I would like to start collecting names and contact information for people who woke up with surgeries to which they did NOT give consent. Please post a link to this thread to all the message boards you belong to, or some other way of getting the word out. I hope that when the ASMBS, state medical licensing boards, and insurance companies fully understand what is being done, they will put pressure on these unscrupulous surgeons who are operating on people without fully informed consent (or who are committing insurance fraud).
I am working with at least one surgeon who only does the standard, two-anastomosis DS, and am trying to get more on board, to take some sort of action that will put surgeons, insurance companies and PATIENTS on notice that THE NOMENCLATURE FOR A STANDARD DUODENAL SWITCH MUST BE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED FROM ALL OF THE "NEW" PROCEDURES THAT ARE BEING DELIBERATELY CONFABULATED WITH THE DUODENAL SWITCH.
We are hearing about more and more cases of people who asked for a DS, were told they were getting a DS, but woke up with a SADI/SIPS/LoopDS. Some people had the procedure "disclosed" but misrepresented, as being "the new DS," "the improved DS," "the modern DS," and/or "just like the old DS, only better and/or safer." None of these things are true.
In fact, the SADI/SIPS/LoopDS are experimental procedures, at least in the US. In fact, there is a current clinical trial being conducted - presumably to rebut this allegation - which is being run by Covidien and/or Medtronic (they make surgical supplies) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02275208. I believe that clinical trial is being conducted by Roslin (NY), Cottam (UT), Enochs (NC), possibly Sudan (NC), and Metz (NC). I submit that this proves that these surgeons know that the SIPS at least is an experimental procedure (and it is only VERY slightly different from the SADI).
I think these experimental procedures have promise - in fact, I hope they replace the RNY entirely. But at the moment, they are experimental, and they are being falsely characterized as "just like a DS" when in fact THEY ARE NOT - in particular, there is no selective fat malabsorption with these procedures, and FAR MORE fat, protein and carbohydrate absorption overall. I think that the authorities are going to find that claiming it is "just like a DS" is false and fraudulent advertising, and certainly is "bait-and-don't-switch." And the patients - who don't realize that they can't eat like a DSer - are going to pay dearly.
Moreover, most of the surgeons are submitting for these experimental surgeries under the CPT code 43845 - which is the code for the standard duodenal switch! I suspect that this might be insurance fraud - in fact, BCBSNC has now refused to cover the SADI/SIPS, and is calling it an experimental/investigational procedure. I agree with them!
Still further, I have been reviewing (and copying) websites and "informed" consent forms and surgery reports, and it is clear that this prevarication is deliberate - hoping to conflate the standard of care status, backed by years of research and results, of the standard two anastomosis duodenal switch, with sneaking these new procedures through under the radar of the patients' informed consent and the insurance companies' refusal to pay for experimental procedures.
And these surgeons who are trying to force these procedures on their patients? Shouldn't they be doing these EASIER procedures at a discount, especially for self-pays, since they are experimental? But no - they want their full payment, of course!
I can only imagine how angry, upset, devastated and betrayed I would be to find out that i had been deceived by my surgeon. THIS MUST STOP! There needs to IMMEDIATELY be a consensus on the nomenclature for these experimental, single anastomosis procedures that CLEARLY AND DEFINITIVELY DISTINGUISHES, with no ambiguity, between the standard DS which has almost 30 years of results and experience to rely on, and these new experimental procedures which have NO long term results yet. There needs to be a COMPLETELY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CPT code for this procedure, so that patients and insurance companies KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GETTING AND PAYING FOR. At the very least, the surgeons should understand that there are lawsuits being prepared, and a flock of attorneys in each state looking to hit the up with charges of malpractice, battery, fraud, misrepresentation and anything else a clever med/mal attorney can come up with.
If you are one of these patients who woke up with a surgery to which you did not consent, please post - or send to me by PM or email or however you can get it to me - the following:
I am working with at least one surgeon who only does the standard, two-anastomosis DS, and am trying to get more on board, to take some sort of action that will put surgeons, insurance companies and PATIENTS on notice that THE NOMENCLATURE FOR A STANDARD DUODENAL SWITCH MUST BE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED FROM ALL OF THE "NEW" PROCEDURES THAT ARE BEING DELIBERATELY CONFABULATED WITH THE DUODENAL SWITCH.
We are hearing about more and more cases of people who asked for a DS, were told they were getting a DS, but woke up with a SADI/SIPS/LoopDS. Some people had the procedure "disclosed" but misrepresented, as being "the new DS," "the improved DS," "the modern DS," and/or "just like the old DS, only better and/or safer." None of these things are true.
In fact, the SADI/SIPS/LoopDS are experimental procedures, at least in the US. In fact, there is a current clinical trial being conducted - presumably to rebut this allegation - which is being run by Covidien and/or Medtronic (they make surgical supplies) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02275208. I believe that clinical trial is being conducted by Roslin (NY), Cottam (UT), Enochs (NC), possibly Sudan (NC), and Metz (NC). I submit that this proves that these surgeons know that the SIPS at least is an experimental procedure (and it is only VERY slightly different from the SADI).
I think these experimental procedures have promise - in fact, I hope they replace the RNY entirely. But at the moment, they are experimental, and they are being falsely characterized as "just like a DS" when in fact THEY ARE NOT - in particular, there is no selective fat malabsorption with these procedures, and FAR MORE fat, protein and carbohydrate absorption overall. I think that the authorities are going to find that claiming it is "just like a DS" is false and fraudulent advertising, and certainly is "bait-and-don't-switch." And the patients - who don't realize that they can't eat like a DSer - are going to pay dearly.
Moreover, most of the surgeons are submitting for these experimental surgeries under the CPT code 43845 - which is the code for the standard duodenal switch! I suspect that this might be insurance fraud - in fact, BCBSNC has now refused to cover the SADI/SIPS, and is calling it an experimental/investigational procedure. I agree with them!
Still further, I have been reviewing (and copying) websites and "informed" consent forms and surgery reports, and it is clear that this prevarication is deliberate - hoping to conflate the standard of care status, backed by years of research and results, of the standard two anastomosis duodenal switch, with sneaking these new procedures through under the radar of the patients' informed consent and the insurance companies' refusal to pay for experimental procedures.
And these surgeons who are trying to force these procedures on their patients? Shouldn't they be doing these EASIER procedures at a discount, especially for self-pays, since they are experimental? But no - they want their full payment, of course!
I can only imagine how angry, upset, devastated and betrayed I would be to find out that i had been deceived by my surgeon. THIS MUST STOP! There needs to IMMEDIATELY be a consensus on the nomenclature for these experimental, single anastomosis procedures that CLEARLY AND DEFINITIVELY DISTINGUISHES, with no ambiguity, between the standard DS which has almost 30 years of results and experience to rely on, and these new experimental procedures which have NO long term results yet. There needs to be a COMPLETELY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CPT code for this procedure, so that patients and insurance companies KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GETTING AND PAYING FOR. At the very least, the surgeons should understand that there are lawsuits being prepared, and a flock of attorneys in each state looking to hit the up with charges of malpractice, battery, fraud, misrepresentation and anything else a clever med/mal attorney can come up with.
If you are one of these patients who woke up with a surgery to which you did not consent, please post - or send to me by PM or email or however you can get it to me - the following:
- Your name
- Your surgeon's name
- What procedure you thought you were getting and why you thought that
- A copy of your surgery consent form
- A copy of your surgery report
Last edited:
....but you really are my Hero! and Larra too 
