Great points, Jo*Mar.
I've had my PCP for 24 years. He always says he will do anything he can to help me. At the same time, his practice is closed to new patients, which can limit demands upon his time.

I've seen some paperwork in other offices, for new patients, asking if they were planning on filing a disability or WC claim? I have no idea as to why that question was asked, as I have long-term relationships at those offices; thus, I have not been a new patient with them since they'd started to ask this question.

As this doctor said, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Filling out forms is NOT my job.

Unfortunately, that type of a response leaves his patients subject to an examination and an opinion rendered by someone hired by an insurance company. Many people feel the doctors hired by insurance companies will not be fair. These doctors are often viewed as "hired guns" by the individuals insured and filing a claim.

The doctor you quote, Spike, is clearly stating he will not accommodate any patient with paperwork needs. I only hope he announces his policy upfront, before anyone needs paperwork completed.

I have never heard a doctor say such a thing. I am sure there are some doctors saying this. All of my specialists say they will do anything they can to help, fortunately.

A doctor that would say that to me would not be my doctor for very long.

I know in Canada, Doctors are allowed to charge the company that wants the paperwork up to a set dollar amount, after that the remains get pushed onto the client. WCB would ask you to get your doctor to sign forms, he/she'd fill them out and charge WCB. Same for the Disability, it would be charged to either Provincial or Federal (depending on which paperwork you are doing). Which seems to work. Walk in clinics do NOT offer this paperwork scheme. They can do sick notes, and WCB claims. That's it, they won't do Disability because they just don't have that repitorie with you. It works well out here, but there is still that HUGE crunch, as we are always critically short on doctors, putting more pressure for them to make appointments as quick as possible.

WC is a nightmare for docs in CA (as well as many others). Paperwork is generated in mass volumes to discourage docs and patients from requesting meds and/or procedures. My last doc decided to stop treating WC patients because it was costing him too much overhead. My current doc has a few WC patients and won't accept anymore.

Regarding SSI/SSDI, there is a major misconception from claimants and many doctors about their input into a patient's claim. Saying the patient is disabled or can't work means nothing to SS. What SS does care about is the medical documentation of the patient's functional limitations, side effects from meds, long term prognosis, etc. Claimants are approved all the time without anything more than copies of their regular medical documents. Once in a while I'll hear that a doctor's office refuses to even forward medical records and that is a real problem. Anyone applying for SSI/SSDI should really do their homework about what's needed before applying. Since RSD/CRPS is not a Listed Impairment in the SS Blue Book, and because our symptoms and severity, and how frequently we can experience changes in those things, can make it easier for some and much more difficult for others to be approved.

BTW, it's not at all uncommon for a claimant to file for SSI/SSDI thinking they'll be approved with little to no documentation and then attempt to find a doctor once they realize they need it to prove they qualify. This is of particular issue in some parts of the country where application rates are much higher than the norm.

Hi Spike, I think you addressed this in a later post. Yes, definitely get a new doctor if they are not willing to fill out the necessary paperwork and fight for you. I am a bit removed from this as I went through all this so many years ago, I know it's so super stressful though each and every time you need to submit more paperwork. I just had to submit "I'm guessing" the short SSDI form, that was stressful enough and didn't even require anything from my doctor. Thoughts are with you all having to go through this

I am new here and have had many set backs recently and some possibly (I hope not!!!) bad news after MRI results Friday, so I am just extremely stressed (trying to be positive) and just want to help others to distract myself from focusing on what "could be". If anyone here needs support or wants to PM me for any help, please do so, I really need the distraction.

Paperwork has become almost a 4-letter word in the medical field. We (in the US) live in such a lawsuit happy country that we are taught to document everything to avoid being sued and in case you ever do end up in a legal situation your notes will help rather than hurt. There were days that I felt I spent more time on charting than time spent with my actual patients.

I agree with Lit Love about the amount of paperwork associated with WC is ridiculous. I keep copies of everything pertaining to my case including appointment summaries, radiology reports and any legal paperwork. I now have a large plastic tote to hold everything.

With regards to SSI/SSDI I was initially declined (as are the majority of people) but my WC lawyer is now handling my appeal. It made sense since he already had copies of my medical records. I had asked about letters from my treating physicians and he said not to waste my time because they usually don't even read them.

To go back to my original point about medical paperwork I would talk to your doctor and see if they would give a reason. I would not be surprised for them to say time is the biggest issue. I have not run into this issue as a patient but have dealt with it many times as a nurse.

Many years ago, ..... long before the days of HMO's, back during a time when health insurance meant "hospital coverage" in the USA, patients paid out of their pocket for ALL office visit fees. There was NO coverage for seeing a doctor in his office. Most lab work and imaging services done as an outpatient also fell into the category of no insurance coverage.

I was hospitalized during this period and had health insurance that would cover most of my hospital stay. The charges for the physician attending to my care IN the hospital was also covered but he charged a fee to file any insurance paperwork. I believe it was a $35 fee per admission.

In today's medical arena, most physicians will file any "health" insurance paperwork for free but any additional paperwork is difficult to obtain, such as disability, workman's comp, etc. Those that are willing, are hard to pin down and get it done. Others are only willing to do so for a nominal fee. And others flat out refuse.

When the paperwork is outside the normal course of routine health insurance filing, personally, I have no objection to paying a nominal fee for the service. It does take time and even if delegated to an office worker, the physician has to pay his/her employee.

This has been an interesting thread and has led me to think about medical charting in today's medical arena.

Now that electronic medical records are being required in the USA, how much of one's medical record is really accurate, depicts the truth of a patient's conditions, and how much is being charted in order to get claims paid.

My question relates to "possible" conditions that get charted that may turn out NOT to be accurate. When we go to the physician, we describe our symptoms. From them, the physician may order some tests before making a diagnosis, BUT, .... and here is what I question, in order to get the insurance company to pay for the testing, the physician must provide a diagnosis code. Let me give an example. Maybe the patient has symptoms that could be "gout". The physician orders a blood test, using the gout code, in order to justify the test. Is gout now and forever in your chart as a diagnosis even if it turns out to be something else?

In obtaining my medical records, I noticed that certain check boxes were marked off as being performed by the physician at an office visit and since I was the patient and part of the exam, I know for a fact that they were NOT performed. These check boxes were a requirement to be reimbursed by insurance and just automatically checked as done.

What good are medical records if they are NOT truly reflective of what actually transpired, what your diagnosis is AFTER test results have come back, etc. And now these records are being shared between medical personnel as an "aid" to our care??? How does an erroneous record aid patients? Seems to be that this could turn into a very detrimental situation.

I realize this is a little off topic but it is related so I thought I would put it here in this thread.

I understand the potential benefit of an electronic medical record, but I also see many problems with it. Just my opinion. Would love to hear others views on the topic.

I personally like computer charting for many reasons. The biggest one being continuity of care. I like being able to pull up a patient's chart and get a little background and be able to pull test results. When I worked in radiology a certain blood test is needed before we can administer contrast (it's a test that lets us know if your kidneys are working properly). I could look up the result if the patient had the test run either as an outpatient or inpatient. This eliminated time spent calling a doctor's office or trying to reach the patient's floor nurse. Another radiology example is in MRI when the patient had things like a stent placed but they don't have the card that goes with it so you don't know if it is MRI safe or not. I was able to look into the patients chart for not just my hospital but for any hospital in my network and know exactly which kind of stent was placed. This allows us to determine if they can get the MRI or not and which machine they can use.

As far as the diagnosis codes (ICD 10 formerly ICD 9) go they are primarily used for insurance purposes. If the doctor were to order a test or a medication without a code the insurance company would not pay for it. My personal opinion towards insurance companies is not a very high and I feel that have no right to dictate care. To use your example of gout if the test shows you do not have gout the doctor can remove it from your current list of health issues. Sometimes there is no code available for what the doctor did so they have to enter it under a different code. Also since most tests are done to rule out a condition that condition is not listed as a diagnosis just simply a reason for a test. I am not a coder so my knowledge is limited this is just what I know from my experience and both a nurse and patient.

I’m not saying that mistakes are not made, however computerized charting does cut down on errors and makes things easier on healthcare providers. There are always going to be doctors that cheat the system in hopes of making more money. When you find things in your chart that you believe are wrong I would ask about them and see what they say.

My favorite thing about computerized charting is not having to try and read a doctor’s handwriting!