<ol>
<li><p>When prescribing birth control pills for a very young woman, is it standard procedure to require an ultrasound of the legs and abdomen on an annual basis?</p></li>
<li><p>When over 40, is it standard procedure to require an ovarian ultrasound annually?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>DD is 20 and I am …well…over 40. Neither of these tests has been required for either of us at any time. I sounds like there is a concern over blood clots with the young woman. BC pills increase this risk. Also sounds like there may be a familial history of ovarian cancer or a issue of concern which is being tracked by the annual ultrasound.</p>
<p>yep, this one is definitely for the females.
You got me.</p>
<p>^
LP, until a week ago I thought you were a female! ;)</p>
<p>I agree with dietz on possible reasons for these tests. I’m over 40, never had either of these tests.</p>
<p>ETA: if the young woman smokes, the risk of blood clots increases.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>No.</p></li>
<li><p>No.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>(Per dietz199–not because of the contraceptive pills. Are there other medical concerns/conditions?)</p>
<p>No familial history of anything. The particular doctor routinely does these tests and does them “once a week” and my alarm bells are ringing in terms of unnecessary, costly procedures.</p>
<p>D2 is almost 20 and went for an annual and to get a refill of birth control pills. The ultrasound was required before the prescription could be given. I’m the second person. Absolutely no history of cancer at all, but this test is routinely required.</p>
<p>Both are done right there in the office. Convenient, no?</p>
<p>Let me guess- the Ob/gyn has an ultrasound machine in her office.</p>
<p>I would not say it is standard procedure unless there are some other risk factors.</p>
<p>I am not a doctor but I am a medical writer with 20-plus years of experience.</p>
<p>On question #1: I don’t know for sure but it sounds weird and I can’t imagine it’s “standard procedure.” Standard procedure is to ask certain questions to determine whether there are risk factors that mitigate against prescribing birth control.</p>
<p>Ovarian ultrasound annually after 40? No, that is *not *standard. Absolutely not. If the idea is that they would be “screening” for ovarian cancer, there is no standard screening for ovarian cancer. Look at the website for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for information on recommended screening tests. You can also look on the site for the National Cancer Institute for information about what’s standard in this area. Don’t take my word for it; please get information from reputable sources (such as the National Institutes of Health).</p>
<p>I can’t imagine insurance would pay for such tests absent some pathology for which they are, in the medical parlance, “indicated.” I would look for a new doctor unless your doctor gives you good reason for doing these tests that would, under normal circumstances, not be called for.</p>
<p>I hate to say it but are you in an urban/affluent area? They wouldn’t be gettin’ away with that in rural Virginia, dagnabbit.</p>
<p>I think I’m going to find someone else for the next annuals. No problems have been found or even considered, but these tests are required by the practice annually and I’m really bothered by it.</p>
<p>
You got it.</p>
<p>OP: Sounds like what the doc told my wife & D. ASK WHY THESE TESTS. Maybe do a little research to get additional info. Call insurance company to ask them about the test and reimbursment, especially if cost is a concern. If the physician can’t explain the medical reason for the tests (and their may be valid reasons for your D based on family and medical history), you & she (depending on her age) don’t have to agree to it. </p>
<p>Some docs have lousy patient-relation skills and expect you to just follow the doc’s orders. This could be one of them.</p>
<p>
I already did quite a bit of research, but I wanted anecdotal information, as well. I wouldn’t want to think ill of a professional if there is any possibility that it’s on the up-and-up, but the fact that this all started around the time that he opened an ultrasound facility in the other half of his building makes me very suspicious.</p>
<p>No. In either case.</p>
<p>That really does sound suspicious. I am surprised, though, that insurance is covering it. I wondering what he’s putting down as an indication; it certainly isn’t standard procedure.</p>
<p>I had the same thought, garland. It definitely sounds off, and I’m surprised any plans he participates in let him get away with it. Mine surely wouldn’t. Does this MD accept insurance, zm?</p>
<p>Yes he does accept insurance. I guess I better find out what is being coded.</p>
<p>Definitely NOT standard practice to do either one of these.
Doc is clearly trying to pay off the expensive ultrasound equipment in the office.
Run, don’t walk, to a more ethical physician. You may also want to contact your state’s chapter of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the state Medical Board.</p>
<p>Please find out what is being coded. If this practitioner is assigning a condition to you in order to justify the tests the long range repercussions could be ugly. This dubious condition could be considered a pre-existing condition and wreck havoc with future insurability. Ugh…dark thinking on my part.</p>