![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
a small news story crossed my virtual desk this morning, courtesy of the new york times online edition. it gave me pause primarily because it so neatly reflects american values. you can agree or disagree, or you can call me a reactionary wacko, but i think it's absolutely insane that patients seeking an appointment with a dermatologist wait an average of 8 days for an appointment to get botox injections, and an average of 26 days for an appointment to have a suspicious mole evaluated. the results varied from city to city, but in every case (at least those reported in the article), the average wait time was significantly longer for a cancer evaluation than for a cosmetic evaluation. in my fair city of seattle, the median wait for botox was 7 days, vs. 35 days for a suspicious mole.
the article gives a couple of possible explanations for the discrepancy. 1. medical dermatologists and cosmetic dermatologists aren't the same people (i'm not sure this is always the case--the article isn't specific on this point, but it seems to point that way, and it makes a kind of sense); it could be that there is a shortage of medical dermatologists, and a surfeit of cosmetic dermatologists. 2. medical dermatologists have to deal with getting reimbursed by insurance companies, whereas botox is not covered by insurance, so patients pay for it themselves. for a botox injection appointment, a doc charges $400-600 (it's not specified, but i assume that covers the cost of the botox itself), according to the article; by contrast, a mole examination is typically reimbursed at $50-75 by insurance companies (they don't say whether or not that includes any sort of biopsy). obviously #1 and #2 are closely related, which dovetails with some of the stuff i want to say about michael moore's sicko, but i don't have time for that right now.
the article gives a couple of possible explanations for the discrepancy. 1. medical dermatologists and cosmetic dermatologists aren't the same people (i'm not sure this is always the case--the article isn't specific on this point, but it seems to point that way, and it makes a kind of sense); it could be that there is a shortage of medical dermatologists, and a surfeit of cosmetic dermatologists. 2. medical dermatologists have to deal with getting reimbursed by insurance companies, whereas botox is not covered by insurance, so patients pay for it themselves. for a botox injection appointment, a doc charges $400-600 (it's not specified, but i assume that covers the cost of the botox itself), according to the article; by contrast, a mole examination is typically reimbursed at $50-75 by insurance companies (they don't say whether or not that includes any sort of biopsy). obviously #1 and #2 are closely related, which dovetails with some of the stuff i want to say about michael moore's sicko, but i don't have time for that right now.
