What People Think
 |
 |
50% For, 50% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 1338, The Access to Medicare Imaging Act of 2007
Revision History 
Below is the revision history of this article.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
No revisions found.
Learn More
Trackback URL: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/trackback/110_SN_1338.html
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
John
Yes, the cuts were draconian, and should be reversed. However, a significant part of the high cost of imaging has come from doctors who can self-refer due to the in-office exception of Stark II. Studies show that they order from 2 to 8 times the number of scans that they would otherwise, costing up to $16Billion per year in some estimates. How about dealing with the REAL problem?
Richard
The cuts were very excessive. The real facts though with respect to the comment above are that people who actually take care of patients, i.e. those that self refer, are in an ideal position to both manage and interpret tests as they pertain to the individual patient. The above comment regarding self-referral likely reflects a radiologist opinion. The hidden message there is that radiology wants 100% control of the imaging, but none of the difficult work in caring for patients. That is the real message of the above comment. Qualified readers should be allowed to interpret studies regardless of whether they are radiologists or not.