good and is a factor in glaucoma. Quitting smoking is always a good idea, not just for the eyes but for all organ systems. However, with end stage disease, there is little more to damage.
See the following link for lots of glaucoma info
http://www.wills-glaucoma.org/
drfrank21@gmail.com - 11 Aug 2005 00:44 GMT > Stories like these make me glad I live in Canada. We may have some waiting > lists (short), but at least there is a line to wait in. Judy, if you carefully read the original post there was nothing said that treatment was delayed 20 yrs for no good reason but for proscrastination and not due to financial hardship. To me glaucoma is a lot like diabetes in that many/most times there are no obvious outward symptoms and it's easy for people to ignore that they have any problems. I'm sure you have patients that glaucoma medication compliance is an issue (at least I do)- they run out of the med or don't use the drops properly, etc. It has nothing to do with the status of the health care model, whether in Canada or the U.S. (or anywhere in the world for that matter).
frank
Quick - 11 Aug 2005 00:49 GMT >> Stories like these make me glad I live in Canada. We >> may have some waiting lists (short), but at least there [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > world for > that matter). Well, yes it does. The OP said something to the effect "in part, due to financial reasons because of no health insurance". It's socialized in Canada.
-Quick
drfrank21@gmail.com - 11 Aug 2005 02:02 GMT > >> Stories like these make me glad I live in Canada. We > >> may have some waiting lists (short), but at least there [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > -Quick I stand corrected. The last part does state "partly due"... But it's tough to speculate whether or not this individual would have sought treatment whether he lived lived in Canada vs the U.S.. I'd venture a guess that the rate of non-compliance in glaucoma management is pretty much the same in the U.K. and Canada compared to the U.S. and is not solely dependent on health care models. And I venture a guess that this individual (based on the overall tone in the op) would have still lost vision due to glaucoma. And I think it's unfair to blame the health care model in the U.S. for this person's loss of vision.
frank
Quick - 11 Aug 2005 02:30 GMT >>>> Stories like these make me glad I live in Canada. We >>>> may have some waiting lists (short), but at least there [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > the health care model in the U.S. for this person's > loss of vision. One can certainly encourage the other. "It's going to cost me a good chunk of cash (which I could afford but would feel it) so I'll just put it off." If it was "free" you'd be more likely to deal with it.
I didn't take the comment to imply any sort of blame or judgement on the different health care systems. I just took it at face value. OP said cost was a factor without insurance. Dr. Judy said that wasn't a factor in Canada. No implication that the system was better or worse. Have I missed some history here?
-Quick
William Stacy - 11 Aug 2005 00:51 GMT >Stories like these make me glad I live in Canada. We may have some waiting >lists (short), but at least there is a line to wait in. > Would you care to make a quick comparison of the situations for o.d.s and o.m.d.s under the Canadian vs. the U.S. vs. the U.K. systems? I think our system (U.S.) is headed for some changes and I wonder which direction we should take. If I understand it correctly, Canadian docs cannot offer anything outside the national plan? U.K. docs can, at extra cost? I probably have a misunderstanding, but while I look forward to the day all serious medical expenses are covered for all in the U.S., I'd like to retain the freedom to treat outside the system on a private fee basis. Also, are practitioner incomes set, or can individuals make more if they excel or work harder than the average doc???
w.stacy, o.d.
Dr Judy - 11 Aug 2005 04:45 GMT >>Stories like these make me glad I live in Canada. We may have some >>waiting lists (short), but at least there is a line to wait in. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Also, are practitioner incomes set, or can individuals make more if they > excel or work harder than the average doc??? Health care in Canada is private delivery, public pay, it works like one insurance company with everyone living in the country insured. Instead of individuals paying premiums, the insurance is covered by taxes. No one is denied coverage based on pre existing conditions. Health care is administered by the provinces, so in Ontario, where I practice, the payor is called Ontario Health Insurance Plan -- OHIP.
Ninety percent of doctors are in private practice, with the rest employed by hospitals, community health centres, public health units or in teaching facilities. No doctors are directly employed by the government, except for a few involved in administration of the plan. Hospitals likewise are not owned or operated by the government, all are independantly owned and operated, most by non profit groups. Hospitals are funded by a global payment from the Ministry of Health to cover insured care, hospitals can charge patients directly for uninsured care or for extras like TV service, semi private or private rooms.
Doctors are mostly paid fee for service, they are paid by OHIP whenever they see a patient and provide an insured service. Patients have an OHIP card that they must show when requesting service. OHIP and the doctors association negotiate what fees will be paid for what services. OHIP decides which services are insured. For example, cosmetic surgery is not insured, circumcision of newborns is not insured, contact lens related services are not insured. Billing is done monthly by computer to OHIP and OHIP deposits payment directly into doctor's bank accounts. There are no insurance forms to fill out, no coverage to check and less than 3% of the cost of health care is related to OHIP administration (for comparision, the US private insurance model consumes about 15% of cost in insurance administration).
Doctors maintain their own offices, hire and pay their own staff, and pay their own overhead out of the fees paid by OHIP. If a doctor wants to make more money, he or she can cut office expenses or work more hours. There is no premium paid for doctors with more experience/ better reputations but the fees for service are set so that the fees for more difficult and/or time consuming procedures are higher.
Doctors can opt out of OHIP and charge patients directly for insured services, however they are forbidden by law to charge patients more than the OHIP rate. Doctors are free to provide uninsured services to patients, and can charge any fee they want, but the patients, not OHIP, pays for them. Medical care provided for the benefit of third parties such as care for injuries sustained from a work related accident or from a motor vehicle accident are not OHIP insured but are paid for by Workplace Insurance (another government program funded by levies on employers) or by car insurance companies. The fees paid by Workplace Insurance and private auto insurers are generally higher than those paid by OHIP.
As far as optometrists services go, insured services varies by province. When the system was first set up, only MD services were covered. Eventually ODs could also bill OHIP for medical eye care. Most provinces have limitations on the definition of insured eye care. Most province insure children 19 and under and seniors 65 and over for most services. The 20 to 64 age group has variable coverage. In Ontario that age group is covered for eight specified conditions (diabetes, glaucoma, retinal disease etc). In addition, any MD or nurse practioner can request in writing (or fax) to an OD, an eye examination for a patient if the nurse or doctor thinks it necessary and it will be insured. The request is all that is needed, the patient doesn't need to get special permission from OHIP. Refraction is specifically excluded as a reason for an insured exam of a person between 20 and 64, refraction is covered for the other age groups. Optometrists bill the patient for uninsured services like refraction and for health assessment when no problem is found.
Ophthalmologists almost all work on referral and patients cannot directly make appointments with them. Since they are in short supply, most of them do no refractions at all, only do surgery and medical management. The optometrists provide first line care and refractions; in my city, the local ophthalomogists usually ask the family doctors to refer to an OD first, so the family doc sends the red eye, sudden blur, floaters and so on to us first and we then make the referral to the ophtho if needed.
The "line ups" for health care up here are exaggerated. The system responds very quickly for urgent care and emergency care. It bogs down for elective care like cataract, where delays, although annoying do not result in morbidity or mortality. The waits are largely government created as both provincial and federal levels of government have been underfunding hospitals for the past fifteen years in an effort to keep taxes low. And ten years ago, a neo conservative government cut medical school enrolment by 25% when some whiz kid noticed that the more doctors there were, the more health care cost. Unfortunately, the government was unable to cut the population (ie patients) by a similar percent and we now have a doctor shortage. Many hospitals have closed wards and closed operating rooms because they are not funded or can't find doctors. Current governments have started to address these issues, but it will take a few years to undo the damage.
As far as quality goes, various studies have shown that the Canadian models delivers better quality at lower cost than the private system in the US. And in a recent news report, the automotive industry stated that the cost of private health insurance for US workers adds over $1000 per car to the cost of cars made in the US vs those made in Canada.
Dr Judy
> w.stacy, o.d. William Stacy - 11 Aug 2005 05:18 GMT Wow! Thanks for the extensive review. I'll cut and paste my way through to a few observations and questions I have:
> Health care in Canada is private delivery, public pay, it works like one > insurance company with everyone living in the country insured. Instead of > individuals paying premiums, the insurance is covered by taxes. Would that be an income tax, or some other? Any idea what % of income or whatever source the program costs?
No one is
> denied coverage based on pre existing conditions. I love that part.
> Doctors maintain their own offices, hire and pay their own staff, and pay > their own overhead out of the fees paid by OHIP. If a doctor wants to make > more money, he or she can cut office expenses or work more hours. What about offering more non-covered items? I mean couldn't a doc buy a retina camera and take pictures for a fee, esp. if he/she knew it would not be covered by ohip?
> Doctors can opt out of OHIP and charge patients directly for insured > services, however they are forbidden by law to charge patients more than the > OHIP rate. So why would they, and do any?
Doctors are free to provide uninsured services to patients, and
> can charge any fee they want, but the patients, not OHIP, pays for them. Are glasses, contacts covered, and under what circumstances/limits. Can patient purchase more expensive items than are normally covered? I think you once stated that doc's can't profit from "sale" of eyewear or contacts, but opticians could. Is that right? Seems unfair to me, although I'm aware of the potential conflicts of interest in our system.
Refraction is
> specifically excluded as a reason for an insured exam of a person between 20 > and 64, refraction is covered for the other age groups. Optometrists bill > the patient for uninsured services like refraction and for health assessment > when no problem is found. Does ohip pay separately for refraction and exam when disease is present? If so, what's the breakdown?
It bogs down for elective
> care like cataract, where delays, although annoying do not result in > morbidity or mortality. Is it illegal for a doc/patient to go around the system and do a cash deal for surgery that is not "covered"? E.g. questional cataracts or outright clear lens exchanges. If ok, are the fees limited?
> As far as quality goes, various studies have shown that the Canadian models > delivers better quality at lower cost Tough thing to measure, medical quality, so I'm not convinced one way or the other on that, but for sure more people (%) have access to medical care up there than down here, which is why I hope we go toward your system. I'd just hope that they leave room for private initiative and freedoms to choose.
Thanks for the post and for any additional answers you might care to give.
w.stacy, o.d.
Dr Judy - 11 Aug 2005 17:29 GMT > Wow! Thanks for the extensive review. I'll cut and paste my way through > to a few observations and questions I have: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Would that be an income tax, or some other? Any idea what % of income or > whatever source the program costs? There is no special tax levy for health care. Government revenue is mostly income tax, though there are also sales taxes, duties etc. All government revenue is pooled and all government expenses including health care costs come out of the pool. I think health care costs, including drugs, home care, nursing homes (drugs for everyone over 65, drug costs in excess of $1000/yr per person, cost of home care for all, cost for basic 4 per room nursing home is about 20% to 25% of government expenses.
The cost of providing health care in Canada including drugs, nursing homes, gov't insured and non insured services is about 9% of GNP. The similar number for US (remembering that about 40 million Americans are not insured) is about 13% of GNP.
> No one is >> denied coverage based on pre existing conditions. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > retina camera and take pictures for a fee, esp. if he/she knew it would > not be covered by ohip? Yes, and we do.
>> Doctors can opt out of OHIP and charge patients directly for insured >> services, however they are forbidden by law to charge patients more than >> the OHIP rate. > > So why would they, and do any? A few people did in the early years, just on principle because they were opposed to socialized medicine. It makes no financial sense since you charge the same fee and have added on the collection costs.
> Doctors are free to provide uninsured services to patients, and >> can charge any fee they want, but the patients, not OHIP, pays for them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > contacts, but opticians could. Is that right? Seems unfair to me, > although I'm aware of the potential conflicts of interest in our system. Glasses etc are not covered by OHIP. The patient is always free to pay for uninsured items. Social services covers the cost of glasses but not contacts for those on social assistance or on disablity. Contacts can be covered for those on social assistance in rare conditions, for example, aphakia or keratoconus.
We not forbidden to "profit", but we must provide materials for a fee, not a markup. All health professions have this rule. For example, when I go to the dentist for a crown, he charges a flat fee for crown prep and his actual invoice cost of the crown, when I go to the pharmacy, the pharmacist charges a flat fee for dispensing and his actual cost of the drugs and when someone gets glasses or contacts from me, I charge a flat fee for fitting and my actual cost.
> Refraction is >> specifically excluded as a reason for an insured exam of a person between [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Does ohip pay separately for refraction and exam when disease is present? > If so, what's the breakdown? No. If refraction is necessary for diagnosis of the condition it is included in the exam fee. If the only reason a person between the ages of 20 and 64 presents is for refraction, OHIP doesn't pay anything. If during the course of an exam, a disease is discovered, then the visit is covered.
> It bogs down for elective >> care like cataract, where delays, although annoying do not result in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for surgery that is not "covered"? E.g. questional cataracts or outright > clear lens exchanges. If ok, are the fees limited? Clear lens extraction for refractive reasons is not insured so it can be billed to patient. But if the reason for surgery is cataract, even if questionable, then it is insured and OHIP must be billed, not the patient.
>> As far as quality goes, various studies have shown that the Canadian >> models delivers better quality at lower cost [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. Glenn - USAEyes.org - 11 Aug 2005 08:08 GMT Thanks Dr. Judy. That was one of the most comprehensive, and yet concise, explanations of the Canadian health care system I have had the pleasure to read.
Glenn Hagele Executive Director USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
|
|
|