racer983

joined 1 year ago
[–] racer983@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Lucille: How's my son? Doctor: He's going to be all right. Lindsay Funke: Finally some good news from this guy. Doctor: That's a great attitude. I got to tell you, if I was getting this news, I don't know that I'd take it this well. Lucille: But you said he was all right. Doctor: Yes, he's lost his left hand. So he's going to be "all right." Lucille: [Jumping on the doctor] You son of a bitch! I hate this doctor!

My favorite running gag, love the literal doctor

[–] racer983@mander.xyz 6 points 1 year ago

Subsequent encounter means you're seeing the doctor again for the same problem. So if you got sucked into a jet engine and lived somehow you'd probably be seeing the doctor a bunch of times, and the second doctor visit and all later visits would be encoded as "subsequent encounter"

I love weird icd 10 codes, my favorite is V91.07, burn due to water-skis on fire. Like has that ever actually happened? If so please post link, I must know.

[–] racer983@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

I've never heard of urgent care requiring referral from a pcp, that wouldn't make any sense as the whole point of urgent care is being seen more urgently than your primary physician can accommodate. And seeing people who don't have a primary physician and keeping them out of the ed if not necessary. I would ask your insurance for that policy in writing, that can't be right. And if it is it should be reported to that state insurance commission because that's totally asinine. I mean never underestimate the dumbness of insurance companies but I think something might be being lost in translation here.

[–] racer983@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This is mildly infuriating, I can give you a little more context though if you're interested. I don't know exactly about contracts between insurance companies and CVS so I can't speak to that definitely. Probably something related to how much insurance is willing to pay minute clinic for such a short visit, and what things are feasible to address in such a short visit (hence CVS only allowing certain complaints).

I think this is something to do with the concept of "uncomplicated" vs "complicated" uti. Complicated utis are when there's an increased danger of serious complications from a uti or increased likelihood of failing a typical antibiotic therapy. Utis in men are much much rarer than women, and are considered to be an automatic "complicated" uti by many. The greater length of the urethra in men helps prevent bacteria from being able to travel up to the bladder, whereas in women the short distance allows for this to happen much more frequently. So when a male has a UTI there is a much greater chance there will be complicating factors like prostate issues, structural problems, kidney stones, kidney infection, catheter use, atypical bacteria, etc. If you look more into their info on utis, they also state if they suspect any of those things, even in women, they won't treat it and will just refer you to someone else, probably the Ed or a real urgent care clinic. Since the odds of that are much greater in men, they probably aren't allowed to have longer appointments in minute clinic based on what insurance will pay for what they're providing, they just decided to not see that at all in minute clinic. Looks like they do see men for sexually transmitted infections though, which are actually the most common cause of utis in young men, so if that's a concern looks like they would be able to see people for that.

But I totally agree with you, fuck insurance companies in general.

 

Archive link: https://archive.ph/rYlvQ

I think this would be an interesting article for discussion. Some of these articles in popular media I feel adopt an overly hostile tone toward doctors and assume the worst of a situation. Part of this is the necessity of health care privacy laws that prevent us from getting all sides of a story which could shed more light on a situation.

I think it also ignores the huge flipside problem of this, confidently telling someone they have a diagnosis even though you shouldn't and they don't. For instance I often see someone who's been referred to me and told confidently they have a deadly disease or a genetic disease, told everyone in their life they have this, joined online support groups, and made big life choices based on that info, but they actually don't have the disease. And the information the diagnosis was based on was nowhere near confident enough to say so. It was right to seek further evaluation and there may have been some abnormality, but even if the diagnosis should be mentioned as a possibility, the patient shouldn't have been told they definitely have this thing yet because the certainty was just not there. Anyway, I think there's lots of interesting aspects of this article to think about.

[–] racer983@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah, sometimes you're just innocently watching an anime and you're like, oh no, this just went all facist imperialist Japan didn't it. Lookin at you attack on titan.

[–] racer983@mander.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

Wait I'm lost, I did some calculus with my girl and now I can't tell if she's a wave or a particle

[–] racer983@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It was me, Dio!

[–] racer983@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Appreciate the funny post, but for anyone reading too much into this it's misleading at best (also just barely passing at 60% only correct). It's referencing a portion of the test with multiple choice questions. So that's relatively easy for a language model, since it can predict an answer from a focused question. Please don't ask chat gpt individualized questions about your health. It does decent for giving out some general information about medical topics, but you'd be better off at going to a reputable site like mayo clinic, Cleveland clinic, or all the resources at national library of medicine who maintain free very nice medical knowledge databases on tons of topics. It's where chat gpt is probably scraping it's answers from anyways, and you won't have to worry about it making up nonsense that looks real and inserting it into the answer.

And if chat gpt comes up with sources in an answer, look them up yourself no matter how convincing they seem on their face. I've seen it invent doi numbers that don't exist and all sorts of weird stuff.

[–] racer983@mander.xyz 6 points 1 year ago

Well that's enough internet for today. Geeze. So glad these people are being tracked down so they can be brought to justice.

[–] racer983@mander.xyz 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think as an end user of a platform like reddit, it's easy to just want to browse a site and look at some interesting content when you have a few minutes downtime and not think much of it. The vast majority of people on the site aren't even really contributing to content in any way. I barely ever did until hearing about the fedverse.

What got me to care and take the effort to start up here wasn't even really the recent reddit move specifically, like sure this was a crappy thing to do on their part and they've done a lot of bad stuff before too. But it was seeing all these social media platforms and web services in general go one after the other becoming worse and worse for the users and ever more invasive. I think it's just clear now that a centralized social media isn't sustainable and going to work, and will always have that end result.

What's so appealing about the fedverse is I think it's a model for how these problems can be avoided and services can still go forward. I think the best we can do is be active on the fedverse, make it an appealing place to be by contributing, with programming skills if we have them or fresh content if we don't, and continue to point out how these big web companies continue to fail us.

[–] racer983@mander.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Archive links get rid of the paywall but it doesn't play nice with some dns settings apparently. Here is the actual link but it does have the paywall: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/19/business/gop-disinformation-researchers-2024-election.html:

[–] racer983@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

No that was super funny. Crashing the UK economy seemingly overnight all in a bid to save the richest people in the country a few bucks? Now that's not funny

 

Cited NYT article here for those who have access and would like more details: An Inside Job https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/16/world/europe/ukraine-kakhovka-dam-collapse.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

view more: next ›