Lasik Eyes Surgery - Disingenuious "Patient Advocacy"

Author

Disingenuious "Patient Advocacy"

gospa68@aol.com

2004-12-19, 11:08 am

It is most interesting (almost amusing) that a "patient advocacy"
groupfelt compelled to set the record straight (CRSQA's recent press
releases rebutting the NHS',UK, decision that LASIK is too risky). This
same group (CRSQA), earlier this year, felt compelled to testify
(against) at the FDA panel meeting that was reviewing phakic IOLs. It
is most disingenuious for the CRSQA to claim "patientadvocacy" when the
behavior of the CRSQA underscores an aggessive "Lasik Advocacy".

Glenn, we will love you all the same even if you admit to being a
Lasikadvocate. However, you will not garner much love by trying to
convince us of something you are not. Unless, of course, you are a
shizophrenic.

There is nothing wrong with advocating what you believe but calling
yourself and your organization a "patient advocacy" group is a
disservice to you, the CRSQA, and to those seeking unbiased
information.

WK

rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org

2004-12-19, 7:11 pm

I was thinking about this issue of "patient advocacy" recently and
decided to poke around a little to get a better understanding of what
makes authentic patient advocacy. I asked a friend, who forwarded a
very interesting link.

http://www.hospicepatients.org/10-e...t-advocacy.html

10 Essential Traits of Real Patient Advocacy Groups

(How to Tell the Difference Between Real Advocates And Industry Front
Organizations!)

1. Acknowledge Problems are Common
2. Willingness to Listen and Believe
3. Provide Full Information re: Standards of Care and Regulations
4. Do Not Allow Industry Agencies or Groups as Members
5. Will Admit There Are Illegal Activities in Health Care Agencies
6. Won't Just Tell You to Work It Out with Agency (You already tried
that or you wouldn't need help!)
7. Don't Accept Donations from the Health Care Industry
8. Willingness to Help You File Complaint With Government if
Appropriate
9. Encourage You to Seek Expert Legal Counsel When Needed
10. Willing to Publicly Speak Out Against Abuses in Health Care

Not all of them are applicable to elective vision surgery but most of
them are.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-12-20, 2:08 am

Is there a reason this is being reposted? I have already responded
once.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-12-20, 2:08 am

This looks like a great idea.

>(How to Tell the Difference Between Real Advocates And Industry Front
>Organizations!)
>
>1. Acknowledge Problems are Common

Acknowledged, published on our website, and cited whenever appropriate
in patient correspondence. I don't know if everyone would say that 3%
unresolved complication rate is "common", but we acknowledge it
nonetheless.

>2. Willingness to Listen and Believe

Listen always, believe what is believable or truthful.

>3. Provide Full Information re: Standards of Care and Regulations

Informing patients about the limitations of refractive surgery is a
big part of our website. We do not attempt to set standards of care
(we're a consumer/patient goup, not a doctor group), but do report the
national norms for patient outcomes and provide what we recommend in
some circumstances (such as how long out of contacts, or if you really
need a wavefront-guided ablation).

>4. Do Not Allow Industry Agencies or Groups as Members

This may be appropriate for a group dealing with government agencies,
but may not be reasonable for a patient advocacy in the refractive
surgery industry. We take, essentially, the opposite approach.

We have representatives of all facets of the industry involved in our
organization at all levels, including entities that compete with each
other. This gives us an insider's edge when important issues arise,
and also gives us access to the decision makers who have the authority
to make changes we believe are needed. A good example of this was our
January Advisory Memorandum on FDA approval (or lack thereof) for the
correction of higher order aberrations.

>5. Will Admit There Are Illegal Activities in Health Care Agencies

When we see them, absolutely. If they don't exist, we are not going
to make them up in an attempt to appear like we are important somehow.

>6. Won't Just Tell You to Work It Out with Agency (You already tried
>that or you wouldn't need help!)

This will most certainly depend upon the situation. Some things are
better worked out with the primary doctor. For others, we have our
Second Response Team and individualized referral to doctors or
resources who have a history of helping with the patient's unique
situation. In some cases and with prior patient approval, we will
talk directly with the primary doctor on the patient's behalf.

>7. Don't Accept Donations from the Health Care Industry

We don't accept donations from anybody, but our funding comes from
certification fees. That potential conflict of interest (or at least
the appearance of a conflict of interest) is clearly stated on our
website so it can be considered by anyone using our resources.

>8. Willingness to Help You File Complaint With Government if
>Appropriate

Of course.

>9. Encourage You to Seek Expert Legal Counsel When Needed

Absolutely. See
http://www.complicatedeyes.org/comp..._litigation.htm

>10. Willing to Publicly Speak Out Against Abuses in Health Care

Done so. Doing more.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

gospa68@aol.com

2004-12-20, 7:17 pm

Glenn,
For Christmas, give yourself a gift and read Patrick Morley's "The Man
in the Mirror." It is a best seller, helping over two million men
understand the person who stares back at them in the mirror each
morning....the first step to lasting and positive change. It will
answer many of the questions that you need answers to, including your
last.

Merry Christmas..
WK

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-12-20, 7:17 pm

Perhaps such a suggestion would have some validity if it were not from
a person who makes wild unsubstantiated claims and hides his own
identity behind a nom de plume.

I suppose the irony that you would suggest a book titled "The Man in
the Mirror" is lost on you, but I find it hilarious.

ycdbsoya

2004-12-27, 7:09 pm

gospa68@aol.com wrote:
> Glenn,
> For Christmas, give yourself a gift and read Patrick Morley's "The
Man
> in the Mirror." It is a best seller, helping over two million men
> understand the person who stares back at them in the mirror each
> morning....the first step to lasting and positive change. It will
> answer many of the questions that you need answers to, including your
> last.
>
> Merry Christmas..
> WK

While I've verbally jousted with Glenn in the past and do not hesitate
to call him on anything I would consider BS, I do commend him for his
PA work. After all, he worked with my doc to get me an out of court
settlement necessary to (eventually I hope when the technology gets
there) to fix my vision. He also rec'd seeking legal advice, etc. So,
yep, I would have to say CRSQA is pt. advocacy oriented. It is also
pro-RS.

But folks, ask yourself how CRSQA could be pt. advocate and anti-RS.
How could CRSQA help post-RS problems if it alienates an industry
needed to fix them? There is not a single long-term example of this in
any industry. You anti-RS peeps just don't get it at all. Methinks a
part of your brains were ablated along with your corneas.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-12-27, 7:09 pm

Thanks Frank. I'm glad we were able to help you as much as we were.
Hopefully technology or techniques will catch up to your needs soon.

IMO the problem with the anti-LASIK folks is that they think the only
people who are patient advocates are the ones who are anti-LASIK like
them. That is a rather myopic view of things (pun intended).

We get a lot of flak from these anti-LASIK folks because we do not
condemn all LASIK and those who provide it. We don't condemn LASIK
because the vast majority who have LASIK are satisfied with their
results, and the results are getting better. LASIK will never be
perfect, but as far as elective surgery goes, it is among the most
successful.

One of the anti-LASIK folks recently stated to a doctor that her
animosity for me was because I "refuse to acknowledge the holocaust
caused by LASIK". Yes, she equates LASIK with the persecution and
extermination of millions of lives. And she is heading up one of
those "patient advocacy" websites. Not much objectivity there, I'm
afraid. For a zealot like this, CRSQA and I will never be a "patient
advocate". We will always be called "disingenuous" because we do not
acknowledge what does not exist. It is not likely anyone visiting a
website she and her accomplices control will get complete and balanced
information.

To ignore the majority who are happy with LASIK is just as bad as
ignoring the minority who have problems. We do neither. While
acknowledging the relative safety and efficacy of LASIK, we also point
out its limitations and the potential for problems. If someone does
have a bad outcome, as you did Frank, we do what we can to rectify the
situation.

I will continue to rely on you responding when what I say seems too
close to BS for comfort.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

gospa68@aol.com

2004-12-27, 10:08 pm

Frank,
I am glad for you that you got an out of court settlement and did not
have to undertake the rigors of a trial. But, are you aware that there
is an active program to keep LASIK cases out of the courtroom? A
significant judgement (and I have no idea if yours would have been
significant or not) would draw alot of press, and with the press, will
come more lawsuits. Keeping litigation under the rug is prevalent today
in refractive surgery. It will not be for long.

Secondly, depending on the type of injury you have incurred, you may be
able to find a solution today with INTACS. Find a doctor who is
experienced with INTACS and let him/her render an opinion.
WK

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-12-27, 10:08 pm

And now WizKid has gone all the way down to the Great White Wall of
Silence conspiracy theory. I guess it was inevitable.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

Richard

2004-12-28, 11:16 am

gospa68@aol.com wrote in news:1104203654.580389.285220
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Frank,
> I am glad for you that you got an out of court settlement and did not
> have to undertake the rigors of a trial. But, are you aware that there
> is an active program to keep LASIK cases out of the courtroom? A
> significant judgement (and I have no idea if yours would have been
> significant or not) would draw alot of press, and with the press, will
> come more lawsuits. Keeping litigation under the rug is prevalent today
> in refractive surgery. It will not be for long.
>
> Secondly, depending on the type of injury you have incurred, you may be
> able to find a solution today with INTACS. Find a doctor who is
> experienced with INTACS and let him/her render an opinion.
> WK
>

Actually, settling out of court is something that happens in all
industries, due to a variety of reasons. One major factor is that it is
just cheaper for the person being sued and/or his insurance company to
pay off the litigant rather than go to court. Another reason can be to
keep things out of public scrutiny, as often the terms of settlement do
include a provision regarding speaking about settlement terms, and none
of it is public record.

--
Richard

ycdbsoya

2004-12-28, 11:16 am

No. I'm not an airline pilot who came away with KC. I had a "marginal"
case which may or may not have won had it gone to trial. Plus, with the
lawsuits my doc was facing, it was a "get in line" thing, and now that
he's gone I may not have been able to recoup anything. Look at it as
100% of something as opposed to 100% of nothing, which was a possible
outcome. This way, a guaranteed payout was achieved and none of those
stinkin' lawyers (except the doc's) were involved to steal part of the
settlement. I got what is considered industry average, and avoided the
time, cost and anxiety of a trial. And extra anxiety is not what I
needed then. Or now. The settlement is sufficient to fund the fix, in
the future.

BTW, doc paid out of his pocket, not insurance. Given his income, I
figure it was a couple days' profit. Now, that's obscene.