How to Bill an Office Visit with Urinalysis for Internal Medicine Physician – Video

Posted on by


How to Bill an Office Visit with Urinalysis for Internal Medicine Physician
Office Visit with Urinalysis Medical Claim for a Physician Our CPT (Common Procedural Terminology) code for this claim is 99214. This code establishes an off...

By: freemedicalbilling

See the original post:

How to Bill an Office Visit with Urinalysis for Internal Medicine Physician - Video

IOM Looks at the Economics of Genomic Medicine

Posted on by

The Institute of Medicine has released the summary of a workshop it hosted last July to discuss the economic issues likely to arise in the age of genomic medicine.

The workshop brought together economists, regulators, payors, researchers, patients, and other stakeholders to discuss various economic factors likely to influence the integration of genomic data into healthcare.

IOM notes in the report that the workshop was one of a series that it hosted on genomic medicine, "but it was the first focused specifically on economic issues."

The 109-page report outlines "major themes" of the workshop, based on a presentation by Gregory Feero, who was special advisor to the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the time.

Specific economic issues can vary by application and by setting, according to Feero's summary. Therefore, "improved methods are needed for assessing value, personal utility, and patient preferences," the report states.

In addition, public health, clinical care, and academic medicine "have different economic assessment models," which "have to be aligned in a way that makes a difference to patients," the report notes.

Other considerations include the need for better and quicker approaches to perform economic evaluations of genetic and genomic tests since evaluating tests and variants one by one "will be too daunting."

Feero also recommended that economic analyses be integrated into all ongoing whole-genome sequencing clinical studies, and noted that "the economic incentives for test and evidence development under the current system of reimbursement versus a value-based pricing approach that incorporates the intellectual cost of interpretation need to be further explored."

See the article here:

IOM Looks at the Economics of Genomic Medicine

Medicine hitches ride to Africa in Coca-Cola crates

Posted on by

10 Kit Yamoyos fit into one crate of Coca-Cola and make use of the unused space between the necks of the bottles.ColaLife/Simon Berry

Coca-Cola is teaming up with the non-profit ColaLife to help better distribute much needed medicine along with Coca-Cola beverages to developing countries.

Beginning as an online movement in 2008, ColaLife became its own independent non-profit in 2011.

According to the non-profits website, Coke products are available almost everywhere in developing nations. However, nearly 1 in 9 children in these countries die before the age of 5 from easily preventable diseases, such as dehydration from diarrhea.

Utilizing a new packaging technique, ColaLife aims to distribute social products, such as oral rehydration salts and zinc supplements, to help sick children in need of medication. The medication will be packaged in newly developed AidPods, which are wedge-shaped to fit in-between the necks of the Coke bottles in a crate of Coca-Cola. The AidPods carry supplies to combat dehydration, as well as micro-nutrients. The package itself doubles as a water sterilization container when emptied.

Over the last three decades, child mortality figures in these developing countries have not changed. The team behind ColaLife hopes its initiative will start to make a difference in these areas of the world.

ColaLifes first pilot plan will operate out of Zambia, Africa, and is called the ColaLife Operational Trial Zambia (COTZ). The distribution kits will be delivered to retailers in the crates and will cost roughly 5,000 kwacha or just $1. Retailers are expected to make a 35 percent profit on the sale of the AidPods, while wholesalers will make a 20 percent profit.

If its trial run is successful, ColaLife hopes to expand its initiative on a much more global scale.

Click for more from ColaLife.

View original post here:

Medicine hitches ride to Africa in Coca-Cola crates

Entrepreneur Works With Coke’s Distribution to Deliver Medicine to Remote African Villages

Posted on by

You would be hard-pressed to travel anywhere in the world and not be able to buy a Coca-Cola. Sadly, the same cannot be said for access to clean water and vital medicine. One man is doing what he can to change that, using the distribution power of large corporations.

In the 1980s, entrepreneur Simon Barry was an aid worker in remote villages in Zambia, and he became aware of how easy it was to grab a Coke nearly every place he went, but he also noticed how many basic necessities were missing. Barry got the idea to somehow use Coca-Cola's distributing success to deliver lifesaving supplies to the countries most in need. Unfortunately, the idea did not become a reality until about five years ago, with the help of Facebook and the Internet.

Once Barry's idea caught the attention of the Coca-Cola Company, the joint efforts resulted in a test program, called ColaLife. The program gets medical aid to Zambia using the extra space in Coke crates. The wedge-shaped AidPods fit in between the necks of bottles of Coca-Cola. Each AidPod, called Kit Yamoyo, or "Kit of Life," contains an anti-diarrhea kit that includes the following: a bar of soap, rehydration salts, zinc supplements, and a measuring cup.

Barry said, "Child mortality was very high, and the second biggest killer was diarrhea, which is simple to prevent." ColaLife is just one of the innovative ways in which major distributors can help save lives globally. Visit ColaLife.org to see how you can help.

[Related: Is Sevenly the Next TOMS Shoes?]

Like us on Facebook.com/TrendingNow, and follow "Trending Now" on Twitter: @Knowlesitall and @YahooTrending.

Read the rest here:

Entrepreneur Works With Coke’s Distribution to Deliver Medicine to Remote African Villages

Foundation Medicine to Present Cancer Genomic Research and Clinical Findings at the AACR Annual Meeting 2013

Posted on by

CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Foundation Medicine, Inc., a molecular information company that brings comprehensive cancer genomic diagnostic testing and analysis to routine clinical care, today announced the companys participation in multiple sessions and presentations at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2013 taking place April 6-10, 2013 in Washington, D.C.

The clinical benefit of comprehensive genomic profiling in cancer care is becoming increasingly clear as Foundation Medicine continues to present new clinical and research findings, said Vincent Miller, M.D., senior vice president, clinical development, Foundation Medicine. The collaborative studies and sessions at AACR should help advance the application of genomics and next-generation sequencing in clinical practice, and it is gratifying to see such encouraging progress.

The schedule for Foundation Medicines presentations and posters is as follows:

Date & Time: Saturday, April 6, 2013 from 10:15 to 10:40 a.m. ET Title: Clinical application of genome profiling in lung cancer Session: Future directions in personalized medicine for lung cancer Type: Educational Session Location: Room 143, Washington Convention Center Presenter: Vincent Miller, M.D., senior vice president, clinical development, Foundation Medicine

Date & Time: Sunday, April 7, 2013 from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. ET Title: Differences in genomic alterations revealed by sequencing of 182 genes in recurrent ovarian cancer specimens compared to TCGA analysis: rearrangements in PTCH1 and FLT3; high frequency of RAS pathway alteration Abstract Number: 58 Session: Molecular Diagnostics Type: Poster Session Location: Hall A-C, Poster Section 3 Presenter: Deborah A. Zajchowski, Ph.D., scientific director, The Clearity Foundation (research in collaboration with Foundation Medicine)

Date & Time: Monday, April 8, 2013 from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. ET Title: Identification of a novel genetic abnormality, the amplification of rictor (rapamycin-insensitive companion of mTOR), in a patient with non-small cell lung cancer Abstract Number: 2033 Session: Combination Therapies and Novel Therapeutic Approaches Type: Poster Session Location: Hall A-C, Poster Section 36 Presenter: Haiying Cheng, M.D., assistant professor, department of medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University (research in collaboration with Columbia University and Foundation Medicine)

Date & Time: Monday, April 8, 2013 from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. ET Title: Next generation sequencing demonstrates multiple gene amplifications and mutations in 3 patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer with responses to treatment with combination aromatase and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibition Abstract Number: 1209 Session: Molecular Classification of Tumors Type: Poster session Location: Hall A-C, Poster Section 3 Presenter: Ralph Zinner, M.D., associate professor, Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (research in collaboration with Foundation Medicine)

Date & Time: Monday, April 8, 2013 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. ET Title: Bringing next generation sequencing (NGS) to the clinic: Analytical validation of a comprehensive NGS-based cancer gene test Abstract Number: 2279 Session: Identification of New Targets and Pathways in Cancer: Translating Basic Discoveries into the Clinic Type: Minisymposium Location: Room 207, Washington Convention Center Presenter: Roman Yelensky, director, clinical genomic analysis, Foundation Medicine

Date & Time: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 from 8:15 to 10:15 a.m. ET Session: Regulatory Considerations for Integrative Biomarker Development Using Whole Genome Technologies Type: Regulatory Science and Policy Session Location: Room 144, Washington Convention Center Presenter: Vincent Miller, M.D., senior vice president, clinical development, Foundation Medicine

Continue reading here:

Foundation Medicine to Present Cancer Genomic Research and Clinical Findings at the AACR Annual Meeting 2013

Regent’s idea for Las Vegas-based medical school has merit and drawbacks, observers say

Posted on by

Leila Navidi

Dr. Mark Doubrava speaks at an editorial board meeting at the Las Vegas Sun offices on Tuesday, March 26,2013.

By Paul Takahashi (contact)

Published Thursday, March 28, 2013 | 2 a.m.

Updated 4 hours, 39 minutes ago

Regent Mark Doubrava's proposal for a new medical school at UNLV likely will exacerbate longstanding north-south tensions in higher education amid a fierce debate over equitable funding for Nevada's seven colleges and universities.

Doubrava a local ophthalmologist who specializes in cornea transplants recently announced his plans for Nevada's higher education leaders to explore the possibility of a second state-funded medical school that would exclusively serve Southern Nevada.

Currently, four-year medical students at the University of Nevada School of Medicine located at UNR complete their classwork in Reno during their first two years of study. Some students then move to Las Vegas to complete their medical clerkship at University Medical Center during their final two years.

Despite recent efforts to increase the medical school's presence in Southern Nevada from purchasing a house in Las Vegas for Dean Tom Schwenk to proposing a $220 million academic center near UMC the Nevada System of Higher Education hasn't done enough for the medical and patient communities in Southern Nevada, Doubrava said.

A medical school at UNLV would help solve Las Vegas' doctor shortage and improve the quality of health care in the state's population center, Doubrava said. In a city marred by a hepatitis C scandal and substandard hospital care, a dedicated medical school also would help train and elevate the local physician community, he added.

Follow this link:

Regent's idea for Las Vegas-based medical school has merit and drawbacks, observers say

What Makes a Medical School Great?

Posted on by

With only 20,000 new M.D.'s graduating each year to help care for a nation of over 310 million people, optimizing their education is critical.

NatShots Photography/Flickr

The medical school interview season has just concluded. Each year, approximately 45,000 students vie for approximately 20,000 first-year positions at U.S. M.D.-granting medical schools. Most of these students will not have gained admission, and if they wish to become physicians they will need to seek medical education outside the U.S., pursue an alternate degree such as a DO (doctor of osteopathy), or improve their grade point averages and test scores and apply again next year. At the other end of the spectrum, many fortunate students face the task of choosing between multiple schools.

With only 20,000 new M.D.'s emerging each year to help care for a nation of over 310 million people, these are momentous choices. Every graduate counts, and where students go to school can powerfully shape the kinds of physicians they become. What factors should count the most in choosing a medical school?

One important factor is clearly reputation, often expressed in the form of rankings. A number of publications and websites purport to rank the 140 U.S. M.D.-granting schools on factors such as research funding, publications by faculty, selectivity in admissions, the average grade point averages and test scores of accepted students, and a difficult-to-quantify prestige factor associated with the school itself or the larger university of which it is a part. While it is fashionable to downplay such rankings, many schools, particularly those that are highly ranked or moving up, tend to trumpet them loudly.

Such rankings do mean something. For one thing, being associated with an elite institution probably opens doors throughout the remainder of a physician's career, and there is real benefit to training with top students. In some cases, however, the reputation exceeds the reality. Education is not the only factor in the rankings, and research prowess does not necessarily equate to teaching excellence. And while there may be a real difference between the number one and number 100 schools, it is questionable whether there is any real difference between the number 20 and 30 schools.

Another increasingly important factor is cost. The median cost of a 4-year medical education is now over $265,000. Over 85 percent of students graduate in debt, and the average indebtedness is over $160,000. Due to accumulating interest on loans, most students will need to pay back considerably more. There is some evidence that this high level of indebtedness is influencing students' decisions about which medical fields to enter, placing a premium on ones that offer a higher income and steering students away from fields in which the need is greatest, such as the primary care specialties.

The most important issue in choosing a school should not be cost but value: the ratio of quality over price. Some offshore medical schools that function as "last resorts" are able to charge very high tuition. On the other hand, the tuition at some top-flight public medical schools is relatively low. Of course, tuition isn't the only factor contributing to cost, and students also need take into account differences in cost of living between locales. Also, many students get married or have children during or shortly after school, which can further magnify the importance of the cost factor.

Students and their families and advisors tend to spend too much time thinking about rankings and costs, in part because they are easily quantified. Whether such quantitative factors are really valid or not, the numbers seem to make it easy to compare schools against each other. But merely relying on an aggregate value score (ranking/cost or something to this effect) would leave out vital features that deserve to be taken seriously. For lack of a better term, we aggregate these factors under a general category that we call "culture."

Some might assume that, because culture cannot be quantified, it is somehow soft rather than hard, subjective rather than objective, and ultimately, far less reliable than quantitative measures. Yet we should bear in mind that though many of the most important aspects of our lives are similarly non-quantifiable, we do not rely on them any less. For example, imagine choosing a spouse based strictly on quantitative measures. What would we measure -- body mass index, IQ, and expected lifetime earnings? Most would find any such ranking ridiculous.

Excerpt from:

What Makes a Medical School Great?