Treat Me, but No Tricks Please

[groovedaddy]

I RECEIVED an e-mail message recently from an angry doctor. He’d torn his hamstring running on a beach and spent eight weeks — a total of 20 hours — in physical therapy. Then his insurer said the physical therapy was not covered.

He couldn’t understand it. The therapy cost $150 a session, and he said it was “clearly beneficial and cost-effective.” (He added, though, that after eight weeks he was not yet running again.)

Hmm. I also tore my hamstring running, but my doctor never mentioned physical therapy. Instead he referred me for platelet-rich plasma, an experimental treatment that involves having my own blood platelets injected into the torn tendon. The cost, including the radiologist’s fee, an ultrasound and the plasma injection, was $2,200.

My insurer would not pay, which made sense to me because the plasma treatment is considered experimental. It might work; then again, it might not.

But the letter the angry doctor had received from his insurer made me wonder whether physical therapy was different from the plasma treatment. Is there rigorous evidence showing it works?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/health/nutrition/07best.html?th&emc=th

[Warpy]

1. Physical therapy is always better than invasive treatment, IMO

It works by preserving the function you have, strengthening the function you don't have, and teaching the body mechanics to take advantage of both.

I've had PT for a back injury at work and it was wonderful. Other nurses had similar injuries from the same patient and opted for surgery. I got well faster.

It was also cheaper in this case, $1200 for something that is proven to work versus $2200 for something that isn't and that carries more risk.