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.

 

Ameritox Urine Drug Test has destroyed my doctor/patient relationship... literally.

page: 12
67
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

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


I wasn't worried about my scripted levels, or illicit. I still failed.

edit on 5/15/2015 by new_here because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 15 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: whyamIhere




They did it because the amount of drugs getting abused is staggering.


Yeah, I get that. But I can account for the low reading in my sample. As insulting as it would have been... all they had to do was a pill-count. Period.

If it weren't for people like NavyDoc, I'd say to H#LL with doctors!!! How many think he should just move back to SC and be my doctor? Huh? Can I get a AMEN?!
edit on 5/15/2015 by new_here because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




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.


Ahaaa! I get it now, thank you for explaining.
Talked to one of my friends who's an ER doc last night and he said there have been so many people being dumped by their physicians that it's starting to impact ED medicine in a very significant way. Patients have nowhere else to go get seen. He said there has been talk of certain Schedule II meds not being authorized for dispensation by ERs or 24-hour clinics anymore and Adderall is one of them. He said they're also being told that Tramadol is probably going to be reclassed as a narcotic too...far too many people over-prescribing and prescribing for long-term use when it was not meant to be a maintenance med. He said they're cracking down on Phenergan too. Good grief!



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
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!



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

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!



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!



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
From a court case in 2012: Millennium Labs vs. Ameritox



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.”


Source



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
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???



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

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.


I'm sure you're right. I mean, I always see it later, that something was meant to be. So I look forward to the day when I can say "God I'm glad they did that, otherwise [...fill in blank of good thing] would never have happened."
edit on 5/15/2015 by new_here because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

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???



Yup.
Hey maybe Millennium Labs could suggest a good lawyer.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I was so naive, when they told me I had to take a Drug Test.

All I kept thinking was...Hope there is a lot of questions about pot.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

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..



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucklad56


And yes I get screened every month..past two years..



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
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!



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: new_here

The problem with private health insurance , is worse than public. You pay your contributions. and certain people will line up for every procedure that they can get the doctor to ok. The Doctor will ok it as he gets a cut, and the surgeons get work. These people have a contract with the health insurer, that the health insurer cant terminate. That sounds like a recipe, that will grind the health insurer into the bankruptcy court, or they will have to keep raising charges to stay out of them. They are in it to make as much money as possible . Which means maximise the income, and minimise the outgoings. Then like normal insurance companies are doing , refuse to pay out, because of some clause in the small print, you don't like it? then take us to court.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: annoyedpharmacist
My doctor had to have another doctor shadow him for six months because he was being punished for not giving patients enough warning that the medication they're taking could lead to addiction. I was floored.who doesn't know that in this day and age? He admitted it would affect his prescription writing habits in the future. We made a joke about it but I felt really bad for the stress it clearly put him under.He said he would have to stop assuming his patients are rational thoughtful adults.How does a town handle losing that many doctors?



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

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.



Please do take this advice. I know I've heard it all now. Drug tests are normally failed by having a drug in your system that you aren't legally prescribed. But you get failed for not having enough of a drug in your system. That is crazy !

This is an unwanted side effect of the authorities knee-jerk reactions to the prescription pill epidemic.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

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..


After reading all 12 pages, I am still confused. Is the DEA telling only docs that prescribe narcotic meds they no longer need to take insurance or are they telling ALL docs they don't have to accept insurance? Or they can decline insurance on any patient receiving the questionable meds? This seems almost Benedict Arnoldish. I definitely would be turning in my receipts to the insurance company for reimbursement. The DEA has absolutely no business in the medical insurance industry.

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.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: StoutBroux

I don't have a clue about the DEA/insurance situation Lucklad59 suddenly ran into. As far as I know, that is an isolated incident/situation on this thread. Hey congrats on reading all 12 pages, lol...

I simply got a dismissal letter claiming I wasn't taking my prescription (when clearly it shows an amount in my urine, albeit less than Ameritox's established cut-off in order to count as positive.)

My insurance has been covering my health care (office visits, blood-work, mammograms, scripts, etc) for years without too much grief, but it sure did put the $1300 Ameritox charge in the 'not covered' category. So...



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.


...yeah, I totally agree with this statement!
edit on 5/16/2015 by new_here because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   

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!





I agree with this and borderline presented some of these points to my Doc.. It seems to me the bottom line is this.. If the docs are gonna prescribe scheduled/controlled drugs.. They are hassled with DEA crap and are at a risk.. So they are going to make the patient pay for those risks,.i guess?



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join