Hepatitis Forums
Hepatitis C Main Forums => Hepatitis C Research News & Studies => Topic started by: Hep Editors on December 14, 2018, 11:37:02 am
-
Despite the dramatic rise in referrals to primary care physicians (PCPs) for people testing positive for hepatitis C virus (HCV), PCPs are apparently much less likely than specialists to get such patients treated for the virus.
Presenting their findings in a poster at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases in San Francisco, researchers conducted an analysis of data sets from two large national testing laboratory companies. They analyzed 2013 to 2016 data and defined an HCV antibody test as a screening and a positive follow-up HCV RNA test as a diagnosis.
For more...
https://www.hepmag.com/article/primary-care-docs-less-likely-specialists-get-hep-c-treated
-
Unfortunately the reason why this is occurring is bloody obvious! Far too many primary care MDs are beholden to health insurance corporations. Most likely they are being encouraged to dissuade HCV victims from going on to treat the disease immediately which is proving to be the most rational course of action even if there are no current signs of liver damage occurring with a chronic infection.
As we all know now, the way the disease works in most individuals is a slow downward health spiral which may or may not lead to death from cirrhosis. But certainly leads to all sorts of other expensive to treat medical problems over the years for a great many who are infected with HCV.
-
I initially was diagnosed for antibodies by my PCP. He referred me to a Gastro who ordered the RNA test and made the diagnosis.. I eventually got treated by a Hepatologist.
I think most diagnoses follow a chronology like mine, ie, a PCP notices elevated liver function tests at an annual physical, orders the antibody tests, and if positive, refers to a specialist who treats. Would a diagnostic/treatment path such as this be categorized as another PCP who failed to treat? Could situations like mine have skewed the results?
-
I initially was diagnosed for antibodies by my PCP. He referred me to a Gastro who ordered the RNA test and made the diagnosis.. I eventually got treated by a Hepatologist.
I think most diagnoses follow a chronology like mine, ie, a PCP notices elevated liver function tests at an annual physical, orders the antibody tests, and if positive, refers to a specialist who treats. Would a diagnostic/treatment path such as this be categorized as another PCP who failed to treat? Could situations like mine have skewed the results?
What I am afraid of is the GPs who are not sending HCV infected individuals who are less affluent up the chain of treatment.
With a judge in Texas ruling that "affordable health care" is unconstitutional, I think it won't be long until this right wing madness spreads north of the border again: Where access to health care is a long standing and well understood constitutional responsibility.
-
I had a physical a year before I was diagnosed and my liver enzymes were normal as was my discharge from the Army physical the year before that.
I assuming I was infected for 12 years when I was diagnosed after I donating blood and coincidentally had a work physical at the same time that showed elevated liver enzymes and my blood donation per the blood bank were positive for hep C antibodies.
Back then (1990) there was no HCV RNA testing available but with elevated liver enzymes and positive for hep c antibodies it was assumed.
-
What I am afraid of is the GPs who are not sending HCV infected individuals who are less affluent up the chain of treatment.
With a judge in Texas ruling that "affordable health care" is unconstitutional, I think it won't be long until this right wing madness spreads north of the border again: Where access to health care is a long standing and well understood constitutional responsibility.
Right.. I hear you.. All Im saying is that, while your fear may be sell founded, i dont see evidence of it in any metric used in the study.. I dont even think it was well explained how they defined a PCP who 'didnt treat'..... In other words, did a PCP have to diagnose and then fail to escalate it up the treatment ladder as you suggest in order to be included in the 'failure to treat' metric, or do they include PCPs who didnt treat on their own, but did do a referral to a specialist who then treated.. If its the latter, the study results would be meaningless and the conclusion misleading.