[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]
[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: [IP] Confused, looking for help......



Ruth,
Thank you very much.  I didn't develop DM untill '85.  I had never heard =
of the positive effects of tighter Bg control (girls study) untill after =
the DCCT close out.  Up to that point it was still a question for debate,=
 for me.
This just goes to show how valuable this list is when it comes to gatheri=
ng info.  Thanks again and take care.
Frank

- ----------
>
>
> Frank W. Tegethoff, jr. wrote:
>
> > Ruth,
> > You are absolutely correct.  Pump therapy is not new.  What I was try=
ing to
> say was that in my experience.  It is 'new' to the vast majority of md =
and to
> almost all insurance co.  I know that pumps have been around for along =
timeand
> that there had been a loyal following among a small group of endo.  But=
 I
> don't think that in the US we had any 'hard' scientific data to throw =
at the
> insurance industry untill the DCCT. Is my thinking on this correct?  =
Please
> advise, if not.  You may want to e mail me at email @ redacted as we may =
end up
> getting off topic for the list.
>

> > Frank
>
> Frank,I'll take a chance since I think this is reasonably on topic and =
I think
> others may be able to contribute too.  Yeramichael?
>
> I know that in the early '80s there was some conflicting evidence about=
 bg
> control but the general word at the dr's office was that improved contr=
ol
> improved health -- especially, my pediatric endo when i was 14-15 was =
able to
> show definitive research to  the insurance co, for teenage girls in the=
 long
> term.  In the late '80s I was told by my dr. that tight control appeare=
d to
> lessen complications about 1/3 of the time, make no difference 1/3 of =
the
> time, and I forgot exactly what the other 1/3 did -- something neutral =
though
> I remember.  I know that the initial
> dcct studies in the early 90s showed that abrupt tight control often =
caused
> eye problems and kidney problems, at least initially -- causing a swing=
 back
> from the emphasis on tighter control in the late 1970's-80's.   We now,
> obviously, know more about this and its manifestitions and implications=
.
>
> On the "new" issue.  In the mid '80s, my insurance thought pump supplie=
s were
> reasonably "old" enough to cover without issue.  In the last 5-6 years,=
 Aetna
> and BlueCross have reclassified them and the "member services" represen=
tatives
> have started talking about them as "newer" treatments.  One can specula=
te
> about trends in medical care or publicity that may have caused this. =
 At any
> rate, since "diabetes" doctors have been trained more as generalists =
and less
> as specialists in the last 10 years or so, it seems logical that for =
a while
> pumps were less commonly
> treated as options for Type 1 diabetics.
>
> Does that answer you?
>
> >
> >
> > ----------
> > >
> > >
> > > > Pump therapy is new.
> > >
> > > Sorry Frank, but it is not new.  It is 25 years old!  At the time =
it came
> out,
> > > they thought we would have closed loop pumping in 10 years (that =
was 20
> years
> > > ago!). Pumping is certainly not old but when you consider that the =
ADA
> > > materials most diabetics are trained on only evolved in the 1970s =
and that
> > > insulin was only discovered in the '20s, it's just not that new.
> > >
> > > Don't mean to contradict you but it is this kind of misinformation =
that
> causes
> > > whatever new insurance policy I have acquired when I change jobs =
to first
> > > reject my pump supply requests!
> > >
> > > Ruth
> > >
> > > 
> > > Insulin-Pumpers website http://www.bizsystems.com/Diabetes/
> > >
> >
> > 
> > Insulin-Pumpers website http://www.bizsystems.com/Diabetes/
>
>
>
> 
> Insulin-Pumpers website http://www.bizsystems.com/Diabetes/
>



Insulin-Pumpers website http://www.bizsystems.com/Diabetes/