Colonoscopy?

One in 56 has adverse effects from a Colonoscopy.

One in 15,000 has active Colon Cancer.

They don't call it the gold standard for nothing. The average cost is over $2000 out of pocket with good insurance and the insurance company will not pay for the anesthesiologist.

A virtual colonoscopy (colonography) exposes you to 5000 times the radiation of flying at 30,000 feet for a year.

Want one?

I've had dental appointments that were worse than a colonoscopy. (yup, still have all my teeth; no pliers or whiskey involved)

1 in 56, they inject too much gas, and people explode right there. Guts all over the place.

just kidding.

Quote: BenJammin

Want one?

Just had one and my out-of-pocket was $720 including anesthesiologist, and my insurance stinks.

It runs in my family so my odds are much worse for me, I'd have to guess there is at least 1/50 chance in my lifetime I would get it if I didn't have these done. I wonder if the odds you are quoting also mean in a person's lifetime, or in the population, diagnosed, at any one time?

I don't carry any water for the medical profession, but some good and bad and ugly on this:

*the virtual is a waste of money, if they "think" they have found something then you have to have the regular procedure. I am cynical enough to view this as just taking your money. They want to cut out polyps at the tiny stage.

*too expensive. Even for someone like me, they want you to do it too often. No way I'm going every three years.

*every part of the procedure stinks. Drinking the prep was awful this time.

*the further they have to go up the colon, the more likely they are to miss a polyp. The area where the small intestine joins the colon is particularly tough for them, if you get polyps there they definitely can just miss one.

*the good part: if they get all the polyps, you can pretty much say you are not going to get colon cancer.

I had one a few years ago. Worst part was drinking the gallon of Gatorade laced with whatever gives you the explosive diarrhea. My insurance must be awesome because I had a $25 co-pay for the initial exam, the referral for the procedure and the anesthesiologist were completely covered. No side effects, completely recovered. When I read the first post, I thought to myself, "That guy has crappy insurance!". I don't "want" a colonoscopy, but if a Doctor says I need one, I'm not going to sweat it.

As the resident anesthesiologist here, who also happened to just turn 50 and had my first a few months ago, I feel like I have earned the right to comment! Some insurance companies will just not pay for my services for a routine colonoscopy, so in my town the patient would need a pre-approval to have me there. The regular nurses who assist the gastroenterologist are able to give a light sedative so even without me there most patients are comfortable and do fine. In my town there is NO patient that is willing to pay out of pocket for an anesthesiologist, so if no pre-approval - no anesthesiologist. Having been involved in maybe a thousand over my career it always seemed to me like it was a relatively quick, minor procedure that really shouldn't require me to be there. I put that theory to the test. Although I could have had anesthesia for free, I chose to have absolutely nothing. It hurt a tad for the 3 times the scope has to make a 'turn' on its way up towards the small intestine, but never unbearably. Having also taken care of patients with metastatic colon cancer, if you fall into the group that should have a colonoscopy, have one. Catching it early before it metastasizes is a life saver.

Yeah, the worst part is the diarrhea.

The second worst part is drinking the diarrhea-inducing juice.

The third worst part you only learn about afterwards: The juice is available in a variety of flavors. They all suck, but they often fail to give you a choice.

I have only had one of these, back in 2003 at the age of 57. As for prepping with the intestinal clean out, I grumbled to the staff that I had genuinely expected to be blowing it out my backside all the night before, but I had not expected to be puking my guts the whole time too. I don't know how common that reaction occurs with the marvelous beverage.

I did indeed have an anesthesiologist. I have no idea how much pain I might have been in during the procedure, because I don't remember anything at all about it. I think my insurance (BCBS) covered the cost just like any other -- 80% (or 90%, can't remember which it was back then) after an annual deductible with an annual max. Might have been even less, since there was 100% coverage w/o deductible for a limited amount of wellness care, which I think would have applied to this. There was certainly no unreasonable or memorable out-of-pocket expense from my perspective. Guess BCBS considers an anesthesiologist just as warranted as the gastroenterologist and I did.

Result: one benign polyp, and my understanding is that indicates that I am unlikely to develop serious colon cancer before something else gets me. I think I've heard it takes 20-30 years for that stuff to really develop. Now I'm on Medicare, and I'll probably have another check in the next couple of years just to verify.

Quote: odiousgambit

*the good part: if they get all the polyps, you can pretty much say you are not going to get colon cancer.

Until new polyps grow on the colon wall--either pre-cancerous or not.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

The third worst part you only learn about afterwards: The juice is available in a variety of flavors. They all suck, but they often fail to give you a choice.

Depending on the physician's choice of product, a patient may be able to combine the three or four flavors covered under the prescription, and the patient can keep telling himself that it is a tutti-frutti celebration (as if that would matter during the cleansing).

Ben, it sounds like you're auditioning for ObamaCare scriptwriter:

The test can be dangerous.
You probably don't even have the disease.
The test is very expensive.
Denied.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Until new polyps grow on the colon wall--either pre-cancerous or not.

I don't mean to sound like I am someone who thinks one procedure is you need. I am urged to go back every 3 years, am willing to do it once every 5.

so, modify that to "if they get all the polyps, and you keep looking for more polyps periodically, you can pretty much say you are not going to get colon cancer."

My wife is not much at risk and has been told to check every 10 yrs

The Docs have one heck of a good racket going out here. Seems that every gastro and procto doc is colonoscopy happy. The "Surgery" if you will is highly invasive, and ANY movement by the patient may result in permanent nerve damage, specifically the Vegas Nerve, causing permanent discomfort and/or pain. Yes, PERMANENT, not to mention the possibility of damaging the colon wall or even having it tear requireing emergency surgery on the spot.

The prep can cause long term problems with a greater percentage of patients than you might think. The intestinal flora is damaged and the natural rhythm is interrupted. The colon must be COMPLETELY evacuated or the exam is a waste of time.

The vastly greater percentage of polyps never become cancerous, and it is quite common to have them. Refer to Dr. OZ.

Out here the doctors charge additionally per Polyp. I had none so he did six biopsies. I have not yet received the bill from the lab. This was my second doctor. The first one required extensive blood work, a mandatory Anesthesiologist, and an Endoscopy to be done at the same time, which the insurance would not approve two procedures on the same day, and would not pay for the Anesthesiologist. Not only that, the guy owns his own clinic. What a racket!

If you have a choice request nitrogen rather that air to blow up the colon, it is much less painful in recovery and induces far less cramping and flatulence after the procedure.

Kaiser won't pay for one. Go figure?

Most insurance has an Ambulatory co-pay, and pays only a percentage of the cost, that is if you have a PPO. An HMO, you get what you pay for, a Doctor that quite possibly earned his medical degree and residency in another country.

I don't know what kind of insurance some of the folks who posted here have, but I'm guessing it is more than likely a group plan or some kind of insurance that comes with a government job.

If you are an Independent Contractor, and have a private insurance policy, you take it up the donkey if you know what I mean.

We do need insurance reform in this country without a doubt. Not to be political, I'm not a big fan of Obama Care but anything is better than nothing and the eventual compromise that will be negotiated between the powers that be IE Governmental bodies and the Insurance Corporations will more that likely benefit the middle class income earners and holders of private insurance.

We need Tort Reform and cross state border competition ASAP. As premiums continue to rise as benefits are lessened, the major insurance carriers are sticking it to us big time as they and the pharmaceutical companys enjoy landslide profits even in the midst of the worst recession this country has ever seen since the great depression.

I'm no socialist but how much profit is enough at the expense of the hard working American taxpayer? And whose ass are the Politicians kissing?

Quote: Calder

Ben, it sounds like you're auditioning for ObamaCare scriptwriter:

The test can be dangerous.
You probably don't even have the disease.
The test is very expensive.
Denied.

It's pronounced Romneycare.

But I agree it is better system now. If you have money you can live.

Pardon the misspelling. Glad we're on the same page.

Quote: Calder

Ben, it sounds like you're auditioning for ObamaCare scriptwriter:

The test can be dangerous.
You probably don't even have the disease.
The test is very expensive.
Denied.

There will be more and more procedures in any health care system that will not be given out as standard, due to the cost/benefit. Be it health insurance, social health care or any system in between and beyond.

Either patients will have to pay the full cost, or go without. In many cases, going without will be the choice, and the patient won't know any different. In a tiny number of cases the preventative care measure would have saved the patients life (or in a better circumstance, saved a lot of money, time and distress).

The question is, just because we CAN do something in health care, should we do it?

What does the OP think of the wisdom teeth removal racket? I'm 31 and still have all four of mine with naught a problem and my chewing is 30% more effective.

Quote: thecesspit

The question is, just because we CAN do something in health care, should we do it?

The concern for many is the "we" making the decision.

Quote: progrocker

What does the OP think of the wisdom teeth removal racket? I'm 31 and still have all four of mine with naught a problem and my chewing is 30% more effective.

Wisdom teeth are a hold-over from the days when human diets were much rougher on teeth and you'd need replacements about halfway through your life. We've evolved since then, including smaller jaws, better diets, dental hygiene, and much longer life-expectancy, so wisdom tooth generation is less useful. According to Wikipedia, certain populations no longer develop wisdom teeth at all.

Quote: BenJammin

The "Surgery" if you will is highly invasive, and ANY movement by the patient may result in permanent nerve damage, specifically the Vegas Nerve, causing permanent discomfort and/or pain.

I think most members of this board have already experienced pain in their "Vegas" nerve.. hehe. Their "Vagus" nerve on the other hand...

Quote: Calder

The concern for many is the "we" making the decision.

Indeed. The we should be those paying, right? be that the public (social health care systems like I have used in the UK and Canada) or private insurance (like down in the US). This necessarily makes "we" the government in the former case and the insurance company in the later (or if you have the money, you directly).