[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]
[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [IP] Confused, looking for help......
- Subject: Re: [IP] Confused, looking for help......
- From: "Frank W. Tegethoff, jr." <email @ redacted>
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 98 22:52:51 PDT
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,=
This just goes to show how valuable this list is when it comes to gatheri=
ng info. Thanks again and take care.
> Frank W. Tegethoff, jr. wrote:
> > Ruth,
> > You are absolutely correct. Pump therapy is not new. What I was try=
> say was that in my experience. It is 'new' to the vast majority of md =
> almost all insurance co. I know that pumps have been around for along =
> that there had been a loyal following among a small group of endo. But=
> don't think that in the US we had any 'hard' scientific data to throw =
> insurance industry untill the DCCT. Is my thinking on this correct? =
> advise, if not. You may want to e mail me at email @ redacted as we may =
> getting off topic for the list.
> > Frank
> Frank,I'll take a chance since I think this is reasonably on topic and =
> others may be able to contribute too. Yeramichael?
> I know that in the early '80s there was some conflicting evidence about=
> control but the general word at the dr's office was that improved contr=
> improved health -- especially, my pediatric endo when i was 14-15 was =
> show definitive research to the insurance co, for teenage girls in the=
> term. In the late '80s I was told by my dr. that tight control appeare=
> lessen complications about 1/3 of the time, make no difference 1/3 of =
> time, and I forgot exactly what the other 1/3 did -- something neutral =
> I remember. I know that the initial
> dcct studies in the early 90s showed that abrupt tight control often =
> eye problems and kidney problems, at least initially -- causing a swing=
> 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=
> reasonably "old" enough to cover without issue. In the last 5-6 years,=
> and BlueCross have reclassified them and the "member services" represen=
> have started talking about them as "newer" treatments. One can specula=
> about trends in medical care or publicity that may have caused this. =
> rate, since "diabetes" doctors have been trained more as generalists =
> as specialists in the last 10 years or so, it seems logical that for =
> 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 =
> > > they thought we would have closed loop pumping in 10 years (that =
> > > ago!). Pumping is certainly not old but when you consider that the =
> > > materials most diabetics are trained on only evolved in the 1970s =
> > > 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 =
> > > whatever new insurance policy I have acquired when I change jobs =
> > > 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/