It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Mugly
Same here... until 3 weeks ago. Then *BOOM* - 'you're fired! We don't trust you!'
im not worried about the levels of my scripted meds.
if i test i will fail for an illicit substance
They did it because the amount of drugs getting abused is staggering.
The trouble is that amphetamines are schedule 2 so to the government, they are the same category as narcotics and subject to the same regulation. They are drugs of abuse and have a high value on the black market so it is not unreasonable to manage them the same way.
What difference does it make the speciality of the doctors? A controlled substance is a controlled substance.
Not having a controlled substance in your test could be an indication of diversion, which is why a follow up pill count is important.
I'm a nervous wreck not knowing. Gonna go take a walk, guys... I need to get out of the house.
originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: new_here
I'm a nervous wreck not knowing. Gonna go take a walk, guys... I need to get out of the house.
I know you already know this, and I know you can't control the stress, but please try to just breathe and remain as calm as you can so your BP doesn't skyrocket...my brother had a TIA last year, his got so high, and they told him next time it could be a full-blown cerebral event. Just hang in there!
Ameritox's nearly decade-long practice of using false claims and advertising practices to mislead physicians into believing they could use the Rx Guardian service to determine whether their patients were taking the proper dosage of their prescribed medications, leading to damaging outcomes for patients and their physicians.”
Essentially, the two Rx Guardian systems did not do what Ameritox claimed and, consequently, patients could have been wrongfully labeled as adherent or nonadherent based on quantitative Rx Guardian ranges. In some cases, patient test results could have been erroneously recorded in physicians' records as reflecting aberrant behaviors, when in fact the patient was taking medications exactly as prescribed.
The news release further reports that Judge Legg established at the outset of the trial that UDT, including the Rx Guardian and Rx Guardian CD systems, cannot determine whether or not a patient is taking the prescribed dosages of a pain management medication. It was the testimony of Ameritox's own executives that doomed its efforts to defend the ads. For example, during rigorous cross-examination, the firm’s Chief Medical Officer, Harry Leider, MD, admitted to Rx Guardian's failings in the following exchange:
He was asked, “Dr. Leider, you would agree with me that Rx Guardian cannot determine the dosage of a medication that a patient has taken; isn't that correct?” He answered, “Yes.”
Leider was then asked, “And you would agree with me that Rx Guardian cannot determine the frequency with which a patient actually is taking a prescribed medication; isn't that correct?” he answered, “Yes.”
Moreover, Dr. Leider conceded that patients who were excluded from Ameritox's “Compliance Database” could in fact be compliant with their regimens, while those abusing or misusing their medications could actually be included.
The case against Ameritox was further bolstered by Howard A. Heit, MD, FACP, FASAM, a widely-respected expert in the pain field who provided testimony on the adverse consequences that may occur when clinicians rely on Rx Guardian to determine how a patient has been taking prescribed medications, both in terms of overall dosage and frequency of medication use. According to Heit:
“The decision to alter a patient's medication regimen based on false scientific data can easily lead to patient harm through dose reduction, and a worsening of the patient's complaints of pain. Worse still, we know that some clinicians discharge their patients based on urine drug test results. Any clinical decision based on unsound laboratory testing can expose the patient as well as the prescriber to significant risk and potentially devastating adverse outcomes. It is only a matter of time before an injured patient holds his prescriber legally accountable for actions taken against him based on UDT results that claim more than they can deliver.”
Thanks. I'm doing my best to stay... cool about this. I'm beginning to think it doesn't pay to be honest. If I'd told the receptionist at the new doc that I wanted to transfer to them because it's closer to my house and my pharmacist highly recommended them (both are true) then I'd probably already have gotten in the door.
But noooo... I had to go and spill the beans, because I thought honesty was best. Boy am I an idiot!
From a court case in 2012: Millennium Labs vs. Ameritox
originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: new_here
Thanks. I'm doing my best to stay... cool about this. I'm beginning to think it doesn't pay to be honest. If I'd told the receptionist at the new doc that I wanted to transfer to them because it's closer to my house and my pharmacist highly recommended them (both are true) then I'd probably already have gotten in the door.
But noooo... I had to go and spill the beans, because I thought honesty was best. Boy am I an idiot!
I believe everything happens for a reason. Look at how much feedback you got just from posting this thread...and I think it's safe to say we're all sufficiently appalled...maybe you were meant to bring this to light, maybe save someone from medical malpractice, anything is possible. You're not an idiot, but I am beginning to agree with you that it doesn't pay to be honest. It seems more and more that the people who try to do the right thing are only punished for their efforts.
originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: new_here
From a court case in 2012: Millennium Labs vs. Ameritox
Whaaaaaaaaaat??? That is EXACTLY what I've been saying makes no kind of sense to me this whole time and here they've already been called out on it so why in the hell are they still allowed to get away with it??? It is complete, utter, blatant FRAUD!!! Here they are, essentially making it sound like you (and presumably other people too) have done something wrong or are omitting something from your account of the events...exactly why I point blank asked you if you were a pain clinic patient, because that's the service they insist that they provide, despite documented evidence that they actually service a far more widespread patient demographic... deliberately clouding everything up with nonsensical paperwork and vague answers, and they've already been caught doing the same damn thing three years ago???
originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: Lucklad56
It just occured to me to ask... Can you not submit the claim to your insurance yourself to recoup what they would ordinarily pay towards your visit?
I say that, because years ago, some doctors' offices did not automatically file your insurance claim for you. You had to keep up with the receipts & paperwork and send it in on your own.
Just a thought.
When I asked why the sudden change.. She told me the DEA told the Doc he no longer had to take insurance if he didn't want to..
originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: new_here
Contact a lawyer immediately. This is a new feature of medical totalitarianism. You must make every attempt to stay off the radar. Make them purge the record and drop the pill pusher.
originally posted by: Lucklad56
originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: Lucklad56
It just occured to me to ask... Can you not submit the claim to your insurance yourself to recoup what they would ordinarily pay towards your visit?
I say that, because years ago, some doctors' offices did not automatically file your insurance claim for you. You had to keep up with the receipts & paperwork and send it in on your own.
Just a thought.
When I asked why the sudden change.. She told me the DEA told the Doc he no longer had to take insurance if he didn't want to.. Mongths later I still haven't gotten a clear answer..but my yearly doc expenses went from $600 to $2,400.. Not including medicine costs.. Yeah I would love to hear Navydocs view..
All tests and their fees not covered by insurance should be disclosed by the requestor of the tests and the amounts to the patient prior to issuing the request and also authorized by the patient confirming they will pay.
originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: Lucklad56
When I asked why the sudden change.. She told me the DEA told the Doc he no longer had to take insurance if he didn't want to..
Is it just me, or does anybody else think that sounds like a bogus reason to suddenly stop accepting your insurance.
I mean, technically, I think a doctor could accept NOBODY's insurance (because I think in the past I've heard them say 'we accept 'this' and 'this,' but not 'that') but I'd think a doc would go plum out of business if he didn't accept insurance at all.
And what's the DEA got to do with it? Her whole excuse sounds fishy to me.
Oh, Naaavy Doc... where aaaare youuu? We need you to weigh in on this!