MCNTalk
News, Insights & Opinions

Unemployment rates fell to 3.8 percent in May, 2018 – an 18-year low — and the number of disability insurance claims and number of Americans seeking Social Security disability benefits is also dropping. Specifically, per government officials, fewer than 1.5 million Americans applied to the Social Security Administration for disability coverage in 2017, the lowest number since 2002. Applications are running at an even lower rate this year.

This article explains that because the economy is strong and maintaining steady rates of growth, employers are more willing to hire people from a diverse labor pool — including those with disabilities — and to make accommodations with job functions, pay, and other expectations. The strength of the economy also sparks a more optimistic attitude among people with disabilities searching through available opportunities.

Some other factors have also influenced this shift. One of these factors driven by basic demographic shifts is that as aging baby boomers receive Social Security retirement benefits and Medicare, they no longer require disability benefits. Additionally, because of the expansion of Medicaid in 33 states and the District of Columbia and the improved access to insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act, the disability program has become a less obvious way for people to obtain health care coverage. A final factor the article identifies is that it is simpler hard now to qualify for Social Security benefits than it was in the past.

One case study explored in the article is that of Christian Borrero, who had been receiving Social Security benefits throughout his adult life. He  was offered a full-time job as a receptionist at Kurtz Bros, an amazing opportunity for full-time work with benefits, but also one where he would be earning less than his disability income, to the tune of $895 per month. Borrero chose full-time employment and as expected, his Social Security benefits emded. When his employers found out about his situation, they modified his position to include additional responsibilities, thereby raising his pay to cover his otherwise lost income. Although this wouldn’t happen in every case, Mr. Borrero hopes to inspire others with his story.

Five men in New York have now been caught as the ring leaders of a federal indictment and insurance fraud in New York. These men recruited individuals to stage “slip-and-fall accidents” in order to fake injuries. The injuries then led to legal and medical appointments with enlisted doctors, lawyers, and finance companies who followed along with the con. Countless unnecessary procedures were done, racking up medical bills for insurance companies to pay. Peter Kalkanis, the leader of this scam, would coach plaintiffs on how to fake their injuries convincingly. The State has since revoked his license.

At Medical Consultants Network, we believe in the power of a second look. Our providers across the country complete examinations on claimants and injured parties, many with disabilities or work-related injuries. Some  injuries are severe, some examinees recover after months of treatment, and some situations are quickly resolved. It’s the power of the second look that helps our providers make unbiased observations, conclusions, and recommendations on our claimants’ conditions and prognoses, and our staff to apply high standards at each step of the process to deliver evidence-based reports.

GMOs (genetically modified organisms) have been labeled by many consumers and food producers alike as being a serious health risk, and eliminating them from foods has become a major dietary — and advertising — trend.

Brands scramble to advertise that their products don’t contain GMOs, but this article explores the science to conclude that “there is no reputable scientific evidence that direct genetic modification – instead of slower genetic modification – has any health effects of any kind.”

Anti-GMO activists have been fueling the movement against GMOs despite scientific evidence proving their safety. This article presents the idea that the anti-GMO movement originated more from religious theology than in scientific facts. Myths have developed that GMOs increase a multiple of seemingly random and wide-ranging situations such as increased suicide rates, incidents of autism or cancer, homosexuality, and infertility. These types of scare tactics have worked over the years as consumers have demanded changes, and grocers scramble to meet demand.

Stem cell injections have not been approved by the FDA. As one official notes in this story from the Washington Post, “The facilities argue they aren’t subject to FDA regulation because they use surgical procedures to administer patients’ own cells – meaning they aren’t making new drugs.” Other doctors counter that the FDA is trying to take a  stand against the stem cell industry to eliminate competition for pharmaceutical companies.

The Post article  details a troubling situation. A woman named Doris Tyler received a stem cell injection in her eyes with the promise of improved vision. The outcome: her retina detached in both eyes, and she was blind within a few months.

Opinions vary about whether stem cell clinics offer a useful service or are a scam. In some cases state officials have or are planning to introduce legislation requiring stem cell clinics to be transparent and honest by posting warnings related to their treatments. Despite the disputes though, stem cell clinics are popping up in vast numbers across the United States. While there were only two clinics in 2009, there are now over 700 across the country.

“Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough, is seeing a doctor. And the question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.” This is the overall question posed, discussed, and answered in this article from The New Yorker.

Economists have pointed out that a key problem in our system of healthcare is that doctors are paid for quantity, not quality, of services. They are also paid as individuals with varying rates they can determine themselves, instead of as members of a team who work together.

The Cost Conundrum takes a deep dive into why healthcare is so expensive. The author explores behaviors of doctors and patients in different parts of the country to establish his stance on the matter. One of his stops was McAllen, Texas, which has the most costly healthcare in the country. Medical expenses skyrocket it this small town because of an overuse of medicine. Doctors in McAllen on average prescribe more medicine, order more tests, request more doctor’s visits and overnight hospital stays, and schedule more surgeries than anywhere else in the country.

“Americans like to believe that, with most things, more is better. But research suggests that where medicine is concerned it may actually be worse.” Studies show that in areas where more money is spent on tests, office visits, drugs, and surgeries, the patients show little to no increase in survival, ability to function, or satisfaction with the care they received when compared to areas that had far less medical expenses.

The article also talks about the Mayo Clinic, which has created a reputation for itself because of its core belief “The needs of the patient come first.” The Mayo Clinic changed the relationship between money, doctors, and patients when they “pooled all the money the doctors and the hospital received and began paying everyone a salary.” By doing this, the doctors’ goals automatically shifted from how much money they could make on a patient to how much they could help the patient. How they help patients does not affect their income, which allows them to work without alternative motives.

According this article the best solution for reduce outrageous healthcare expenses is for doctors of different specialties need to collaborate to increase prevention and quality of the care. Many doctors may work with the same patient, but because they all work individually and charge individually, the patients’ problems are not solved together. Rather it becomes a disjointed effort with endless bills and office visits. Having an every-doctor-for-him/herself attitude is fostering self-interest and over-spending.

This article invites readers to decide between the McAllen model and the Mayo Clinic for the future of our healthcare practice.

As the cost of health care coverage has increased markedly in recent years, many plans have increased co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses. This article sheds some light on pricing as a controversial subject for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. 

 Many states are making efforts to introduce legislation to allow pharmacists the ability and right to tell customers that they could save money by paying in cash for prescription drugs instead of using their health insurance. Currently, some plan members are paying two to three times the amount for prescriptions using their insurance policy vs. what the cash price for the same medication would be. Because of contracts between pharmacists and some companies, some pharmacists must remain silent about price variations and are not allowed to educate customers on discrepancies in pricing based on how payment is made. 

 Steven F. Moore’s family owns Condo Pharmacy in Plattsburgh, New York. Moore says, “A consumer filling a prescription for a drug to treat diabetes or high blood pressure may owe $20 if he uses insurance coverage. By contrast, a consumer paying cash might have to pay $8 to $15” – the difference often going to the drug benefit managers. 

 States across the country are beginning to recognize this issue, and state legislatures are moving to pass new laws to cap ever-climbing prescription prices. Five states including North Dakota, Georgia, and North Carolina have made headway in changing laws so that pharmacists can suggest alternative ways for consumers to pay for their medication.