SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Homeopathic medicines make up a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States. Despite being included in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never enforced the requirement that the homeopathic industry demonstrate safety or efficacy of its products prior to putting them on the market. Although drug regulation falls within the purview of the FDA, labeling the products is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
In 2015 both the FDA and FTC announced workshops to review how over the counter (OTC) homeopathic products are marketed. Both agencies have the authority to increase the regulation and labeling requirements for these products. The reviews generated thousands of public comments, and the FTC is the first to release their decision in a Staff Report and an Enforcement Policy Statement.
In summary, there is no basis under the FTC Act to treat OTC homeopathic drugs differently than other health products. Accordingly, unqualified disease claims made for homeopathic drugs must be substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence. Nevertheless, truthful, nonmisleading, effective disclosure of the basis for an efficacy claim may be possible. The approach outlined in this Policy Statement is therefore consistent with the First Amendment, and neither limits consumer access to OTC homeopathic products nor conflicts with the FDA's regulatory scheme. It would allow a marketer to include an indication for use that is not supported by scientific evidence so long as the marketer effectively communicates the limited basis for the claim in the manner discussed above.
Essentially, any homeopathic product that isn't backed up by competent and reliable scientific evidence must communicate on its label that:
- there is no scientific evidence that the product works
- the product's claims are based only on theories of homeopathy from the 1700s that are not accepted by most modern medical experts.
Though largely seen as a win for consumer awareness, Slate notes the potential for this to backfire by noting that those who seek out homeopathic medicine will only have their resolve strengthened by seeing a statement pointing out that the contents of the bottle they are holding are not endorsed by the scientific community.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday November 27 2016, @10:58PM
What I see is that most doctors are honest, but that the system has all kinds of features and pressures that lead to very expensive care. Time is usually chosen in a choice between saving time or money. Everyone is angling for a piece of medical action, trying to make the default knee-jerk act the one that makes them a big profit. Billing is deliberately opaque, complicated, and confusing, for no good reason. Yes, medical care is not simple, but it's not as complicated as billing tries to make out. The reason for the needless complexity is obviously so they can better hide outrageous costs.
From a financial point of view, obtaining care at a US hospital is like walking into a tar pit. I went to emergency 3 times 2 years ago for a kidney stone. Over the next year, I asked questions and argued over the sky high bill, which included such gems as 3 bags of saline solution for $306 each, which insurance reduced to $150, $64, and $27 respectively. I questioned and questioned them about why the same item had such wildly different and high prices, and neither the hospital nor the insurance could explain it. It's their business to know, and they didn't know. Insurance would adjust the price to make it $27 each all 3 times, and I'd think the matter was resolved, only to find out a month later that the flunkies in the call center had their changes reversed. They made wild guesses, like that the price reflected additional medication added to the saline solution. Wrong. All medicine was billed separately. Or maybe it was something else bundled into the price. Wrong again. Or perhaps it had to do with the day of the week, with weekends being a more expensive time. Nope, also wrong. I told them that I refused to pay a bill I didn't understand. Finally I asked someone who sells health insurance for a living to explain it, and it took him several days to figure it out. The price of all the items depends on the level of emergency care required. The level can range from 1 to 5. They rated my level as 4 on the 1st visit, 3 on the 2nd, and 1 on the 3rd.
Even though I finally had an explanation that was correct, I decided I nevertheless did not agree with the system. According to Medicare, a bag of saline solution is worth about $1.50. Even $27 is an outrageous markup. Next I tried a medical billing advocate. They helped, but not enough. They pointed out that I was being double billed for the level 4 care, as they were also charging this so-called facility fee, and at level 4, that fee is supposed to include bags of saline solution. (Medicare does not allow facility fees, sets their value at $0.) I finally realized there is no way through the maze that results in a fair price, and there were only 2 choices: pay up, or flat refuse to pay.
The US makes refusing to pay a shockingly viable option. Hospitals have signs all over the place that state they are not allowed by law to refuse care to someone for not having paid a past bill, so if you don't pay, they can't get you that way. Of course, you could still suffer a fatal accident on the operating table, and who would ever know whether that was a genuine accident or a sinister loss reduction move made to look like an accident. Then, there are all these laws that you can use to tell debt collectors to shut it and shove off. And finally, credit rating agencies recently changed their formula to put medical debt in a featherweight category of its own. Your credit rating will not be harmed as much by unpaid medical debt as by any other kind. I can only conclude that all this is a kind of backhanded recognition that medical billing is completely wacko.
That's hardly my only experience with crazy medical billing.