Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Researchers at work

Now, I know bariatric surgery is somewhat controversial. Like all docs, I've seen my share of patients who didn't benefit from it, or had serious complications. But this post isn't a forum for that.

Let's look at this practically. If a person has bariatric surgery, they should be more likely to lose wieght, and have fewer long-term complications of obesity, then someone who doesn't have the surgery. Right?

Of course, somebody felt the need to study this. I assume this was done to be able to improve insurance coverage of the procedure.

(click to enlarge)

I'd like to thank my reader Jennifer for submitting this.


kateA said...

Pennywise, pound foolish.

The Mother said...

Another DUH moment from your tax dollars.


C said...

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

Packer said...

I liked it better when they just wired the jaw shut.

Anonymous said...

the study is necessary because insurance coverage is all over the map. and there are ways of promoting good methods by good people if all sit down and collaborate.

Angela said...

got to love pointless research!!!


The Bus Driver said...

It bothers me that insurance refuses to pay for something like this that some people obviously need. That does not excuse people from NOT following a doctor recommended diet and exercise plan as a PART of getting the bariatric surgery, but instead complicates things for those of us who don't want/ aren't looking for the "easy" way out and WANT to follow doctor advice in order to lose weight healthily. Additionally, some insurances only cover a certain amount of visits to a nutritionist for folks who only fit into a certain category. For my insurance, it is 3 visits per LIFETIME (either in group or solo session) How is that going to help me if what I need is constant monitoring in a weight loss program (which by the way is NOT covered either).

Way to pay higher premiums for less services!

Sorry, this is a sore subject with me because I can't seem to get the help I need and want, in order to get healthy.

Spoffin said...

You're complaining about this study because you think the results are obvious. But, what if the results had been surprising? What if the study had learned that morbidity isn't reduced, people get thinner but not healthier? Or what if it learned that 25 in every 100 people gained up to 5 years of life, but 1% of people die on the table and 10% of people die within a year. That would be useful data that we didn't have before - data that might bring doubt on whether the surgery is of overall statistical benefit. Or it might demonstrate the opposite - that the procedure is wildly more effective than anyone dared to hope. So, yeah, I reject the idea that this is something where we can say "we know what the answer is, we don't need to study it"

Anonymous said...

Comment @The Bus Driver...and anyone else with an open mind: I had to respond to your comment

"It bothers me that insurance refuses to pay for something like this that some people obviously need."

Health Insurance coverage is a benefit provided to you by your employer, (unless your poor, old or filthy rich) and as such, the details of your coverage are determined by how much your employer wants to spend. Think of it like a company car. Your employer "could" provide you with a Lexus with all the options. Or, your employer could provide you with a 1987 Toyota. If you have the Toyota, are you going to complain to the Toyota company? NO...you'll complain to your employer. Same with health plans. MANY employers choose to buy plans that exclude diet pills and bariatric surgery. That saves them some money in monthly premiums that they may or may not choose to pass on to their employees. But don't call me up complaining that you have a crummy policy. You're employer did that to you...not me!

Locations of visitors to this page