User login
Office based-testing is convenient and often useful.
Often, but not always.
Sadly, a number of practices are increasingly turning to tests of questionable value as a way to make up for decreasing reimbursements. While I have nothing against making money, I have to question where this trend is going. I see many of them even being done by physicians outside of their fields.
I get ads all the time from companies selling gadgets to test balance (“Be the first in your area! Fully reimbursed!”). I see reports from family doctors with the results of a pseudo-EMG/NCV surface test done there by an assistant saying a patient with diabetes has a neuropathy (shocker!).
I have nothing against tests. Lord knows I order plenty of them. But I always try to ask myself if the results will change my management plan or answer another crucial question. If the answer is “no” to both, why bother?
Test are shiny. They impress patients and their families. They represent technological progress in medicine to many. But a lot of time we forget that clinical skills are pretty useful, too. If a diabetic patient comes in with numb feet and an exam that shows decreased distal sensation, do we really need a pseudo-surface EMG/NCV (especially when done by someone who isn’t a neurologist or physiatrist) or skin punch biopsy to tell us they have a neuropathy?
If the patient is stumbling all over and is clearly ataxic, do we need a machine to say, “Hey, you’re off balance. You could fall.”
An old mentor always told me “clinical correlation is advised.” (Al, I hated you then and miss you now.)
And convenience doesn’t always mean something is good. Remember Theranos?
Like all doctors, I worry about my bottom line and keeping my practice afloat. These tests are alluring in that they promise to increase practice revenue without much change in your overhead (if you believe that). But they can also be a siren song that lures you to put money ahead of what’s best for a patient. That’s never the right course.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Office based-testing is convenient and often useful.
Often, but not always.
Sadly, a number of practices are increasingly turning to tests of questionable value as a way to make up for decreasing reimbursements. While I have nothing against making money, I have to question where this trend is going. I see many of them even being done by physicians outside of their fields.
I get ads all the time from companies selling gadgets to test balance (“Be the first in your area! Fully reimbursed!”). I see reports from family doctors with the results of a pseudo-EMG/NCV surface test done there by an assistant saying a patient with diabetes has a neuropathy (shocker!).
I have nothing against tests. Lord knows I order plenty of them. But I always try to ask myself if the results will change my management plan or answer another crucial question. If the answer is “no” to both, why bother?
Test are shiny. They impress patients and their families. They represent technological progress in medicine to many. But a lot of time we forget that clinical skills are pretty useful, too. If a diabetic patient comes in with numb feet and an exam that shows decreased distal sensation, do we really need a pseudo-surface EMG/NCV (especially when done by someone who isn’t a neurologist or physiatrist) or skin punch biopsy to tell us they have a neuropathy?
If the patient is stumbling all over and is clearly ataxic, do we need a machine to say, “Hey, you’re off balance. You could fall.”
An old mentor always told me “clinical correlation is advised.” (Al, I hated you then and miss you now.)
And convenience doesn’t always mean something is good. Remember Theranos?
Like all doctors, I worry about my bottom line and keeping my practice afloat. These tests are alluring in that they promise to increase practice revenue without much change in your overhead (if you believe that). But they can also be a siren song that lures you to put money ahead of what’s best for a patient. That’s never the right course.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Office based-testing is convenient and often useful.
Often, but not always.
Sadly, a number of practices are increasingly turning to tests of questionable value as a way to make up for decreasing reimbursements. While I have nothing against making money, I have to question where this trend is going. I see many of them even being done by physicians outside of their fields.
I get ads all the time from companies selling gadgets to test balance (“Be the first in your area! Fully reimbursed!”). I see reports from family doctors with the results of a pseudo-EMG/NCV surface test done there by an assistant saying a patient with diabetes has a neuropathy (shocker!).
I have nothing against tests. Lord knows I order plenty of them. But I always try to ask myself if the results will change my management plan or answer another crucial question. If the answer is “no” to both, why bother?
Test are shiny. They impress patients and their families. They represent technological progress in medicine to many. But a lot of time we forget that clinical skills are pretty useful, too. If a diabetic patient comes in with numb feet and an exam that shows decreased distal sensation, do we really need a pseudo-surface EMG/NCV (especially when done by someone who isn’t a neurologist or physiatrist) or skin punch biopsy to tell us they have a neuropathy?
If the patient is stumbling all over and is clearly ataxic, do we need a machine to say, “Hey, you’re off balance. You could fall.”
An old mentor always told me “clinical correlation is advised.” (Al, I hated you then and miss you now.)
And convenience doesn’t always mean something is good. Remember Theranos?
Like all doctors, I worry about my bottom line and keeping my practice afloat. These tests are alluring in that they promise to increase practice revenue without much change in your overhead (if you believe that). But they can also be a siren song that lures you to put money ahead of what’s best for a patient. That’s never the right course.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.