UCLA Medical Center is Given an "F" for Patient Safety

On November 28, 2012, both CBS and Fox News reported that UCLA Medical Center received an "F" grade from the The Leapfrog Group's Blue Ribbon Panel, as well as a '7 out of 10' rating for poor performance.  The Group surveyed  2600 hospitals nationwide, using 26 measures for patient safety.  Cedars-Sinai Medical Center received a "C".

The LeapFrog Group is an independent healthcare quality rating group, comprised of doctors across the country (including doctors from Johns Hopkins) whose main focus is to inform Americans about their hospital safety and quality, as well as promote full public disclosure of hospital performance information.  In fact, health insurance companies use LeapFrog to determine whether or not they will pay for medical bills.

Finally, the truth is coming out by sources other than what you have already read in my blog!

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF THIS FRAUD AS STATED IN MY BLOG

I went through my files on September 29, 2012 and found documents that back up my believe that my surgery was for money and not because I had cancer, and that there was another woman involved that shadowed me from doctor to medical treatments and how involved Dr. Elisabeth Wagar was.

I found the medical statement from UCLA Health System for a second time that really was for the woman who paid in cash.  On May 13, 2009, I faxed UCLA stated I would not pay the demand they made that I pay $200.00 on a bill fro $1,290.00.  They gave 4 different dates as "outpatient" with no doctor's name or the name of any medical treatment.  All my billings went to Medicare and Medi-Cal directly - never to me, except in 2008 for the "secret" office visit with Dr. Elisabeth Wagar for $700.00.  They wanted this $200.00 for a billing of $360.00, but for what on April 20, 2009?  I did not find out until September, 2009 that I never had cancer and much later that another woman was involved using me as a "front" for her medical treatments for cash.  I have the fax I sent that stated "stop your harassment under the guise 'your responsibility due 5.27.09'".

I have the Medicare Summary for Dr. Elizabeth A. Wagar for May 21, 2008 under the file of UCLA Path and Lab Med. Grp. #55632 and no money was paid to her because it states, "The information provided does not support the need for this service or item."

On June 11, 2008, Dr. Dorigo dictated the results of my June 10, 2008 office visit with him.  I underwent a  laparoscopic hysterectomy for a "presumed grade 3 Endometrial Adenocarcinoma"... the final pathology, however, showed "Papillary Serous Carcinoma in a polyp".  I never had cancer when I walked into UCLA.  I had a "lesion measuring 2.3cm" that Dr. Wagar and Dr. Dorigo used for a "very rare cancer" in a polyp.

The final diagnosis dated May 28, 2009 gave CLINICAL INFORMATION as a 55 YEAR OLD WOMAN WITH ENDOMETRIAL CANCER both of which did not apply to me!

 On April 20, 2009, my CA125 Test was at 16; on October 7, 2008, my CA125 was 16; and September 9, 2009, it was 15.5... at no time did I have a CA125 Test that was over 35 - which would mean cancer in the body, and one week before surgery it was at 29.

"Cedars, UCLA cut from L.A. Health Plan"

On September 21, 2012, the Los Angeles Times had a front page article that stated "Cedars, UCLA cut from L.A. health plan".  Anthem Blue Cross (a private insurance company unlike Medicare) has eliminated doctors affiliated with the hospitals from a health plan by the city of Los Angeles.  "Two of the most prestigious names in Southern California health care - Cedars-Sinai and UCLA - are being shut out of a major insurance plan for being TOO EXPENSIVE".  "THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE KNOWN FOR TENDING TO THE SOUTH LAND'S RICH AND FAMOUS".  UCLA is owned and operated by the State of California and thus its people, so where do they get off charging the same money as Cedars-Sinai - a private hospital?  "This dramatic step shows that even some of the most respected names in medicine can't get by on REPUTATION alone.  Major hospitals and medical groups face growing pressure to justify their charges". 

This backs up my belief that UCLA subjected me to major cancer surgery for money, as I have said all along in this blog.  Medicare will only pay a set amount for any medical treatment and all medical centers/hospitals and medical professionals know this when they accept a patient 65 years and older.  If a doctor submits a bill for $1,000.00 for medical services, Medicare will only pay 80% of the APPROVED AMOUNT THEY PAY.  So if Medicare will only approve $600.00 for this service, they will only pay 80% for that and the remaining 20% is left for the patient to pay through private insurance or Medicaid, or if they can pay the amount themselves.  With private hospitals like Cedars-Sinai, if they bill Blue Cross for $1,000.00, they expect to be paid that amount.  That is why it is in UCLA's best interest to bill as much money as they can for any patient and run tests and perform surgeries that are not necessary, but provide the billable dollars for financial gain.

This is a giant step.

Finally – A DNA “No Error Mistake Kit” Regarding Cancer

On July 18, 2012, KNBC (Channel 4) reported that one in one hundred women are misdiagnosed for breast cancer because of lab work on biopsies.  An elderly woman named Rida Worden stated she almost underwent surgery for a mastectomy at an un-named hospital (I’ll bet it was UCLA or Cedars-Sinai) after she was told she had breast cancer.  She knew her body and felt she needed a second opinion as I did. 

She went to another doctor who used the new “No Error Mistake Kit” that would swab her cheek and match that DNA with her biopsy, which proved she did not have cancer – it was someone else.  She was lucky and saved herself from the trauma of surgery and the fear that she could die.

Women are urged to ask for this “No Error Mistake Kit” before surgery, as an absolute with their diagnosis, or if needed, after surgery to prove they never had cancer.  I believe that women who are on Medicare are the most vulnerable because we are expendable.  Finally the truth is coming out but 4 years too late for me.  Think of how many millions of women have had surgery when they didn’t need it, and how many billions of dollars were paid for these surgeries by Medicare and Medicaid.

After I left my doctor at UCLA in September of 2009, I went to a doctor connected with Saint John’s Medical Center where the John Wayne Cancer Center is, and was told for the 1^st time what the CA125 test meant.  And for me, it meant one week before surgery, I had no cancer in my blood stream.  I had asked the Medicare Office about a DNA test and was told “they don’t do that”… well not they must!

When I got my medical records from UCLA, I saw the age of the woman with my name on it as 55 – I was 65, and Dr. Wager chanced the report from the “vulture” to me but not the age.  She used 12/14/52 as her age, making her ineligible for Medicare, so she paid in cash.  I was later told by Medicare investigators “this was a TYPO”

It was not and everyone at UCLA connected to my case knew it.

I was stonewalled at every turn trying to find the truth of my medical status – all Medicare personnel  covered up for UCLA and all doctors involved had an excuse for every complaint I made and evidence to back it up.  Dr. Kim Kieu, Medical Doctor of 13 western states in Seattle, should be held accountable for instructing “investigators” to cover up from Medicare and me.   Medicare investigators should be thrown out and start over with new people who are not bought off. 

Fourth Anniversary of Fraud

May 28th marks the 4th year since my unlawful surgery at UCLA and I am thankful to the Los Angeles Times and their front page article on May 27th, "Patients Save by Paying Cash."   I now believe the motivation for my surgery was MONEY.  I believe a woman who I knew (I call her the "Vulture") was the reason behind my surgery... she is the one who has cancer (starting with breast cancer in 1986) and needed medical treatments, including surgery and chemotherapy, but could not use her real name because she is a criminal and wanted in other states. So she used my name as Janet Winston with December 14th birthday and not my legal name of Janet H. Winston with December 17th birthday.  She had the cash to pay thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars for her medical treatments and did not have to prove who she was because no insurance was involved.  And I believe she paid Dorigo and Elizabeth Wager big time, and the reason Dr. Wager fled UCLA when I exposed her for meeting with me in secret (in an office she had no reason to be in) was to get an idea of who I was and to give Dr. Dorigo her opinion of me. Elizabeth Wager was the head of pathology.

All the people that were present int he operating room on May 28, 2008 should be investigated, especially since one of the doctors in there said in their medical report "we took her back to the operating room" ... they didn't take me, they exchanged me for the vulture.  There were two different anesthesia's administered and billed to Medicare because there were two different women.  I was the "rehearsal" and she was the "main event".   I then had two trips to the E.R. within 12 days after my surgery.

It started on April 1, 2008 with a CT scan (at a cost of $6,400 for Medicare but not included in the 8 hospitals the Times named) and it showed I had no cancer.  But after I got home, Dorigo's office called to make sure I was there and not still at UCLA, so they could do another CT scan (20 minutes AFTER I was home). During that call, I was told I had a "very rare cancer".   The California Hospital Association says that "discounted cash prices are intended for the uninsured and not for those who have coverage".  I was a front for this horrible woman, even though I could have died. No one cared about that... only the money.  This is like the story both the Times and CBS did on Japanese mob bosses who paid $2,200,000.00 for 4 men to have liver transplants at UCLA instead of men who were on the list before them, and as a result, died.  It appears UCLA is very agreeable to criminals who pay in cash.. and therefore, their license should be pulled.