Why are our insurance companies,
doctors, and medical researchers focusing so heavily on
self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and trying to discredit the
good that it can do? I may not have the answer, but I will propose
at least two possible theories.
Most people associated with the medical
field including insurance are supportive of prescribing medications
on top of medications. This I did not understand until I remembered
Big Pharma and the ACCORD studies. Are our doctors so comfortable in
bed with Big Pharma that they will not consider other approaches?
Are the payoffs so great for them that the patients' well being is
put on the back burner? Is the American Diabetes Association (ADA)
so beholden to Big Pharma that they do not want to back potential
patient centered aids that could reduce dependence on medication?
Is the above reason enough that doctors
for the ADA want to do nothing about pushing a clear status for
prediabetes and clearly recommending a strong course of action?
Alternatively, is it our medical insurance companies that are pushing
for inaction to keep current profits up in hopes that the profits
will continue to go up? It is plausible, but not as sound as the
above paragraph.
My second theory is that the current
generation of doctors is so intrenched in the past and only want to
treat something that is clearly a disease, that they do not want to
promote preventive medicine. They want patients that are sheep, and
not capable of thinking for themselves. When patients with diabetes
do self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) they are not taught what the
readings can mean or how to interpret the readings, or even when to
test.
It is no wonder that knowledgeable
people with type 2 diabetes become alarmed with these doctors. They
search the internet for information that will assist them to learn
how the test, when to test, and how to interpret the readings. Some
will become successful at SMBG. The rest will become discouraged and
continue testing, but not understand why. Then when their doctor
ignores the readings, they may look further or give up completely.
The people that give up completely or
are not interested in SMBG are the group that studies look for to
participate and give the insurance companies and Medicare reasons to
reduce the testing supplies. As a patient and a person with
diabetes, I consider this criminal and demeaning toward patients.
While it may seem that I am overstating
the above, please read this study, which clearly states the same
accusation. I quote “The Cochrane review is a review of
previously run studies, across a number of different countries, which
have analyzed self monitoring and its effect on HbA1c levels. People
with type 2 diabetes have previously noted the various limitations of
the studies included in the review. Studies, included in the Cochrane
review, have notably excluded participants who had
previously demonstrated interest in self monitoring.”
I added the emphasis. Please read the short article for further
revelations.
Even though I write about some of the
problems on diabetes forums, there is much good that can be had on
some of the better forums. The problem is that you cannot be a timid
participant on these forums. You must ask questions, but be sure to
give enough information for people to make reasonable answers. If
you do not, some will ask for additional information. Others will
make assumptions and try to answer based on what their experience is.
The following are web sites that may be
of value to you. They are not in a particular order or personal preference.
Please remember that these forums are
not chat rooms and you cannot expect an immediate answer. It may
take several hours to receive several answers. I think a couple of
the forums may have chat rooms, but finding people using them that
will answer your questions may be problematic. Normally chat rooms
are used by several people that invite each other and they want to
discuss one topic among themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment