E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jason Cohn / REUTERS
Keith Hilborn holds a photo of his wife, Vicky, at his daughter's home in Summerville, Penn. Vicky Hilborn died of cancer in 2009 after attempting and failing to get oncology treatment from the Cancer Treatment Centers of America.
When the local doctor who had been treating Vicky Hilborn told her that her rare cancer had spread throughout her body, including her brain, she and her husband refused to accept a death sentence. Within days, Keith Hilborn was on the phone with an "oncology information specialist" at Cancer Treatment Centers of America.
Hilborn had seen CTCA's website touting survival rates better than national averages. His call secured Vicky an appointment at the for-profit, privately held company's Philadelphia affiliate, Eastern Regional Medical Center. There, the oncologist who examined Vicky told the couple he had treated other cases of histiocytic sarcoma, the cancer of immune-system cells that she had.
"He said, ‘We'll have you back on your feet in no time,'" Keith recalled.
Vicky's cancer treatment was forestalled by an infection and other complications that kept her at Eastern Regional for three weeks. In July 2009, when she got back home, things changed. Despite Keith's calls, he said, CTCA did not schedule another appointment. As his wife got sicker, Keith, a former deputy sheriff in western Pennsylvania, was reduced to begging.
The oncology information specialist "said don't bring her here," he recalled. "I said you don't understand; we're going to lose her if you don't treat her. She told me I'd just have to accept that."
Vicky Hilborn never got another appointment with CTCA. She died on September 6, 2009, at age 48.
CTCA is not unique in turning away patients. A lot of doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers in the United States decline to treat people who can't pay, or have inadequate insurance, among other reasons. What sets CTCA apart is that rejecting certain patients and, even more, culling some of its patients from its survival data lets the company tout in ads and post on its website patient outcomes that look dramatically better than they would if the company treated all comers. These are the rosy survival numbers that attract people like the Hilborns.
Beating the averages
CTCA reports on its website that the percentage of its patients who are alive after six months, a year, 18 months and longer regularly tops national figures. For instance, 60 percent of its non-small-cell lung cancer patients are alive at six months, CTCA says, compared to 38 percent nationally. And 64 percent of its prostate cancer patients are alive at three years, versus 38 percent nationally.
Such claims are misleading, according to nine experts in cancer and medical statistics whom Reuters asked to review CTCA's survival numbers and its statistical methodology.
The experts were unanimous that CTCA's patients are different from the patients the company compares them to, in a way that skews their survival data. It has relatively few elderly patients, even though cancer is a disease of the aged. It has almost none who are uninsured or covered by Medicaid -- patients who tend to die sooner if they develop cancer and who are comparatively numerous in national statistics.
Carolyn Holmes, a former CTCA oncology information specialist in Tulsa, Oklahoma, said she and others routinely tried to turn away people who "were the wrong demographic" because they were less likely to have an insurance policy that CTCA preferred. Holmes said she would try to "let those people down easy."
Equally significant, CTCA includes in its outcomes data only those patients "who received treatment at CTCA for the duration of their illness" -- patients who have the ability to travel to CTCA locations from the get-go, without seeking local treatment first. That means excluding, for example, those who have exhausted treatment options closer to home and arrive at a CTCA facility with advanced disease.
Accepting only selected patients and calculating survival outcomes from only some of them "is a huge bias and gives an enormous advantage to CTCA," said biostatistician Donald Berry of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
The company defends its practices. Spokeswoman Pamela Browner White said CTCA's survival data are in "no way misleading, nor do they deviate from best practices in statistical collection and analysis." As for the Hilborns, she said, the company does not discuss individual cases.
Cancer Treatment Centers of America got in trouble with regulators in 1996, when the Federal Trade Commission accused it of, among other things, presenting survival claims it couldn't support. The company entered into a consent decree with the FTC and, without admitting any of the allegations, agreed not to make unsubstantiated outcomes claims. The company also "implemented a voluntary, robust compliance program," White said.
Asked if CTCA's current outcomes claims conform to the consent decree, Richard Cleland, the agency's assistant director for advertising practices, said: "No one at the commission can comment on non-public information."
A 'free market' guy
Cancer Treatment Centers of America, which estimates it treats 4 percent to 8 percent of U.S. patients with complex and late-stage cancer, was founded in 1988 by Richard J. Stephenson, who has served as chairman ever since.
Stephenson, who declined to comment for this article, serves on the board of FreedomWorks, a non-profit group that advocates for small government and low taxes, and he is "very much a free-market guy," CTCA President and Chief Executive Stephen Bonner told Reuters.
He also has a history of pushing limits. A graduate of Northwestern University Law School, Stephenson started out as an investment banker. In 1966 he became a trustee of Americans Building Constitutionally, an organization that helped wealthy individuals set up not-for-profit corporations and personal trusts to avoid paying federal income and inheritance taxes.
In 1969, a California state court found the group's top official and six others guilty of grand theft or conspiring to commit grand theft. Stephenson had pleaded no contest to false advertising, a misdemeanor, and testified for the state, according to media reports at the time.
Stephenson ventured into healthcare in 1975, when he and partners bought Zion-Benton Hospital in Zion, Illinois, renaming it American International Hospital. By the late 1980s, American International was facing financial problems and its "reputation had been severely damaged" by local press reports about its use of unproven cancer treatments, according to a 2004 court opinion on a successful petition by a former CTCA president seeking an increased valuation for his share of the company.
In 1988, Stephenson founded CTCA. He was motivated, said CEO Bonner, by the difficulty he had identifying and obtaining the best therapies for his mother after she developed bladder cancer. She died in 1982.
Stephenson began building what was to become a national network of cancer centers that would uphold "the Mother Standard," described on the company website as "a warm, nurturing approach (that) involves caring for patients as we would want care for our own mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and other loved ones."
The hospitals also would seek patients "who were willing to travel to receive treatment" and "who were covered by private commercial insurance and could afford those expenses not paid by insurance," according to the 2004 court opinion.
The tough cases
Today, CTCA - with hospitals in Illinois, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Georgia, plus an outpatient clinic in Washington state and headquarters in Schaumburg, Illinois - is the only hospital system in the country that specializes solely in complex and advanced cancers. It does not release revenue or profit figures.
The company has treated about 50,000 patients since 1988, CEO Bonner said. (By comparison, the non-profit MD Anderson, a leading cancer center, treated about 115,000 patients last year.) CTCA expects 6,000 new patients and 15,000 to 16,000 continuing patients this year, he said, and is considering expanding in the Pacific Northwest, the Northeast and even Asia.
At each facility, the standard cancer treatments - radiation and chemotherapy - adhere to national guidelines, Bonner said. "But because we see mostly patients with later-stage, complex cancers, they often need something else," he added - psychological and spiritual support as well as "holistic" interventions such as yoga, acupuncture and reiki, a laying-on of hands.
More and more academic cancer centers offer such alternative medicine, which some insurers cover.
"Patients who feel they are understood and empowered will have a better outcome," Bonner said. They'll summon the strength to continue therapy, "even if the last thing they want to do is another round of chemotherapy."
The CTCA formula resonates with many patients. According to Healthgrades, a doctor- and hospital-ratings site, CTCA facilities consistently beat national averages in patient satisfaction.
"We were very impressed with the personal attention," said Rose Weistock, whose husband, Harvey, was treated for non-small-cell lung cancer at the Zion hospital, now the Midwestern Regional Medical Center, after his local physician gave him three to five years to live. "You didn't feel like you were just a number," she said.
CTCA flew the couple at no charge from their Maryland home to Chicago - complete with limo from the airport - to tour the hospital and undergo tests. Harvey, an accountant who had medical insurance through his job, began chemotherapy on that 2004 visit. The Weistocks appreciated the emphasis on what CTCA calls a cancer-fighting diet and on boosting the immune system through mind-body and spiritual practices.
Harvey died in a Maryland hospital in 2005. The family sued CTCA, alleging that he died after receiving chemotherapy he couldn't tolerate, and settled out of court. Still, Rose's admiration for the hospital's personal attention remains unwavering.
Hopeful pitch
"They market hope," Gail Robison, a staff nurse at the Zion hospital from 2003 to 2007, said of CTCA.
The marketing typically features CTCA's state-of-the-art care and holistic approach. Ads note that featured patients might not be representative: "You should not expect to experience these results."
The ads also challenge viewers to "compare our treatment results to national averages." Doing so, on the company's website, shows that CTCA's reported survival outcomes regularly beat those averages.
Experts in medical data who reviewed CTCA's claims for Reuters say those claims are suspect because of what they called deviations from best practices in statistics - in particular, comparing its carefully selected patients to those nationwide.
"It makes their data look better than it is," said Robert Strawderman, professor and chairman of biostatistics at the University of Rochester. "So the comparisons used to suggest that CTCA has better survival rates are pretty meaningless."
The selection process begins when a prospective patient first contacts CTCA, by phone or web chat, and speaks to an oncology information specialist. "The first thing you do is be kind and greet them, but you're qualifying them," said Carolyn Holmes, the former oncology information specialist. "You ask, ‘How old are you?' meaning, ‘Are you Medicare-age?'"
Holmes says she learned to recognize callers with "Cadillac insurance policies" and those from poor zip codes. She said she tried to redirect undesirable patients away from CTCA.
"You don't want them," Holmes said about Medicare patients. Medicaid? "Absolutely not." Other former employees confirmed her account of screening patients based on their means of payment.
Holmes sued Southwestern Regional Medical Center, CTCA's affiliate in Tulsa, in 2012 for terminating her job after she says she experienced symptoms consistent with multiple sclerosis.
CTCA denies any knowledge of Holmes's possible disability and claims she failed to satisfy performance standards, according to court records. The case is pending in Oklahoma federal court.
CTCA spokesman White said that the company has an "insurance-screening process and established criteria" and trains its specialists to direct callers to other resources when CTCA is unable to offer treatment.
CTCA accepts Medicare patients "in some hospitals," said CEO Bonner, and "a tiny bit" of Medicaid. It also has a fund, named for Stephenson's mother, that provides $2.5 million a year in charity care.
Skewed pool
The practices Holmes described result in a patient pool that looks very different from the nation's.
At the Zion hospital, about 14 percent of patients were covered by Medicare and 4 percent by Medicaid in 2011, according to data the hospital submitted to Illinois health authorities. Over the previous 10 years, the Medicaid percentage was often in the single digits. Reuters was not able to obtain data from CTCA's other hospitals.
In the database CTCA compares itself to, called SEER and run by the National Cancer Institute, 53 percent of patients were diagnosed at the Medicare-eligible age of 65 or older, and 14 percent are below the poverty level, an indication of those covered by Medicaid or uninsured.
SEER includes patients "with and without insurance, with and without other serious medical conditions, at or not at cancer centers, treated by all types of doctors, not just oncologists, and even including those who never received treatment because the cancer was diagnosed too late," said Celette Skinner, associate director for Population Science & Cancer Control in the Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.
Those factors all depress the survival of SEER patients, making CTCA's results look better by comparison.
For instance, patients without insurance, whom state filings show CTCA rarely accepts, are only half as likely to undergo a screening test for cancer, says American Cancer Society statistician Elizabeth Ward. And screened patients are alive longer after diagnosis than are unscreened patients. That reflects the effect of screening, not treatment.
Poor people, whom CTCA rarely treats, also tend to have worse health, such as heart disease and susceptibility to infection. Those "co-morbidities" are responsible for as many as half of all cancer deaths in the year after diagnosis, said Soneji Samir, an expert on cancer statistics at Dartmouth Medical School in Lebanon, New Hampshire. CTCA's patients "have less risk of other causes of death."
CTCA makes every effort to adjust its data so comparisons to the national database are legitimate, said biostatistician Chengjie Xiong of Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, who performed CTCA's survival analysis as a consultant to the company.
But "comparisons cannot be done between CTCA and SEER database on income level," he said in an email. That means "there are some differences" between the two patient populations.
Xiong said he is doing new survival calculations using more recent data from CTCA, trying to make sure the comparison to the national database is rigorous. The new results, Xiong said, are expected to be posted on CTCA's website this month.
For some cancers, CTCA will still have better survival rates, he said. For others, "the survival difference in favor of CTCA is no longer statistically significant" after adjusting for several differences between CTCA's patients and those in the national database.
'Very red flag'
CTCA also excludes from its survival calculations thousands of patients it does treat but who did not receive "treatment at CTCA for the duration of their illness."
"‘The duration of their illness' is a very big and very red flag," said MD Anderson's Berry. CTCA's patients will "tend to be healthier" than those in the general population from which SEER draws its data, he said, adding: "Ability and willingness to travel is an independent factor" associated with longer survival.
No federal or state law requires hospitals to report their cancer outcomes, let alone mandates how to do the calculations. But many healthcare providers voluntarily err on the side of inclusion.
"We follow them for the duration of their illness and still report them even if they were treated elsewhere," said oncologist Alan Campbell, medical director of Spectrum Health, which runs medical practices and hospitals in Michigan. "Doing otherwise could skew your survival numbers."
Other major cancer centers do not report outcomes at all, arguing that the statistics can be manipulated.
CTCA also appears to exclude the vast majority of its patients when it calculates survival data. In survival results from 2004 to 2008 posted on its website, CTCA reported 61 patients with advanced prostate cancer, 97 with advanced breast cancer, 434 with advanced lung cancer, and 165 with advanced colon or rectal cancer. These are the four most common solid tumors. In the same period, CTCA treated thousands of patients at its Zion facility alone, according to filings with state regulators.
"We agree that some of our sample sizes" are small "and have always stated this as a limitation of our study," said Xiong, the consultant to CTCA.
"I'd have some concerns about why and wonder if some cherry-picking was going on," said Spectrum Health's Campbell.
Moreover, while the standard reporting period for cancer survival is five years after diagnosis, CTCA on its website doesn't go that far; for the four most common tumors, it reports survival up to four years at most. And as Reuters found, the company's advantage often diminishes as the five-year mark approaches (see accompanying graphic).
Soon after Keith Hilborn got Vicky back home, her local doctor cleared her to travel. Keith started calling the CTCA oncology information specialist he had first spoken to. "She said things like ‘We'll have to get back to you,'" Keith said.
They never did. Vicky "was depending on me, and I couldn't get them to treat her," he said. "She never got a single cancer treatment from them."
Hilborn received a statement from CTCA saying Vicky's care cost $319,902.20. "This was just for treating her infection," he said. "My local hospital could charge like that, too, if they flew you around and sent limos for you."
He refused to pay, keeping the reimbursement Vicky's insurer had sent to him. CTCA sued him for payment and won. A sheriff's sale of his belongings is expected to raise money to pay the judgment.
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Leave a Comment:
This is the wave of the future, get used to it. First, regarding the "rating" racket, second, the Cadillac insurance needed to qualify.
Regarding the first, the government is killing hospitals with their multiple rating systems. The hospitals are fighting back, since this is public information and so hits the bottom line, by concentrating on getting good ratings. Unfortunately this usually has nothing to do with actual quality of care, as this is mainly "gaming the system.
Regarding the Cadillac Insurance needed...well of course it is needed. Medicaide doesn't pay or approve most of the medications these people probably use (the oncologist I talk to agree with this), since they are either too expensive or are "experimental". What is allowed by Medicaide is very limited. But since it is set up only for basic care, it really does what it is designed for and is MUCH better than no care at all, since most care is pretty inexpensive if caught early, like blood pressure pills, verus dialysis if not treated.
If a cost analysis of this group was done, we would probably find the cost of helping one person is excrucitingly expensive and would bankrupt Medicare if done for all the cancer patients. This whole issue of paying a $1,000,000 to give someone 6 more months of questionable quality of life, versus spent to feed and educate kids is something we are going to have to address. I predict after much gnashing of teeth and wailing, we will finally start realizing that we can't have both and get more realistic about what we are really doing.
We are going to have to accept the fact that not everyone can be saved. I have now seen several elderly friends who accepted this fact, lived as best they could with their cancer (or other disease), entered hospice care, and died with grace and dignity, supported by family, friends and the wonderful hospice nurses. If there is a heaven, they are there now!
And for all those who will now jump into the discussion and bash Obamacare....... their decision had nothing whatsoever to do with the inability to pay, etc. All were well-educated, well-insured, thoughtful people who wanted the best for themselves and, most importantly, others who could truly benefit from expensive treatment.
Another snake-oil salesman holding out false hopes while fleecing the desperate. Stephenson isn't even a doctor, just another sleight-of-hand Wall Street type adept at 'packaging' a product to make it look better than it is. It's guys like this is why health care is so expensive.
And if you're paying attention, notice that the genuinely good products rarely advertise; it's the usually the poor ones that have to tout themselves. I wonder what their national advertising budget is, and why doesn't it include other Doctor's referrals?
So "rural state Washington perspective" I guess YOU volunteer to be one of the majority of future cancer victims that will be given the "regular course of treatment" poor cancer victims get. Your "realization" that some people are just to "expensive to care for" will come back to haunt you someday HOPEFULLY. Our country does not have to get used to living on the whims of corporate dictators running hospitals and health care company's that are fighting against the ACA while committing fraud with their billing practices. Cancer Treatment Centers are nothing but the latest fraud perpetrated on our society and with friends like Stevenson of "Freedom Works" fame leading the corporation we all know this is very bad for our working poor.
Great post, Ray. Agree 100%
CTCA fighting for high survival rates? What a noble quest...Ya, but for whom? Just like ads for cars and toothpaste every hospital tries to set itself apart from the competition, or they will die. That's a big problem for something like health care, competition does not lower cost, it raises it. Shiny new facilities, all private rooms, meals on demand, fancy services in the OB department, all to attract new Clients. Private enterprise does not and will not work when it comes to health care, billions spent on mega-cost drugs to keep a cancer riddled body going for another couple months...not for me and not on my dime.
This whole article is a perfect example of why the profit motive does not work with medical care. You have insurance companies dragging 30 cents out of every healthcare dollar and not treating or curing a simgle person. Physicians want to make a 25% profit on their operations and routinely "cross-refer" patients to theor own facilities for tests, etc, increasing that profit dramatically. Hospitals seek a 25% profit on everything. Big Pharma looks for an 8,000% profit on blockbuster drugs and a 200% profit overall. And that does not even consider the incredible number of middlemen in the for-profit medical supply chain.
The ONLY way we are going to have any sort of reasonable health care for every citizen is to have a single-payor system that is able to set prices and payments. But even with a single-payor system, people have to remember two things: a) everyone is going to die sometime and a lot of major medical treatment is a balancing act between extending life and maintaining quality of life, and b) health care dollars are a finite resource and should be spent where they will do the most good. Remember Hot Lips on M*A*S*H? She was a triage nurse and would sort out incoming patients into the ones in urgent need, the ones who could wait and the ones so severaly injured that they were treated only after everyone else. She was a perfect example of having finite resources to deal with problems that exceed those resources.
anybody who accepts the snake oil salesmen's claims of "higher than normal survival rates" is deluding themselves. I saw their ads on TV in Phoenix and decided that they were SNAKE OIL (and just as valuable)
Remember - theirs is no magic bullet ANY MORE THAN ANY OTHER CANCER TREATMENT CENTER
My cousin died recently from a rare form of cancer. She was a nurse and was a patient of one of the doctors she worked with. When she became ill her doctor did very little to diagnose what was causing her illness. She finally went to another doctor, and this doctor was able to diagnose the cancer that was causing her illness. She was told that if the cancer she had was in the early stages of the disease it was very treatable. She was accepted for treatment by Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Her health insurance would cover the treatment, but she had to pay the travel and lodging costs. Here's the thing...she lived in Alabama, but to receive her treatments she had to travel to the Oklahoma Cancer Center referred to above (even though there is also a treatment center in Georgia). After she returned home from her first treatments at the Oklahoma location she was led to believe that she would be able to go to the Georgia location for future treatments. When her family called to schedule her for treatment the Georgia location informed them that they couldn't treat her there after all because her insurance wouldn't cover it. Her family then contacted the hospital at the University of Alabama in Birmingham and was told she couldn't come there because there was nothing they could do for her. Her family contacted the Oklahoma location again and told them what the Georgia location and the UAB hospital had informed them. The Oklahoma location indicated that they were willing to fly her to Oklahoma and transport her from the airport to their location via a limo, but by then she was too weak to travel. She died a few days later. She was young (still in her 30s), and a mother to three children (ages 12-16). Reading between the lines...the first idiot doctor didn't want to do his damn job because he was being paid by the damn insurance company to cut costs on diagnostics therefore cutting costs on treatment (if you don't diagnose the condition, you don't have to treat the condition). The second doctor did do his job, but by then it was too late. The insurance company knew they HAD to cover the cost of treatment, but could save money by making her go to the further location for treatment (if it was further to go it would cost more in travel costs therefore decreasing her ability to go for treatment). Cancer Centers of America was willing to treat her as long as they could charge the insurance company top dollar for treatment. UAB hospital wouldn't take her because there was no money in it for them. In other word folks, it has nothing to do with humane medical treatment...it's all about the almighty damn dollar! Because of our greedy-ass medical system three children have lost their mother!
This is not my first experience with our GREEDY-ASS medical system either. My mother died of ovarian cancer in 2009. She was not diagnosed until she was in already stage-4 (again too late)! I have also known other people (some of them relatives) that have died as a result of various reasons (including cancer) because of not being able to get adequate medical care. My step-mother had ovarian cancer 37 years ago and because of early detection she survived. I've mentioned my step-mother's survival because it shows a good example of how over the years our medical system has become a FARCE! I'm not saying there aren't still a few good medical professionals out there, but there aren't enough that are in it for the right reasons (which is treat medical conditions and illnesses and to try to save lives). PEOPLE IT'S TIME TO TAKE CONTROL OF OUR GREEDY-ASS MEDICAL SYSTEM AND STOP THE BS! IT'S UNACCEPTABLE TO HAVE OUR LOVED ONES GO UNTREATED OR DIE BECAUSE OUR DAMN GREEDY-ASS MEDICAL SYSTEM IS SO OUT OF CONTROL THAT IT'S GOTTEN TO WHERE MOST OF US CAN'T AFFORD ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE! I've used the word OUR when referring to our medical system because it's OUR PROBLEM AS A NATION!
Dear knows - My daughter is in a fight for her life right now. I can't write too much about her situation because I am in a fight with her hospital and surgeon over negligence in her care that has gone on for over a year now. Part of my complaint is that they have sucked SO MUCH MONEY out of her insurance I have to wonder at what point her insurance is going to STOP!!! I have been so MAD that I have directly accused them of being THIEVES and how is my daughter going to be treated when her insurance runs out! I have made up my mind that the medical profession can go to hell and that I would rather die than give the bloodsucking a$$hole$ one red cent! With that said, who the f*** has ANY right to DICTATE to me that I (or anybody else) HAS to have insurance? Again - it is a HUGE PONZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, Mary
The people you refer to ALL were "Well educated " and you make them sound as if they were well-healed and yet did not recieve treatment.
The difference here is they had a CHOICE and CHOSE THEMSELVES to die without further treatment. With Obamacare, the GOVERNMENT does the CHOOSING. As Ron Reagan said, when the government gets control of health care, the people are no longer free. We are THERE!
Ah yes, advice from the President that trained and armed Osama Bin Laden giving his advice on a health care system he totally shunned the entire duration of his presidency. Before Ronald Reagan, the majority of employers offered total healthcare packages not only to their employees but their employees families as well at no cost to the worker. After Reagan, well that only applied to full time workers and at a cost with full time level employees becoming a rarity amongst businesses with the majority being labeled as part time employees even though they still worked 40 hours a week plus.
Patient skimming is classic strategy for for profit specialty facilities. They only accept patients with good insurance coverage or can afford to pay and arent that sick. Dump the patients that will loose money on non-profits. This is the way these disgusting operations make money.
It's spelled "lose". My boots are "loose".
Has anyone EVER heard of "Truth in Advertising"? Not with today's Corporations. If the majority of Corporations ever told the truth, they would be out of business the next day.
Sad to say, but there are NO effective safeguards in place either by the States nor the Federal Government. Buyer Beware.
Lies, damn lies, & statistics
This is exactly what Obamacare will do.
actually not
Actually, Obamacare will probably do nothing to cancer rates or rates of cure. What Obamacare will do is increase wait times for those trying to get care and increase demand for limited resources.
Yeah, Lemur, as opposed to those people not getting any treatment now and just dying. How dare they make the line longer for you and asking you to share the resources you currently get more of because they don't get any care.
Obamacare cannot fix YOUR STUPIDITY, but it can fix more than you should ever be able to use. Our country needs the ACA, IT DOES NOT NEED YOUR BRAND OF MENTAL ILLNESS.
The founder and Chairman of the Board of Cancer Treatment Centers of America is a guy named Richard Stephenson.
If you've heard that name before, it's probably because the's the guy who paid Dick Armey $8 million to just "go away" from his leadership position of the Tea Party PAC FreedomWorks. It was also uncovered that Stephenson had funneled at least another $12 million to FreedomWorks this past election cycle thru bogus intermediaries.
No Moogly, this is NOT what you will get from Obamacare.
But it's EXACTLY what you can expect from those who oppose health care reform.
More details here:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/richard_stephenson_freedomworks.php
remembering that the major FAILURE of the ACA was the inability to have SINGLE PAYER
The following is from the website of Cancer Centers of America:
"Naturopathic medicine is a distinct system of primary health care. It is an art, a science, a philosophy. It is a practice of diagnosis, treatment and prevention of illness.
A central goal of naturopathic medicine is to use the healing power of nature to maintain and restore health. In addition, naturopathic medicine focuses on prevention. This is accomplished through education and promotion of lifestyle habits that create good health.
Naturopathic clinicians are specialists in natural health care who use natural, non- toxic therapies to support the whole person and encourage the inherent self-healing process, with an emphasis on building health. Their goal is to minimize the risk of harmful effects on you, and apply the least possible force or intervention necessary to diagnose illness and restore your health."
While this sounds very appealing, please know that these are largely unproven remedies, not held up to scientific review. When mixed in with standard treatments, they may not do harm, alone they well not reliably treat cancer. If you ever get the dreaded diagnosis of cancer, please go the the website of the National Cancer Institute. You will find a list of reliable cancer treatments centers listed by name or by state. Please contact one of these centers ASAP and follow their advice. These centers are staffed with the best and brightest and their treatments are 'state of the art.' I will try to copy the web address here:
http://cancercenters.cancer.gov/cancer_centers/index.html
If this does not appear when you read this post, search National Cancer Institute cancer centers.
cancer centers is trying to sell their snake oil. Desperate people will sometimes turn to charlatans for treatment. They used to be called QUACKS
I don't know why companies would even risk the chance on screwing people. If their employees would leave their jobs on their own (i.e. quit), these employees would just spill the beans to the public how they screwed people around. Duh!
You might be surprised at the actual number of "No Disclosure Agreements" issued by Corporations to departing employees, especially those in the "Know" zone.
funny, though, how sometimes that info gets out anyway - third party or anonymous - all they would need to do is to figure out WHERE the information originated...
A nice article that illustrates how easy it is to fudge the numbers...
I'll present a summary of it to my Statistics class next hour.
Statistics and Polls are skewed so that they portray an intended result before any work is done. Political Polls, the worst of the worst.
I live in Georgia. When a massive ad campaign began touting CTCA's new metro Atlanta facility in 2012, I was skeptical. The success rate claims sounded too good to be true. Sure enough, a little online research revealed the terms "for-profit" and "privately held" in the fine print. That told me everything I needed to know about the hidden agenda of this hospital group.
This article confirms my gut feeling that medical companies like CTCA exist to select the patients they want to treat to get the best possible outcome, both medically and financially. Privacy-obsessed individuals and investor groups are only too happy to participate in such a venture -- and probably not motivated to ask too many questions.
Unlike most, or all of the people posting comments so far, I was a patient at CTCA in Zion in 2011. Today I am cancer free and I can't speak highly enough about this facility and its staff. Let me also state that my brother-in-law was also treated there over 12 years ago after being given 6 months to live by local Drs. He now resides in Hawaii. He is the reason I chose CTCA. He did not have "Cadillac" Insurance coverage and was treated elsewhere first. My Insurance coverage was also out of network for this hospital, but CTCA adjusted their billing in such a way as to match what coverage I would have received in network. They also wrote off a substantial amount of my final bill due to hardship. The Drs that practice at CTCA have all agreed to work on a fixed salary, to insure that every patient receives the highest quality care, they are not paid by the number of patients seen or treated in a day. Regardless of their "Marketing" strategy this is a first class state of the art cutting edge treatment center.
you sound like your marketing for CTCA, especially with your repeat post.
You'll find my reply below...I am new to this, so the over posting was not intentional ....my offer stands
Ctca hung up on me twice ... when I asked about treating my wife.
Her cancer was to bad I guess. But what I want to know is why when you say the C word does everything double or triple in price ????
It's all bullcrap when you say cancer the dollar signs lite up .... cancer is BIG money.
My wife didn't make it thru all the treatments ! At our home hospital.
well, survivor, you are the exception - must not have been very aggressive cancer or it was caught early. YOU WERE LUCKY - but to ascribe your remission to CCTA is, in a word, deplorable - given their general record. I hope you stay healthy. (not a joke or an indictment - just wishing you good health)
All of this cancer.probably in the environment.Try and eat healthy,make your own vegetables and fruit at home.If you can grow them probably better.Watch out for meats,get pure meat.All of these centers for cancer,do not know about them.We have M.D. Anderson in Houston,Tx.Investigate where you go.Cancer is so sad,sorry to the man who lost his wife and others.We all need to cry out for pure food everywhere,clean water and air.All of us need to change our ways.
There is very little evidence that chemicals currently found in food (not the ones that were banned in the past) contribute to cancer. The water supply in the U.S. is also extremely safe (unless you happen to have a contaminated well). There is plenty of evidence, however, that obesity increases the risk of cancer. Therefore, a healthy diet WILL reduce your risk. This doesn't necessarily mean you need to go organic, but definitely eat more fruits and veggies and less fat. Also, air pollution from coal-fired power plants definitely harms people. I'm not sure if it increases the risk of cancer, but it does increase the risk of respiratory disease. That said, you can do everything right and still get cancer. The chances of getting cancer are lower, but some people just have bad luck.
One of the most STUPID reasonings I have ever heard. Chemicals do not cause cancer, HEY DUDE, go kneel down and pray , that will stop all the allowed chemicals in our food from turning you into the next cancer repository. Oh, when you find out that "no one was listening" and you develop cancer then blame it on Obama, he is the only one that "can " do those things.
There are many, many kinds of cancer, and the causes are very complex. Sometimes heredity plays a factor. Sometimes it's exposure to chemicals such as cigarette smoke. Often it is a combination. But I'll tell you this. You can eat the cleanest food possible, never smoke, never drink, never use anything plastic to keep foods in, and STILL get cancer. You can smoke, drink, eat charbroiled meat, and work in a chemical factory and NOT get cancer.
I'm not saying people shouldn't pay attention to statistics. Certainly smoking is a risk factor, but not smoking is no guarantee. You just do the best you can and hope.
We have the cleanest water and air that we have had since the Industrial Revolution began, so I don't concur with that analysis.
However, when it comes to the way our food and food animals have be manipulated and adulterated, I agree 100% !! I have been a patient at the CTCA in Zion.
You meet with a dietitian there as part of the treatment. They are very aware of what is wrong with the food out there today, and encourage eating grass fed beef and organic etc.
I believe food is medicine, and we all need to get informed as what the food conglomerates i.e Copaz, Archer Daniels Midland (the :food basket to the world" as they say), Kraft, General Mills, farmers of our fish, and chemical companies have done and our doing to our food supply.
I started to investigate. I read that Japanese women have the lowest rate of breast cancer in the world, and they believe it is because of their diet. Does this make sense? Shouldn't they have the HIGHEST rate. Women in the age group that usually get breast cancer should be dying in droves, as they would be the women who were exposed to high levels of radiation when the atomic bombs where dropped on Japan. Does this mean high doses of radiation stop breast cancer? Looks like maybe their diet protected them? They don't eat the American diet.
I was unaware until about ten years ago, that "farm conglomerates" were already beginning to alter our meat in the 1970s. You are seeing the results of that now. Bayer (yes, the same group that makes aspirin) has taken control of our seed stores and is altering them so that they will accept Roundup (which they also make) when the young plant is sprayed with it. We are eating the residue from that spray. Dairy herds are being fed powdered chemical ( also Bayer) to make them give one more gallon of milk/week/cow, the salmon and all of the seed stock is being genetically engineered, and the pollen is blowing onto the organically grown crops. Heirloom seeds ( which means unadulterated seeds the way God made them for our food) will become polluted by these plants and forever altered. The FDA inspects less than 2% of all imported food, and those people are in it for profit only. And you wonder why we are sick? Why cancer incidence rates are soaring here?
Wen I was diagnosed with breast cancer, the oncologist reviewed my medical history and said "you did everything right, we will never know what caused this."
I began to investigate and came to the conclusion that the only thing breast cancer victims have in common, no matter where they live in the US is the Food we eat. I also learned that MANY countries ban the import of many or our meat, produce, and processed food as they have analysed them and consider them "unhealthy for their populations." This was a revelation to me.
I also found out that EIGHTY PERCENT of ALL antibiotics used in the United Sates are used on our animals, esp those in feed lots. Also animals are fed "animal by-products" (an example of that is chicken @!$%#), and grains that are not normal diet for the animal. For example, cows NEVER corn (or chicken @!$%#) as part of their diet before the food conglomerates came into existence. They grazed in open fields.
I could go on here for anther hour.
The answer is:
1.)Americans wake up!! Start paying attention and get informed as to how and where your food is grown and processed.
2.) vote against what is going on with your money-DON'T buy this crap. It will stop, and not until then
3.) Start growing your own fruits and vegetables as much as you are able. I have my own organic garden and a small freezer. I had tomato soup this evening from last summers organically grown garden.
4.) Educate yourself as to what and when,where things grow best. I live in Ohio where we have some cold winters. We had two mild ones in a row. I planted Kale, cabbage, radishes, green onions, variety of lettuces and picked them ALL winter long. Start a cold frame to extend the growing season. When you grow them, you KNOW what you are eating.
5.) If you can't grow your veggies, buy them from farm stands , locally,where you know how they are grown, freeze some for winter. Example, the raccoons won't let me grow corn except for them. I buy local in season and cut off of the cob and freeze for winter. I have vegetable soup made with the corn that I froze this week . I know where the vegetables came from. teh bones for the spoup came from the grass fed locally farm grown cow. I am not forced to eat Campbell's vegetable soup which contains genetically engineered corn and tons of salt.
When the American public gets informed and refuses to buy this stuff they sell as "food", the manufactureres will listen and change their ways. NOT before!
Liars figure and figures lie. Numbers can be manipulated to tell any story someone wants to tell. That's no surprise.
When it comes to healthcare, the best thing anyone can do is their own research. Ask questions all along the way - of everyone. And, understand what is being said to them. Don't just accept things. Keep questioning. Doctors don't know everything - they can't be expected to. When it comes to drug treatments, often the best resource is the pharmacist - these people aren't being wined and dined by pharma reps so they don't have any reason to skew their thinking one way or another about a particular drug.
My belief is, the single most important thing anyone can do who is battling a severe heath issue is to remain mentally strong, engaged and as active as possible. Once hope is lost, medicine alone is not going to do the trick.
Actually, it is not the numbers that are being manipulated, but the patients. Think about it --- the numbers are dead-on accurate, but the patients are cherry-picked for good outcomes. In situations like that it is impossible for patients to "do their own research" based on the numbers. They have to have knowledge that is not available.
Chris
I am sorry that is not true. I was a patient there eight years ago. The patients at CTCA are the BEST informed people around. CTCA has a whole library of information on cancer, encourages all of the patients to be as informed as they can be and believes that those who are best informed have the best survival rates. You have access to computers and research all of the latest studies on the type of cancer you have and phones in the room for you to call any research location in the US. They encourage patients to keep in touch with the American Cancer Society and use them to access information and clinical trial info.
I contacted via chat the CTCA when my husband's leukemia 'came back' after a 9 mo remission. What a mistake! The guy who "chatted" just wouldnt leave us alone. He pushed and pushed to get us to come there. Meanwhile, since my husband was initially a patient at Mayo Clinic, the people at Mayo got my husband in to a great clinical study. Since the CTCA guy seemed to be bugging me daily to finalize arrangements to go to their facility, I graciously let him know that we were no longer needing his services, and that we were getting into the clinical trial. The CTCA guy did nothing but slam Mayo. Implied that it was a horrible mistake for us to go there and that we'd be sorry!!! Well, we ARENT sorry. My husband is doing great in the Mayo clinical and we are nothing but thankful for it. So, all said and done, when I hear the name of Cancer Treatment Centers of America, all I think of is $$$$$$...that's all they were interested in with us.
best wishes for you husband
While no large health care facility will be perfect in every aspect nor can they ever guarantee a perfect outcome every time, Mayo is one of the very finest health care centers on the planet. You did well to ignore this huckster.
Best wishes for a clean bill of health for your husband.
I hope the very best for your husband, & am glad that you chose Mayo over CTCA. I've always heard good things of Mayo.
Those tactics that CTCA tried to pull over on you during a crisis is proof that they are a profit driven, greedy POS of a cancer care center. As they cherrypick their survival rates, they also do the same with patient selection. I take it that your husband is well insured, and/or that the two of you are on stable financial ground, which attracts all kinds of hustlers & scammers, even in the medical industry.
Yes, CTCA can claim high survival rates than some others, mainly because of the patient selection process. They want the ones most able to pay & the most healthy ones possible. Of course, if the money's right, they'd also take a patient at the end stages (days, weeks or months) of the disease, who are desperate & willing to shell out as much cash as needed for every last day, no matter the quality of those final days. These doesn't hurt their overall survival rates because of how the statistics are monitored, & greatly helps their overall financial position through many quick infusions of cash.
After all, just from viewing their ads, it's obvious that they're in the sales of hope. They've been around for awhile, & back in the late 90's when my father-in-law who was on Medicaid inquired (terminal stages of colon cancer), he was told (a week later) there was little that they could do. Because he couldn't "travel" to one of their centers & something about an "open policy" that the patient had to physically walk through the doors to be accepted. No, he couldn't travel, nor walk any longer, but that was their excuse to deny him. He seen their ad during a chemo session & couldn't get to a phone fast enough. It was heartwrenching seeing him putting his faith that this center would help him, only to see it crushed by less than a two minute call. And I would bet that if the money's right, the patient would be accepted comatose, with the promise to the family that "we're going to beat this" once & for all. Yea, right.
To those whom CTCA has benefitted, I'm very happy for you & my comment isn't meant to take that away. Many cancer centers saves lives, & yes, hope & a positive attitude (which shouldn't be charged for) goes a long way in that battle.
However, their ads, instead of giving hope, actually crushes it for unpreferred patients. Fortunately, I live in an area that has a true non-profit hospital, which includes a modern cancer center. Of which long term (5 year) survival rates are fairly consistent with that of three prominent medical schools in the 50 mile radius (Duke, UNC & Wake Forest), at lower pricing.
Hopefully, this article will cause pressure to be placed onto CTCA's across the board accounting practices, & they will have to play by the same rules & regulations as other cancer centers. Including adopting a 5 year survival rate as a "success" base, where the patient is considered in remission. I've yet to read of any other cancer center claiming one to be in remission in 4 years.
CTCA needs to clean up their act & quit cherrypicking patients & fudging survival rates.
Cat
Lesson: When something seems too good to be true, it is.
lesson #2 - AND when someone INSISTS that it IS too good to be true, see LESSON #1
In the finest tradition of modern capitalism...
Cherry picking is an unfortunate right of for profit firms.
It is shameful to take advantage of people so desperately sick that are looking for a miracle to save their lives.The very people,the medical field today,who are supposed to be compassionate and caring are nothing more than money hungry.
No money, no salvation. It's contrary to this book I read once, but...
amen.
of course, I've also heard "No MONEY, no HONEY", too
I have no experience with CTCA.. but Big pharma does the same thing... all those tests results of how effective their cancer drugs are.. skewed.. survival rates, skewed. My mother (Stage IV uterine cancer) went to a large nationally renowned hospital... for treatment, or as I like to call it "cheatment" for all the good it did her, she may as well been treated by the janitor... sure she's just one anecdotal story.. but every person I know with metastatic cancer , regardless of where they were treated, are now gone. We heard things like, "Chemotherapy has come so far, it's do "doable" this is how you treat it... blah blah blah The emperor isn't wearing any clothes...
Unlike most of, if not all the people commenting here I was actually a patient at CTCA in 2011. I contacted them in 2009 after a referral from my brother in law. He was treated there after the local Drs gave him 6 months to live, that was 12 years ago and he now lives in Hawaii. Neither of us had "Cadillac coverage" My experience was completely different than that of CLEH...after my initial contact I didn't call again for over a year as I did research on my cancer. They never bothered me once. When I did call back to go in for treatment I found out I was "out of network" for my particular insurance carrier. They matched what that coverage would have been in Network or the same coverage I would have received from a PPO. . They also wrote off almost 10K on one of my treatments my insurance carier denied after the fact and deemed "experimental". They paid all my milage generously, I stayed in a great Hotel for just $44 a night, received 3 meals a day plus snacks at there all organic cafeteria, was treated by the best Oncologists in the world, and found out they all work on fixed salaries. No one is paid by the number of patients treated. I had mind and body, spiritual, chiropractic, massage, pharmacy, a gym all under one roof. All my tests, (and they were extensive,) were done in one day, results were available the next day. It is truly a state of the art top notch center for cancer, and I am a survivor, declared cancer free last July. Say what you will about their marketing plan....what they do is incredible.
....if it's caught in time & it's not your time to go. Overall mortality rates for common cancers are still very high, considering the large amount of resourses (time & money) spent on "beating" them.
Yet, I'm happy that you & your brother-in-law are survivors. As you have stated, not all patients who are written off by one doctor (6 months to live) are out of options. I knew one such person myself, she was basically opened up & reclosed in 1987, sent home to die. She sought a second opinion at Duke, is still alive today & has had no cancer treatments since the mid 90's. Except for yearly screenings.
It's also good to hear from someone who has been treated at CTCA, since they're the focus on this article & discussion. I'm not totally trashing the system, only that they need to make that hope that they advertise available to all, & not a select few. Many cancer patients desperate for a chance at survival sees these ads, & it has to be devastating to be turned away for what amounts to be a lack of cash. Certain therapies costs $50,000 per treatment.
It would be my guess that with my medicare advantage plan, if I were to need to seek out their services, my financial profile wouldn't qualify me for treatment. Fortunately, I have other options if needed, locally.
Cat
With all your spamming on this board I'd swear you work for CTCA. The more you post the exact same thing the less credibility you have.
to dawp....I assure you that I am a former patient not an employee for CTCA. I apologize for the multiple posts it was on Newsvines end during the login process.
I was diagnosed with advance stage Prostate Cancer at 57...I am now 60 and Cancer Free. I need to state that I did do over 2 years of research prior to selecting CTCA for my treatment and fired two Urologists in the process....You want to talk about "For Profit" medicine, Isn't it all, with rare exception, "For Profit"...My father recently passed and when we moved my mother out and cleaned out their medicine chest it looked like a Pharmacy! All prescribed by the good ole local Doc. Watch TV ..."Do your eyes blink to much?" Theres a new pill for that! Look into the first option given by any Urologist for Prostate Cancer....SURGERY....DaVinci Robotic surgery...it is a billion dollar a year industry....and your odds are very good that you will end up impotent or incontinent, or both for years, if not permanently. I flew through my targeted radiation therapy with 0 side effects... none....then or now. If you would like complete details about my experience I will happy to share emails with you and get you facts not blind judgmental opinions based on an article. If I could find a platform for Prostate Cancer here it would be MEN! If you ever find yourself in my postion ...NEVER ACCEPT SURGERY AS A FIRST OPTION...there are many many options available to you regardless of what facility you elect for treatment. I would go back to CTCA every time....read my other posts and you will know why...
More disturbing to me is the amount of people willing to pass judgment on this incredible facilty and its Drs based on a media article and a few disgruntled people....understand that I am truly sorry for their experiences and losses, but to blame the facility of skimming when they have clearly accepted myself and my brother in law without the "financial criteria" laid out in this article is wrong...this is the media after all....and of course everything they say is true.... otherwise it couldn't be on the internet ....right....and I bet you have a date with a French Model later... bonjour.
Like I said before - YOU WERE LUCKY. IF you want to be a shill tout for them, that's your problem. You probably won't get much support here... Live long and prosper.
Cancer patients have very little chance of survival. History is full of those who make outrageous claims that they will cure you if only you pay them a ton of money.
Thats what the story is about, wanting a ton of money and convincing people that they are more likely to be cured at their hospital, when they are just cooking the books to suit there story.
There is a sucker born every minute, but in this case, taking advantage of sick people is totally out of line.
Ed: "Cancer patients have very little chance of survival"....upon what reports, statistics, outcome studies do you arrive at this statement? You sir, are suffering from an acute case of excessive fecal material in your bowels.
It depends on the type of cancer! "Cancer" is not just one thing. It's a blanket term for a whole slew of different kinds of disease that arise in different tissues.
I'm afraid it's true that most cancer patients have a dramatically shortened life. If you don't count childhood leukemias, and prostate "cancer" that all old men get, a cancer diagnosis is a death sentence. Cancer cannot be "cured". The odds of surviving cancer beyond a couple years are very very slim not matter what "world class" treatments you receive. Most cancer treatments are primitive and simplistic. You can cut it out - not a cure. You can irradiate it, not a cure. You can take chemotherapies, most of which are just poisons for fast growing cells: not a cure. You can't "cure" cancer, you can only manage it. Every now and then however, the immune system wakes up and eliminates it.
So don't give up hope! There are always new therapies being trialed, and immunotherapies hold some real hope.
Hey I am a survivor metastatic cancer -- eight years now. I went there! You don't know what your talking about!
cherry picking patients -- surprise, surprise
if it sounds too good to be true ....
This is hardly surprising, when you consider the way this outfit advertises. They offer false hope to get their hooks into desperate people who would probably receive better treatment near home.
You can't get something for nothing, and sometimes the best treatment is pain relief with generic medication.
An ethical cancer treatment center would be designed more like St. Jude for children - no one turned away because they are unable to pay. Of course, it takes a huge fundraising machine to keep it going, and not everyone can be served.
Another charlatan who provides hope for a cure where there is none. Fraud in its worst form, exploiting desparate people. And for what, to further enrich themselves by stealing from desparate people. Once again demonstrating that Capitalist have absolutely no morals.
When things sound to good to be true...
This should not be a surprise. Cancer is all about PROFITS. If I ever get cancer, insurance coverage or not, I will NOT let some hospital use me as a cash cow, to bill for hundreds of tests and procedures that don't do anything but make money for them. Or spend what few months I may have left feeling sick and miserable, with their horrible drugs. I will take the easy way out, and save my family $100's of thousands of dollars. That would be an act of love. Self love and love for my family.
@cobweb25, I totally agree with your opinion here & would do the same thing.
Statictics (by several sources) have shown that among those who are truly terminally ill, the ones who participates in Hospice care actually lives slightly longer & has a higher quality of life, than the ones chasing down every treatment (free or paid) possible. However, not all doctors wants to discuss this option with their patients. That will soon change.
If I only had months or weeks to live, I'd certainly not want those last days to be ruined by chemo, radiation, other drugs that has horrible side effects. Not to mention frequent doctor visits, lab testing, of which are very time consuming.
I'd rather live those days out making amends, being able to go visit & say goodbye to my family & friends when the time is near, & tying up loose ends before riding into the sunset, on my terms, having the strength to do so by not being poisoned with every "promise drug" out there.
Note that this is my choice & not everyone (obviously) feels the same way. I've had 4 family members who took the hard road, the one of hunting for every treatment & clinical trial possible, no matter how bad the side effects were. None of which made it to the 6 month mark. That was their choice & I respect that.
It's just not the one I want.
Cat
Cobweb, let me know how the unbearable pain works out for you.
We used to think the same way as Cobweb. But then, my partner developed cancer. All I can say is, you don't really know what you'll do until you are actually faced with the choice.
We opted for treatment because the odds of a complete cure were good. The treatment was difficult, and pain meds have definitely been called for, but no regrets about our choice. Had the odds been different--well, then perhaps palliative care would have been our choice. Who knows.
Medicine is about making money. Many physicians have figured it out. Surgery centers, diagnostic centers, MRI machines located at ortho clinics, GI centers etc. Skim the paying patients and send the rest to the local municipal hospital for the taxpayers to pay the costs. For profit medicine works the system to the nth degree. Current system is rigged. Taxpayers are ripped off.
Both the taxpayers & patients are being ripped off. As well as the insurance companies, who in turn charges more the following year to their subscribers to make up for the losses, which as any business, has the right to do.
Too many doctors offices, especially chain "clinics", knows how to milk the patients insurance company, be it privately obtained, through their employer, Medicare Advantage, whatever, for every cent that they can get. Many gets breakdown statements from their insurance company, on lots of these, the list of itemized charges are staggering, oftentimes for services not received.
And it's not just cancer centers, though CTCA is the focus of this article. It's just plain fact that Richard J. Stephenson, despite the fact that he claimed to have founded CTCA because of his mother who couldn't get treatment for her ailment, is a crook, along with other mass chained nationwide clinics for many illnesses.
He found CTCA out of pure greed, not for his mother. If it were for her, he'd have done it while she were alive to treat the condition that she had. Just more PR bullcrap.
Cat
What I find most shocking about this article is the claim that CTCA kept stalling and telling Vicky Hilborn "we'll get back to you" about an appointment, when really they had no intent of ever treating her. If this is true, it is an outrage! Regardless of whether Vicky Hilborn had much chance of survival, she and her family had the right to be told whether CTCA was willing to treat her. If CTCA did not plan to treat her, CTCA should have said so and let Vicky Hilborn seek treatment elsewhere.
I first starting noticing the CTCA commercials on TV about a decade ago, and was extremely uncomfortable about them. I suspected CTCA was exploiting dying people for profit -- not only wasting people's money, but maybe misleading some patients into undergoing treatment that caused suffering and offered no real hope of survival. This article makes me think they do all that, plus worse.
For-profit medical care is a terrible idea. It's like having a for-profit church or a for-profit orphanage.
And for all those who think Obamacare will be anything like this -- let me point out that the owner of CTCA promotes the right-wing financial agenda of an unregulated free market and limited government. That's the opposite of Obamacare.
ObamaCare will have no affect on how these vultures operate. They will continue to prey on desperate people.
Yep. CTCA will have MORE patients DESPERATE to get in, as Obamacare denies more and more people ANY care.