Friday, May 10, 2013

Antiphospholipid Syndrome: The Need to Support "Obama Care"


Antiphospholipid Syndrome:


Today’s blog is mostly personal, partly informative, and somewhat angry. My wife, we’ll call her “C” for the purposes here, was diagnosed with Antiphospholipid syndrome in 1993 after experiencing two spontaneous fetal abortions. We were lucky then to find out one of the doctors who discovered the syndrome in Boston currently worked at our hospital. We were both x-ray technologists there, and it turned out our Radiologist’s spouse was one of the first eight women studied in Boston, when the syndrome was named. He put us in contact with the doctor who knew more about the syndrome and pregnancy than nearly anyone else at the time. Long story short, nineteen years later, we have two healthy teenage boys eating us out of house and home. And yes, that is a good thing. 

However, the story does not end there. Antiphospholipid syndrome causes blood clots, preeclampsia (high blood pressure during pregnancy), rashes, heart valve problems, bleeding problems, movement disorders that make limbs sometimes jerk uncontrollably, cognitive problems like poor memory and dementia, sudden hearing loss, depression and psychosis. Additionally, it may cause strokes, sudden shortness of breath, chest pains, coughing up blood-streaked sputum, and swelling in the legs. To date, my wife “C” has experienced almost every known symptom, except stroke. 

“C” spent the last three days in the hospital because her platelet count, the clotting ability of blood, first got too thin and then too thick. Too thin and internal bleeding can develop where the blood literally leaves the body like water. Too thick, and the blood clots can cause a stroke and death. For three days, the hospital tried to regulate her blood. Eventually, the local hospital simply gave up, saying there was nothing more they could do, and sent her home with several vials of very expensive self-injectable drugs with instructions not to participate in dangerous activities like driving heavy equipment or playing full contact rugby. 

So what causes antiphospholipid syndrome? No one can say for certain why antibodies in the body do not normally attack growing fetuses in the human body. After all, a fetus is very similar to a tumor. Why does the body not simply send blood clots over the placenta feeding the fetus to kill it? With Antiphospholipid syndrome, it does. Women with this syndrome end up losing their baby unless they use proper medication to keep the blood clots from clotting the placenta. Similarly, in Antiphospholipid syndrome, the body mistakenly produces antibodies against the proteins, similar to fat in the bloodstream responsible for, and playing a key role in clotting the blood. These antibodies attack the binding proteins, the ones responsible for creating the weblike mesh that begins the clotting itself. That’s when the problems begin.

As the Mayo website points out, no one knows what the primary cause of Antiphospholipid syndrome is, but it is considered an autoimmune problem that may be caused by a number of things. Even so, it is likely passed on from generation to generation through carriers. The syndrome is most likely found in women, but men get it too. The carrier may not ever exhibit symptoms, or may produce any or all the symptoms. 

Complications may include kidney failure, strokes, cardiovascular problems, lung problems, pregnancy complications, false positive syphilis tests, hearing loss, dementia, blood clots throughout the body; bleeding from the mouth, nose, ears, rectum. Other problems include high blood pressure and fetal death. When combined with epilepsy, which may also be a part of the syndrome, the compounded problems make treatment extremely difficult because so many of the various medications needed to treat the syndrome counteract with one another. 

The problem is that most doctors only treat the symptoms of Antiphospholipid syndrome, and not the underlying condition or the patient in a whole body aggregate approach. Often times physicians do not know the syndrome is, that it exists, or how to treat the syndrome. Instead, they simply treat the individual symptoms and refer the patient to others to treat other symptoms. The over result of care is wanting. 

Today, we called the famous Mayo Clinic for a referral and help. We simply wanted someone, anywhere, who knew, understood, and could help “C” overcome the massive numbers of problems she is experiencing. “C”  no longer has private insurance because no company will cover her condition. After having both heart valves replaced and on so many medications, "C" is simply too expensive to cover. When the person at Mayo found out we lacked insurance, she said that she was sorry, but Mayo cannot help. She might have just as well of said, “We don’t take patients like you who are on public aid.” It was a slap in the face and a reality check. Even the famous Mayo Clinic is bound by money issues. Mayo no longer treat the most difficult patients unless they can pay the fees for treatment.  

For years, as an radiographer technologist, I had always heard, “If you want help and cannot find it where you live, contact the Mayo Clinic. They are the best in the world at helping people with serious medical issues and problems.” Today, I found out that may simply not be true. Simply put, if you have a serious medical condition and need help, but don’t have insurance, don’t bother calling the Mayo Clinic. 

If you are reading this and know of anyone specializing in Antiphospholipid syndrome who is willing to take on a difficult case, please comment. The syndrome is difficult to effectively treat, not well done documented, and not well known. Few physicians know much about it, and those who do, do not treat it as a specialty. 

For further information, please look up Antiphospholipid Syndrome on line. I am not a doctor and do not claim to provide any medical advice for anyone. However, if you have this syndrome, I hope you find someone who does help you, and not simply someone who pushes you off on the next physician, like so many in the Rockford, Illinois area, or like the Mayo Clinic who refused to even evaluate my spouse. 

Many people claim "Obama Care" will lead to socialism and socialized medicine. Given the choice between being treated for life threatening medical conditions without worry and not being treated because we cannot pay for the treatment and dying, I'll take "Obama Care" every day of every year of ever lifetime. I've seen first hand the British System of making sure their citizens are given the medical care they need. When compared to the United State's system of only providing medical care to those who can afford it, to that of the British system of taking care of everyone regardless of their ability to pay for long term care, I would much rather have the British system of medical care.






2 comments:

  1. PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND HEALTH CARE SYSTEM BEFORE MAKING REFORM DECISIONS

    Dear Editor,

    In a prior letter to the editor of this newspaper, Mr. Ronald Haefner brought up the issue of universal healthcare and concerns regarding the cost of such a program. Indeed, it is very wise to entertain discussions of how we might best manage our healthcare resources. Here are some points for consideration.

    Point one: We have the highest health care costs in the world. Currently our nation spends approximate 17 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP) on healthcare. At the current rate of growth, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that healthcare will consume 20 percent of GDP by the year 2017, 30 percent by 2040, and 50 percent by 2082. (1) In comparison, in 2005, Canada spent 9.8 percent, Denmark 8.6 percent, Sweden 9.1 percent, Germany 10.5 percent and France 10.6 percent of their GDP on healthcare. In fact, we have the highest healthcare costs on the planet.

    Point two: Paying more hasn't provided higher quality care. The US has poor healthcare outcomes (outcomes include statistics like longevity, infant mortality, preventable deaths, etc.) when compared to other industrial countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) rated the US healthcare system 37th in the world in quality, just below Dominica (35th) and Costa Rica (36th).

    Point three: All universal/single payer systems are more cost efficient than the for-profit system. Private insurance companies like CIGNA spend over 30 cents of every dollar it is given on overhead and profits. The US government is much more efficient, it spends only 3 percent of every dollar on overhead for Medicare and the Canadian government spends 2.5 cents on overhead.

    Ironically, the McKinsey Global Institute reports that switching to a Medicare for all type system would not cost Americans more but would in fact SAVE Americans $480 billion per year in excess administration costs, cover everyone, and provide higher quality of care. . .

    ReplyDelete
  2. So what are our choices? According to T. R. Reid, correspondent for Frontline's program, “Sick Around the World,” there are 4 basic models for funding healthcare:

    I. The British or national style system: In this system, health care is provided and financed by the government through tax payments, just like the police force or the public library. Hospitals and clinics are owned by the government; and doctors are government employees. The American VA hospital system is such an example.
    II. The German style system: It uses a private, but government regulated not-for-profit insurance system that must accept all applicants without exclusion of pre-existing conditions. Insurance is funded by employers and employees through payroll deductions. Doctors and hospitals are private enterprises. This system is somewhat similar to the not-for-profit indemnity insurance policies provided by employers in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s.
    III. The single payer system or Canadian style system: In this type of system the government runs the insurance program. Citizens choose their doctor and providers from the private-sector. With this system there is no motive to deny claims, no profits, so these universal insurance programs tend to be very inexpensive to administrate. The American Medicare system is an example of this type of system. Currently 45 percent of America's healthcare spending is already funded by the US government.
    IV. The for-profit system: In this system those that can pay get medical care; the poor stay sick or die. This is most common in rural regions of Africa, India, and South America, where many people go their whole lives without ever seeing a doctor. In the US, most poor and unimsured generally have access to emergency care but often have difficulty with access to preventive care. The American Institute of Medicine estimates that the lack of health insurance causes around 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. (5) One out of five Americans are uninsured, many are children.

    T. R. Reid notes that the United States has a mix of all four types with separate systems for separate classes of people. Most of the other industrial countries have selected one of the simpler, less expensive not-for-profit models which covers everybody.

    How we Americans choose to reform our system remains to be seen. However, we should start with agreed upon facts and options and discuss and critique them so that we might select the best options that will ensure low cost and high quality care for ourselves and future generations.

    Dr. Jeffrey R. Cates, DC, MS, DABCO, DABCC
    Oregon, Illinois

    Rochell News-Leader
    Letter to the Editor
    Tuesday May 12, 2009

    ReplyDelete