According to our doctor, there is a new law related to Obamacare - they must drug-test you

[Holly_Hobby]

My husband and I both see the same doctor. Today, she said the next time a blood test is required for health reasons, she must check us for all illicit and Rx drugs in our system, including nicotine. She said it was a new law related to Obamacare, so people can't lie about smoking or using pot or taking someone else's pain meds, or doctor-shop. When you apply for Obamacare, it will ask if you smoke, for instance. The blood test will either prove you right or wrong.

Has anyone else heard about this new law? Thanks

[babylonsister]

1. I call major bullshit.

I haven't read or heard a word about this. What state do you live in?

[kysrsoze]

2. Yeah, ask the asshole to produce something printed

I'd tell the good doctor where to stick it and find a new one.

[Holly_Hobby]

5. Ohio. This is the only thing I've been able to find on it --- from NORML

But it's a policy, not a law...

...

Expand and Evaluate Screening for Substance Use in All Healthcare Settings [HHS/SAMHSA,
NIDA, NIAAA, HRSA, IHS, VA, DOD]

Screening for substance use should become more broadly implemented in the healthcare system. , awareness of the drugs and alcohol a patient is consuming can alert the physician to the risks of adverse medication interactions. It also conveys the
important message to all Americans that consideration of substance use should be a standard part of
looking after one’s health. SAMHSA will work with accreditation agencies (e.g., The Joint Commission)
to increase the number of healthcare facilities that screen for substance use and support training of
healthcare providers on how to conduct screenings quickly and effectively. Federal agencies that
support or operate healthcare systems (HRSA, IHS, VA, and DOD) will continue to expand screening
efforts.

...

[link:http://stash.norml.org/obama-drug-policy-calls-for-more-drug-testing-in-healthcare|

[The empressof all]

16. Screening is not the same as testing

Screening by a medical professional is an assessment of risk. This is information that is obtained via discussion and medical history. I see nothing in that policy that mandates invasive testing. You are routinely screened for a variety of health concerns when you see a medical provider. My sense of this policy is an effort to educate providers on how to improve screening for these behaviors which place patients health at greater risk.

[magical thyme]

61. screening most certainly is testing.

for example, toxicology tests screen for a range of classes of substances. Where I work, we use the MedTox Screen for urine specimens. If somebody shows up in the ED with certain signs and symptoms, they'll order a tox screen and usually a blood alchohol as well.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003578.htm

Toxicology screen

A toxicology screen refers to various tests to determine the type and approximate amount of legal and illegal drugs a person has taken.

[The empressof all]

65. I understand your point

I think it is a matter of semantics regarding the different aspects of the exam and diagnoses process. I read the policy as routine screening during the exam to assess which testing is required to develop a treatment plan. This is done via review of history and patients verbalized concerns and presenting problems. I think it would be highly unlikely for example that someone like me who reports not smoking, not drinking and having a history of thyroid issues controlled by medication for twenty years would be referred for illicit drug screening by my regular doctor per what the OP was suggesting. Emergency and acute care is a totally different situation. There are wide unknows. That kind of testing or screening is routine even without the ACA rulings as are pregnancy tests for women of child bearing age. That is good health care IMO

[magical thyme]

76. the point is that it is open to interpretation

typical corporate approach that allows multiple interpretations which can be pulled out of a hat as convenient.

If you read further downthread, it looks like as currently written ACA specifically allows insurance companies to require drug tests to determine rates. I doubt that was an accident and I doubt it will be removed. I understand it; certain activities do increase risk and drug/alcohol use are one of them.

Personally, I don't care. I hate ACA and there is nothing anybody can say to me that will change that. The insurance companies left me to die decades ago, so after paying into the so-called best HMO around, I ended up saving my life out of pocket anyway.

Insurance companies don't contribute one goddam anything to health care and I resent being forced to pay them money in exchange for nothing. They left me to die before; they will do it again. They employ legions of people who spend their lives poring through the fine print looking for excuses to not pay costs. As a single, past middle-aged woman, I am totally expendible and worthless in American society. That has been made abundantly clear to me since I turned 50. Nothing in this legislation changes that. It just will make me poorer and with less access to health care than before, since now I'll be forced to pay them and won't even be able to afford out of pocket care.

Furthermore, ACA has put my Med Lab Tech job at risk, as hospitals seek to squeeze even more out of everything. If/when they close our sister hospital, our work will dwindle further.

Words can't express how sorry I am I drank the Obama koolaid. I went back to school, ran my ass into the ground and ruined my self financially for this fucking degree based on the hope that things would change for the better. Instead, the 100% employment of MLT's promotion was a blatant lie, the starting salary was a blatant lie, and now I have no way to pay back the student loans, no way to pay for the insurance I don't want, and my expectation is a lifetime of debt and the ruination of my last chance to follow my dream, after working and sacrificing for it for a lifetime, at least a little tiny bit.

I will be paying the penalty to buy myself a couple more years. And frankly, if crazy eyes Bachman or Sarah Nanook of the North ran on a platform of ended ACA, they would get my vote at this point. That is how much I resent it.

[The empressof all]

77. Well You and I agree on a great deal

Insurance Companies are in fact Scum Sucking Satans....and The ACA does not go far enough. My fear is that it will delay a single payer system even further. I just pray that I live long enough to get Medicaid...But really... Crazy Eyes or Sister Nanook??????

Sorry for your employment pain... I am well over 50 myself and unemployed so I feel your deep grief and frustration.

[Holly_Hobby]

8. Also...

My husband was denied pain management last week (in the hospital) because they found THC metabolites in his system. He self-medicates for a variety of things, from arthritis, gout and ADHD. He finds that eating it helps tremendously and doesn't upset his stomach. So we talked to our PCP about it and that's what she said.

edited to add that PCP hasn't tested him yet, this happened while under the care of his Ortho, so that's another doctor that tests

[WinkyDink]

12. I'd watch that PCP if i were you.

[bemildred]

3. Bullshit, that is very expensive. nt

[Hoyt]

4. I'd find another doc.

[rustydog]

6. Ask your doctor if it hurt much when she pulled that whopper out of her ass

[reflection]

60. I just freaking spewed water all over the place.

Why was that so funny?

[arcane1]

7. I did a quick search on this and came up with nothing.

Could it be something happening at the state level where you live?

[Warpy]

9. That is my take on it, too

If you have a Republican majority state government, you need to know they're working overtime to make sure ACA is unpopular. Unnecessary and intrusive testing is part of this.

The nicotine metabolite test is especially useless since nonsmokers do pick up nicotine from second hand smoke.

[Buns_of_Fire]

41. Users of e-cigs will also obviously test positive for nicotine.

(Unless they're using a zero-nicotine mixture, of course.)

I foresee some tweaking of definitions is going to be necessary, but that's to be expected with something of this scope.

[Mariana]

99. People using gum or patches will test positive, too. nt.

[tridim]

10. LOL, fucking Republican doctors.

Isn't lying to your patients considered malpractice?

[RC]

31. That was so last century.

Some places it is required, depending on why you are there.

[freshwest]

39. Not in Arizona, it isn't:

Arizona Senate Passes Bill Allowing Doctors To Not Inform Women Of Prenatal Issues To Prevent Abortions



It’s called a “wrongful birth” bill and it’s all about preventing women from having an abortion, even if it kills them. The Arizona Senate passed a bill this week that gives doctors a free pass to not inform pregnant women of prenatal problems because such information could lead to an abortion.

In other words, doctors can intentionally keep critical health information from pregnant women and can’t be sued for it. According to the Arizona Capitol Times, “the bill’s sponsor is Republican Nancy Barto of Phoenix. She says allowing the medical malpractice lawsuits endorses the idea that if a child is born with a disability, someone is to blame.” So Republicans are banning lawsuits against doctors who keep information from pregnant women so as to prevent them from choosing to have an abortion.

This bill is actually more disturbing than the Republicans seem to realize. Giving doctors such a free pass risks the lives of both the expectant mother and the fetus she carries. Prenatal care isn’t just for discovering birth defects and disabilities. It is also for discovering life threatening issues such as an ectopic pregnancy which often requires an abortion to save the life of the mother. With rare exceptions, ectopic pregnancies are not viable anyway, but Republicans are allowing anti-abortion doctors to keep life threatening information from pregnant women all because they are obsessed with stopping any and all abortions. Women may not know they have a life threatening condition until they die on the emergency room table. And the doctor couldn’t be sued.

This is an egregious bill that will lead to higher mortality rates for infants and mothers. Doctors should be held accountable for not disclosing information learned from prenatal examinations. Pregnant women have the right to know if their future child is going to have a disability or if the pregnancy may require an induced abortion to save their lives. Any decision that is made as a result of the information is the mothers own. Doctors should not be allowed to make decisions for pregnant women as a way to prevent abortions. Women have the right to make their own health decisions and hiding critical information is irresponsible, unconscionable, and risks lives. In the end, Republicans are only putting more lives in jeopardy. They might as well call this the ‘let women die’ bill.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/07/arizona-senate-passes-bill-allowing-doctors-to-not-inform-women-of-prenatal-issues-to-prevent-abortions/#ixzz2aqamy1xc

[WinkyDink]

11. O, FGS. Tell her to turn off FOX.

[burnodo]

13. New Obamacare Wrinkle: A Way For Smokers to Avoid Paying a Penalty

http://www.tlnt.com/2012/11/22/new-obamacare-wrinkle-a-way-for-smokers-to-avoid-paying-a-penalty/

[Xithras]

14. Sorry to break this to everyone, but it's actually NOT bullshit.

There is a provision in the ACA that allows insurers to charge up to 50% higher premiums for individuals who use drugs, including tobacco, and your insurance company can require annual testing for those substances. A number of insurance companies are reacting to this by simply requiring the screening during the blood test during your regular annual physical. It will be an invisible screening for you.

There is also a nullifying feature for the rate hike stating that you can't be charged extra if you are actively participating in any treatment programs. Because of that, there's some question as to how aggressively the insurance companies will be pursuing this, as a simple conversation with your doctor may qualify as a "treatment program", and they could end up spending more on testing and enforcement than they will actually collect in higher premiums. Whether the insurance companies will really implement this on a large scale remains to be seen.

On Edit:. The actual rule changes were a part of the CMS-9972-P rulemaking last year, which identified groups eligible for higher premiums. Smokers and drug abusers were at the top of the list.

[Safetykitten]

15. Hilarious that right out of the box "it's a LIE!" then someone that actually knows facts, like you..

sets them straight.

Amazing.

[Lex]

80. However, it's not required by "Obamacare"

as the doctor stated. Many insurance companies have been requiring blood tests to confirm non-smoking for some time now when you sign up for their insurance plan. It's an insurance company thing. Not new.

[dkf]

18. So this is a way for health insurers to charge more money to test for illicit drug use?

Wow, looks like mass drug tests are about to become the norm.

[The empressof all]

19. If this is the case....It will be tested thoroughly in the courts.

With medical marijuana becoming more and more commonly used, and recreational pot now legal in two states....The cost of insurance companies trolling to "catch" users in mandated blood and urine testing is highly unlikely and not cost effective. To label a providers assessment of harm as treatment is also unlikely because those assessments happen every time you seek medical care. As for tobacco that is pretty much happening already which is why employers discriminate in hiring smokers.

[bananas]

34. And the courts will find nothing wrong with it. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. Kick.

[rdharma]

49. Internet HOAX! nt

[zipplewrath]

30. It's not required

The "lie" here is that the government is requiring this. The government is ALLOWING this, but it is the insurance companies that are choosing to require this.

Oh, and it is probably only the beginning. My insurance has been doing something similar for years (I only have to "certify" that I don't smoke right now). And we get "incentives" for wearing pedometers and reporting the information electronically. I figure BMI checks will come next.

You can't be denied coverage for "pre-existing conditions" but they'll be able to charge you more for smoking today, and some day for a BMI level higher than someone deems "normal".

[Xithras]

59. True. The government doesn't require it. It simply allowed insurance companies to require it.

It's also worth mentioning that the requirements can be nullified at the state level. California, for instance, has laws that prohibit insurance companies from charging higher rates for smokers and other groups. The federal provision that permits this testing explicitly does NOT override state laws on the matter, so the practice will remain illegal here.

I really do question how widespread this will become. Whether or not the law allows insurers to do this kind of testing, the labs doing the tests will still need to be paid. The pricetag for doing annual nicotine and drug screenings on millions of Americans would be staggeringly large, and insurers aren't going to implement this unless they really think they can make money on it. A lot of money on it.

IMHO, it's far more likely that we'll see this sort of thing used in a targeted way, to check known former smokers and drug users for relapses and that sort of thing. I seriously doubt that insurers are going to pay to scan every insured American on the off chance that they might get some extra money out of it.

[alarimer]

74. Our new policies will require something similar

But it's all self-reported, so I just lied about my weight to get my BMI in the right range. I could have lied about my height I suppose because they are not going to check.

I lied about how much I exercise (I figured if I said every day they would know it's a lie, so I said 5 days a week. Some weeks that might be true.) Etc.

[zipplewrath]

75. Some companies are having weigh ins

Some are relying upon doctors office visits. But one can imagine that they'll move towards a wide range of health statistics. It'll become the new "pre-existing condition".

[LibertyLover]

82. Last time I went to my primary care physician

I declined to be weighed. I'm overweight. I know it, I don't need some 19 year old, skinny health tech to smirk about it. The health tech got very upset and told me that if I didn't have my weight taken I might have to pay for the visit myself as my insurance could deny the claim. I thanked her for the information and declined again. Then the health tech got angry and demanded to know if I understood what she had said. I told her I did and that I didn't care for her tone of voice. Fortunately my doctor walked in the room at that point and told the tech she would handle the matter. She wrote down a number and that was that.

[bananas]

32. Thanks - is coffee on the list?

[Incitatus]

35. Looks like people can simply get away by not using drugs 2 days before a blood test.

Blood Drug Screen Detection Period

Amphetamines (except meth): 12 hours
Methamphetamine: 24 hours Barbiturates (except phenobarbital): 1 — 2 days
Phenobarbital: 4 — 7 days
Benzodiazepines: 6 — 48 hours
Cannabis: 2 days
Cocaine: 24 hours
Codeine: 12 hours
Cotinine (a break-down product of nicotine): 2 — 4 days
Morphine: 6 hours
Heroin: 6 hours
LSD: 0 — 3 hours
Methadone: unknown
PCP: 24 hours

http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/blood_faq.htm

[liberal_at_heart]

68. THC can stay in the blood a lot longer than that especially for medical marijuana patients who

use on a regular basis.

[liberal_at_heart]

67. how will this affect medical marijuana patients?

[LWolf]

81. I think this is the answer to

saying that people can't be denied because of pre-existing conditions. You can't be denied, but you can be charged higher premiums.

At this point, Obamacare does not affect my premium at all. It's still more than a moderate mortgage. I won't be switching to the exchange, though, because my employer pays 3/4 of that premium. We're being offered "discounts," (small discounts) for providing annual screenings, and for participating in weight loss or other programs. We are told that THIS year, offering up information and participation is "optional," but that it won't be next year.

[Egalitarian Thug]

17. Gee, if only someone could have foreseen this kind of thing...

Oh, the fun has only just begun. Legally mandated compliance with unaccountable corporate policy, what could possibly go wrong?

[rdharma]

48. Internet Hoax! nt

[lynne]

21. Wonder if those of us with private insurance will be required to do it, too?

I have no need for Obamacare - I have private insurance - yet it continues to screw things up for me. My work hours were limited at the beginning of the year to make sure my employer wouldn't have to offer me coverage. Coverage that I don't need and would refuse. However, there's no "opt out" for those of us who don't need coverage and I'm now capped at 29 hrs. per week.

Now they literally want blood. I will guarantee that people will go without medical care to avoid giving a blood sample to the government.

[Bradical79]

24. Obamacare is not insurance

Not sure what you mean about not needing Obamacare because you have private insurance. It doesn't make sense.

[RC]

33. Obama care IS insurance.

It is just another form of private insurance.

[Bradical79]

83. No, it's not.

A couple people here don't seem to know what insurance is.

[RC]

89. What is it then, if it is not insurance?

[jberryhill]

92. Really?

You really think that there is some kind of government health insurance which is going to be offered or is being offered?

In answer to your question, "Obamacare" is primarily a bunch of rules which govern minimum standards of what can be sold as "health insurance" by private companies.

You might as well claim that your state's regulations on automobile insurance are some kind of government insurance policy.

[RC]

96. I know very well what Obamacare is and where it came from.

It is not government health insurance.That was taken of the table and people put in jail for wanting it. Obamacare is just more private health insurance. And is it insurance, as you said, with different rules.

[lynne]

43. You didn't get the memo, huh?

It most certainly is insurance. You're required to have health insurance coverage and you must either purchase private insurance or purchase a policy through the government "Health Insurance Marketplace". See www.healthcare.gov

I have my own coverage and don't need it but the rules and regs of it are impacting my work and my paycheck. There is no option to "Opt Out" of coverage requirements if you do not need the coverage. So I get hit with the rules of ACA even though I have no reason to ever purchase it.

What did you think Obamacare was?

[Bandit]

64. If it were Government insurance there would be a lot more happy Liberals but it is not.

You will end up with Private insurance whether you get a government subsidy or pay for it out of your own pocket but the Government will not issue you a government policy..Even if you qualify for VA benefits the Government does not issue you an insurance policy. They provide the doctors and the clinics or hospitals and you must use there facilities, but there is no insurance policy.

[Bradical79]

84. It certainly isn't insurance.

"It most certainly is insurance. You're required to have health insurance coverage and you must either purchase private insurance or purchase a policy through the government "Health Insurance Marketplace"."

Or you can not get the insurance and pay a tax. What you described isn't insurance. And if you have your own private insurance you can opt out of your employer insurance. Nothing about the law prevents that. Or are you arguing that you don't need any insurance? In which case you would simply be someone who will likely leach off the system at some point driving up medical costs.

I KNOW what Obamacare is, and it isn't insurance. Arguing otherwise means you're either lying or simply clueless about what the word insurance refers to.

[jberryhill]

90. Unfortunately, you are deeply misinformed

You're required to have health insurance coverage and you must either purchase private insurance or purchase a policy through the government "Health Insurance Marketplace"

You don't seem to understand that all options in the "Health Insurance Marketplace" are private insurance policies. There is no government health insurance provided in that marketplace.

Where you repeatedly go wrong is shown in this phrase of yours:

"you must either purchase private insurance or purchase a policy..."

Yes, you must either purchase private insurance or purchase private insurance. Those are not two different things.

[tazkcmo]

53. Oh, so cute. n/t

[Bradical79]

85. Yes, I am.

Thanks for noticing

[jberryhill]

29. Good golly

Do people really believe there is some kind of public health insurance system called "Obamacare"?

It's ALL private insurance.

[lynne]

45. Private meaning outside the premium and coverage confines and rules of the ACA -

- and not through the government marketplace.

[jberryhill]

54. Uh...

I run my own business and have been paying for private insurance for years. I don't think you quite grasp what the ACA did.

Your insurance policy - it doesn't matter where or how you bought it - must cover the minimum required conditions and treatments, must provide a fully paid annual checkup and other preventive car, cannot drop your children (if they are on it) until they are 26, and must spend 80% of revenue on treatment of medical conditions.

Most of "Obamacare" consists of a set of regulations and performance benchmarks that ALL health insurance policies must satisfy - no matter where you bought it.

[Bradical79]

87. Apparently.

Sure, Obamacare may be a complicated law and there are plenty of rational arguments that can be made against it being a good law, but the fact that it is not insurance is an extremely simple concept to get. Or so I thought.

[jberryhill]

91. It's pretty amazing to me

Don't these people notice that there is no government health insurance being offered?

[FLyellowdog]

22. I don't know if it's Obamacare or not...

but my last doctor's visit required a blood test to determine if I was actually taking the drugs I'd been prescribed. It was explained that it was a way to identify people who might be getting Rx drugs and selling them instead of taking them.

One way to cut down on such behavior. I don't mind.

[dionysus]

28. doc office policy, not law. my PCP wanted me to sign a contract that allowed for random drugs tests

in order to get medicine for panic attacks.

every other person on these types of medications I've talked to said "lol, wtf really? I never had to do that"

[RC]

37. You should. Basically they are saying the do not trust you to tell them the truth.

One more freedom lost. Drip, drip, drip...

[FLyellowdog]

42. I don't recall where the Constitution guarantees

that my doctor must trust me to tell the truth.
This has nothing to do with my freedoms or lack thereof. I have the choice to participate in the doctor's policies or not. Specifically, I can go elsewhere if I choose. Or I can stop taking the Rx that's in question, if I choose.

Granted the cost presents an issue and insurance companies should be taken to task if they aren't going to cover the costs. I predict that if these requirements become commonplace, then insurance will eventually pay for them. IMO

[RC]

52. Reread your post 21 again.

And what does the Constitution necessarily have to do with this? It's the creeping, invasive laws that keep piling up. This is more of the same.

[FLyellowdog]

69. Unless I'm mistaken, the Constitution deals directly with our freedoms.

My point being...nothing in these policies about having additional tests prior to receiving medications seems particularly egregious. Medications that are controlled substances have required closer scrutiny for years...it's state law in many areas and just part of medical care.

I did have a doctor one time lie to me about my having to come in EVERY time I wanted to get a refill on a med. He told me it was FL law and if I had a problem with that I should contact the state legislature. I did...actually finally got to some head of the state health department and found out that no, the medication I was taking was not a controlled substance and did not require an office visit for refills.

Guess what I did? I changed doctors. My choice...no law required me to go to a doctor who was going to insist that I come in when unnecessary. Easy peasy.

Same here, if different doctors are putting different requirements on their patients, patients can go somewhere else. How is that a loss of freedom? Maybe a nuisance, but not an infringement on our rights.

Certainly if all doctors require this through some passage of legislations, it does add another law. But I don't worry about this inflicting great oppression on my Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. There are much greater issues regarding our Rights with far greater detrimental consequences upon which we should focus our outrage.

[bunnies]

73. Those tests are useless and I'll tell you why:

Next time I get my pain meds they want to test me to make sure Im taking them. Thing is... I only take them once in a while because they make me sick. A 30 day prescription lasts me months. So when my blood tests come up negative... guess what label that puts on ME? *ding ding* Drug dealer! Its a bullshit test that doesnt tell anybody squat.

All a drug dealer would have to do is take a pill before the test to *prove* he takes them. Its a worthless waste of money and an unnecessary invasion.

[pnwmom]

23. If only there wasn't a penalty. Because doctors should know about any

substances in a system that could be causing symptoms or interacting with prescribed medications.

[snappyturtle]

27. ....and treat us like children unable to tell them what we take?

[Texasgal]

25. I'm not too sure what this has to with Obama care

People have been blood tested and have had to have physicals for years when applying for health care.

The only new thing I have noticed is with schedule IV drugs ( IE: Ambien )

[elleng]

26. One doesn't 'apply for Obamacare.'

Tell her that.

[chillfactor]

36. i have blood tests every 6 months because of the medications I am on....

and to keep my cholesterol levels in check.....I am also a smoker which my doctors know....and a question she always asks...I was in the doctor's office two weeks ago..my doctor did not say anything about about running tests for whether or not I am on any illicit drugs or if there are any unprescribed drugs in my system.....when I have another blood test in six months

[Cerridwen]

38. Ask her to show you the law/policy and

her attorney's opinion as to how that effects her.

Unless your doctor also practices law she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about and she's taking someone's word for it.

Ask for the proof.

Doctors are some of the most gullible people I've met; lawyers are the next; then sales wo(men); they think everyone is as ignorant of their surroundings as they are and they "go for it."

[rdharma]

47. It doesn't exist! It's a HOAX! nt

[Harmony Blue]

40. This is what happens

when health care is in the hands of the insurance companies. Universal health care should have been the priority from the start.

Maybe the Charlie Brown's will get it once they realize Lucy pulls the football away from them again haha.

[area51]

63. +1 n/t

[rdharma]

44. Another internet hoax!

Sorry, I don't believe you!

No...... on second thought...... I'm not sorry..... because it's not my fault that I don't believe such BS!

[Egalitarian Thug]

58. Just like the question of life after death, the one thing we know for certain is that

we will all eventually find out.

[GeorgeGist]

70. or not.

[cally]

46. Which state?

Too many states and providers are telling patients that it's required by health reform when it's a state policy

[Lint Head]

50. How many lies is it possible to tell about the ACA?

[MADem]

51. Cough--bullshit---cough.

The doctor may be trying to cull his patient list....?

[madrchsod]

55. well this is a new internet hoax...

it has nothing to do with obamacare. my doctors have asked me similar questions for years. in fact since i've been on medicare the doctors i see always review all the medicines i am taking and if i have any problems.

[doc03]

56. I have talked to several doctors wives that go to my gym

and have heard more bogus bullshit that their husbands tell them about Obamacare than
even from Fox news.

On edit: I thought you had to be intelligent to be a doctor but they are just as ignorant or more so about Obamacare as most other people.

[GeorgeGist]

71. Greed kills.

[Egalitarian Thug]

72. The Golden Halo effect. (Does anybody even know about this stuff anymore?)

When I was much younger and in the throes of building my first business, I learned a hard lesson and subsequently dumped all my doctor clients.

All of them that I had, suffered from what I dubbed Imadoctoritis.

Apparently, once a person gains a medical degree, they come to believe that their expertise extends beyond medicine to encompass all human knowledge in every field of endeavor. They become expert, not only in their medical speciality, but in your field as well. Once they've contracted for your services, they feel it is incumbent upon them to direct your actions in that area, and of course, to then hold you responsible for the consequences of their actions.

"I told you this is what would happen, but you insisted I do it anyway" carries no weight at all because, They Are Doctors.

I'm sure I'll live an extra ten years just from refusing to deal with these arrogant assholes from such an early age.

[pediatricmedic]

57. Partially true from my reading of the document in question

That document is CMS-9972-P found at:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-11-26/pdf/2012-28428.pdf

The wall of text is good for a nice headache, but I muddled through some of it. This primarily concerns smoking, but could be extended to other forms of substance abuse. Insurers cannot move you to a different risk group or deny coverage, both of which are illegal under the ACA. It does seem they can impose a risk adjustment of 1.5:1 to your current rate.

The ability to charge more money is going to be irresistible to any insurance company that is participating in this.

The other thing I got from this is that their is no mandatory blood test for any drugs. If you happen to answer yes on a standard health assessment screening, then that could be used as justification. The same is true if a tox screen or drug test is performed and billed to your insurance.

I was not able to determine if the adjustment had a finite time limit or not.

Rules and revisions are constantly changing, so this may or may not stay in the ACA. There are literally thousands of pages on the ACA now, so it is no wonder people are confused about this.

Thanks to Xithras in post #14 for the document, keeping track of this stuff is a monumental task.

[Puzzledtraveller]

62. Of course, no surprise at all.

[KamaAina]

66. My doctor said that all the doctors in the UK work for the government.

That's not at all how the NHS works. It's single-payer, like Medicare.

Just because someone has an M.D. doesn't mean they're not a .

[The empressof all]

78. Having an MD after your name doesn't mean you are smart...You just are trained.

Because the requirements to get into Medical School are so challenging and demanding, often these folks become single focused and lack education in the basics of history, literature, or other liberal arts. Their entire college careers are driven by getting into Medical School' Then they spend their graduate years working like dogs. In my observation of those MD's I know and who are in my family, they lack social skills and although they have empathy for others medical conditions, their awareness of the world around them is somewhat out of kilter with others.

[Bradical79]

95. I realized this a few years ago

Injured my knee at work and was sent to the local urgent care place that my employers send everybody to. I sit down and he takes a look at it. Sees a swollen spot below my kneecap. Pokes it with his finger says "I don't know what this is, what do you think?". Then, "Oh it's probably nothing. You can go back to work tomorrow." Then he leaves. Then I got a bill in the mail for over $400.

[jberryhill]

98. But think about how much you saved

If it has been something serious, it would have cost a lot more.

[Aristus]

79. More scare-mongering from right-wing medical providers.

Absolute horseshit.


On edit: Change doctors. She has proven herself unethical in the extreme; passing along misinformation in support of her political views.

[DirkGently]

86. I don't believe you.

I don't believe a doctor said this to you. It's an obvious rightwing twist on real, but very different situation where insurers will be permitted to charge higher premiums to smokers.

There's nothing about mandatory drug tests or using normal bloodtesting to screen for drugs.

No one thinks that.

[Bradical79]

93. There are some shockingly stupid doctors out there

And also some who are dishonest right wing dirtbags. I think accusing the OP of being a liar is a bit extreme.

[jberryhill]

94. There is always that

These personal anecdotes always include an element of "My insurance company told me....", "My employer told me..." or "My doctor told me..." and the unspoken assumption, because of the way people relate to authority structures" is that whatever follows the dots was correct and/or well-informed.

Or sometimes it will even be "The clerk at the (government office) told me..." The only government official who can tell you what the law is, in any authoritative way, is one dressed in a robe.

[DirkGently]

97. You're right. I have no way of knowing. I amend to say

I find this difficult to believe, but give the OP the benefit of the doubt that her doctor enunciated a clear piece of rightwing glurge for unknown reasons.

Given that assumption, I would drop the doctor immediately, and consider pursuing an ethical complaint with the state licensing agency. No amount of political freedom entitles someone to make up a malicioius lie in the context of medical treatment.