With that naConal organizaCon making a recommendaCon, shouldn't academia being making that recommendaCon? That's number one. But number two, these things, it's Pollyannish for anyone to think that it cannot be used against a profession as a whole, or an individual pracCConer as a whole. It almost ... even though there's disclaimers in there, no one reads the disclaimers, they'll have to be explained by a good defense lawyer. But really this is about the individual paCent. And what is the clinical need of that individual paCent? And will this treatment, meaning an x-ray, and it is a treatment, it's something we do, don't think what we do is adjust to treat, examinaCon is a treatment, x-ray is a treatment ... will this treatment change my diagnosis, prognosis or treatment plan? If the answer is yes ... and we did a survey, Bill and I did a survey of the whole profession. 99 ... no, it was 98.41%, that was the last I looked. 98.41% of the profession responded that x-ray changes either their diagnosis, prognosis or treatment plan. What more do you need than that? You don't need a poliCcal organizaCon telling you what they think. You have across the broad spectrum of this profession, on the naConal basis, 98.41%, I'm going to say it again, feel that x-ray changes their diagnosis, prognosis or treatment plan. When you look at evidence based care, which was coined by SackeM, and M.D. up in Canada, there were three prongs. The literature, the doctor's experience, and paCent feedback. This certainly falls under evidence based, based upon the doctor's feedback, even some of the literature, and the paCent feedback by the results we get from those x-rays. I don't see any issue. I only see a problem when you try to pigeon hole a profession based upon a recommendaCon that's not individually based, based upon the clinical needs of that paCent. And Mark, that was the whole show, right there. Because that's where I was going all along and I really appreciate how clear you made that. Because, both of you, you're ... how do I say it? You're very, let's call it apoliCcal. And you were very nice about the ACA guidelines and that's nice. But, me, I'm suspicious. Because why would any organizaCon, no maMer what organizaCon it is, as you said, pigeon hold the doctors, but why would they take any kind of a stance against a specific procedure that's been done from day one that is in the public interest? They did it with Consumer Reports that has never been posiCve on chiropracCc, they did it with Internal Medicine, that it's not even a related issue. So, to me, and I'm not even asking for comment, I'm making commentary based on how well you just addressed the issue. It makes me wonder what's really involved here. Why would this even come out? And as you said, why won't they ... there's more quesCons than there are answers, which is why I keep inviCng them. But why would they put this out without including people in the academic, people in the technique world, pracCConers, not just an organizaConal stance, why wouldn't they go to DACBRs and discuss it with them? I understand they're furious over these recommendaCons, because they don't make sense based on what we've done all throughout the history of this profession. No maMer what form of chiropracCc, you want to call what you do in your individual office, it's sCll comes down to the same thing. So, any final words that you want to just put out there on this whole issue?
Chiropractor Malpractice Insurance - ACA X-ray Guidelines Part 2 Dr. M...
Page ! of ! 9 11
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker