Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Heart Attacks, Cancer and strokes. Preventative approaches -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jrhana who wrote (1514)	10/5/2008 11:16:09 AM
From: jrhana	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39296

My question would be to Dr. Davis: Did you send a letter to the primary physician involved educating him on the importance of a calcium score of 1,000? And did you attach the data which demonstrate it? Speaking of this data, I would like to see it myself. It may have been posted already. If somebody could repost it, I would appreciate it. Some of the older guys from the pre-malpractice era used to say stuff like ,"Treat the patient, not the test.", but they were about to retire with their assets protected. They also used to say it's 50% the patient's history, 40% the patient's physical, and only 10% his lab tests. But I would joke that in the reality of today's world, it was really more like 70% lab 20% history and 10% physical. I spent a lot of health care money chasing abnormal test results. Sometimes we came up with nothing and sometimes we came up with unexpected and severe pathology. It was always a mixture of intuition and science. In a litiginous environment, you better not ignore a severely out of whack lab test. Not only for the patient's sake, but for your own. In addition even if all the tests look great, you still have to make sure the patient looks OK.