UCLA in 2008 was ranked third in the nation for a medical center - behind John Hopkins in Maryland and The Mayo Clinic in Minnasota, so when I filed my complaint with both the Medical Board of California - who is responsible for a doctor's license, and Medicare - who can take away the priviledge to receive funds for any and all medical treatment for citizens over 65, the doctors involved with my treatment and UCLA alledgedly went into action to protect that ranking by making sure my complaint would never be heard in California, but rather Florida. No one expected me to question my medical treatment and that I had a "very rare cancer" ... the absolute arrogance of the doctor involved to think he was above the truth and I would buy whatever lie he told me!
What is very disturbing about this situation now, is that there are so many poeple involved with this alledged conspiracy. Last year in 2009, according to the Los Angeles Times and 60 Minutes on CBS, UCLA sold liver transplants to "Japanese Mob Bosses" for $1,000,000.00 for one man, and $400,000.00 for 3 others, making a total of $2,200,000.00. It didn't involve Medicare and the federal government so they got away with the excuse they gave as several men died waiting for a liver transplant who were high on the list and the Japanese Mob Bosses were low down on the list, but had millions to pay for one. How much has been paid to cover up the fraud involved in my case?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
INTENTIONAL CONCEALMENT
Well here I am again, and with new information. It appears that this whole situation is a massive conspiracy and cover-up from day one, when I filed my complaint with Medicare for abuse, and later realizing fraud.
I have just learned that medical records are supposed to be reviewed by physician peer reviewers - licensed and in practice in California. That is what it is "supposed to be", but what it was, in fact, was that no one in California connected with Medicare knew of my complaint and the circumstances which I brought to light, because all of the records that were sent by doctors and by UCLA were sent to Florida for review - after the contract was taken from California just after I filed my complaint. The records were then given to a new HSAG office in Florida.
I allege that all of the records that were supposed to be sent to a physicians peer review were in fact sent to either the owner or an employee of the owner of the HSAG corporate office in Arizona to "review" and make a recommendation, and not from California as I allege they were contracted to do... It was intentional concealment of the facts of my case, and the goal was to let all physicians and UCLA off the hook by saying "it met the standard of care" and therefore my file was closed. Only when I wrote the Secretary of Health and Human Services in Washington D.C., was my case re-opened.
And that is the status now.
I have just learned that medical records are supposed to be reviewed by physician peer reviewers - licensed and in practice in California. That is what it is "supposed to be", but what it was, in fact, was that no one in California connected with Medicare knew of my complaint and the circumstances which I brought to light, because all of the records that were sent by doctors and by UCLA were sent to Florida for review - after the contract was taken from California just after I filed my complaint. The records were then given to a new HSAG office in Florida.
I allege that all of the records that were supposed to be sent to a physicians peer review were in fact sent to either the owner or an employee of the owner of the HSAG corporate office in Arizona to "review" and make a recommendation, and not from California as I allege they were contracted to do... It was intentional concealment of the facts of my case, and the goal was to let all physicians and UCLA off the hook by saying "it met the standard of care" and therefore my file was closed. Only when I wrote the Secretary of Health and Human Services in Washington D.C., was my case re-opened.
And that is the status now.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Fraud for Financial Gain
Hello,
Here I am for what is turning out to be a monthly "update" regarding this mess and the absolute fraud of the Medicare System for financial gain.
What I have discovered now is that my civil rights have been violated under th 14th Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees "equal protection under the law"... but that does not apply for Medicare recipients against health care providors.
Apparently when a Medicare beneficiery files a complaint against a doctor or hospital, THEY, not YOU, are totally protected because any cause of complaint one makes, and offers evidence to prove that complaint, is shared with the healthcare provider BEFORE they inform the patient what the investigation has discovered. AND, any information the healthcare provider does not want you to have is withheld. Where is the equal protection under the law??
After I filed complaints with both Medicare and the Medical Board of California regarding all doctors involved in my treatment, the office for Medicare (HSAG in Florida) was unprofessional and did not request information prior to my surgery that would prove I never had cancer, and it took me 9 months to get a result. That result was that "it met the standard of care" and therefore all files were closed. Only when I wrote the Secretary of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C. did I get a chance for a new start. Yet, in the meantime, the Director of Clinical Laboratories, who is crucial to this matter (because she controlled the pathology labs at UCLA), immediately retired 3 months ago. She was given all information I had against her and then retired so I could not go after her either legally or criminally via the Federal Government.
So much for "Equal Rights"...
Here I am for what is turning out to be a monthly "update" regarding this mess and the absolute fraud of the Medicare System for financial gain.
What I have discovered now is that my civil rights have been violated under th 14th Amendment to the Constitution which guarantees "equal protection under the law"... but that does not apply for Medicare recipients against health care providors.
Apparently when a Medicare beneficiery files a complaint against a doctor or hospital, THEY, not YOU, are totally protected because any cause of complaint one makes, and offers evidence to prove that complaint, is shared with the healthcare provider BEFORE they inform the patient what the investigation has discovered. AND, any information the healthcare provider does not want you to have is withheld. Where is the equal protection under the law??
After I filed complaints with both Medicare and the Medical Board of California regarding all doctors involved in my treatment, the office for Medicare (HSAG in Florida) was unprofessional and did not request information prior to my surgery that would prove I never had cancer, and it took me 9 months to get a result. That result was that "it met the standard of care" and therefore all files were closed. Only when I wrote the Secretary of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C. did I get a chance for a new start. Yet, in the meantime, the Director of Clinical Laboratories, who is crucial to this matter (because she controlled the pathology labs at UCLA), immediately retired 3 months ago. She was given all information I had against her and then retired so I could not go after her either legally or criminally via the Federal Government.
So much for "Equal Rights"...
Monday, December 14, 2009
Hello...
On December 17, 2009 I will be 67 years old, and I decided to enter cyber space and share some very important information with all of my friends, whom I have been out of touch with for over 20 years.
Last year in 2008, I did not know if I would be alive today to tell the ordeal I have gone through, and as a result of that, I vowed that what happened to me will not happen to another woman in the United States - by fraudulent medical pathology reports for surgery that were for financial gain only.
On March 7, 2008, I went to a doctor connected with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, and at that meeting, after I had an ultrasound, I was told I had a FIBROID in my uterus the size of an orange and that it probably was not malignant. However, on March17th, the doctor called and told me that the pathology report said I was "positive" for cancer. I decided to get a second opinion at UCLA, and made sure through Medicare that it would be paid for.
On March 25th, 2008, I saw a gynecological oncologist at the UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, and I gave him my medical records that I had picked up from the doctor who was affiliated with Cedars-Sinai. It turns out that this was a blessing in disquise because it was the evidence I needed to prove that I did not have cancer, let alone, "a very rare cancer" which I would be told I had on June 10, 2008, after having undergone a radical hysterectomy - where I ended up in the UCLA ER Room twice as a result of the surgery, which was only performed 12 days prior on May 28, 2008.
Because I questioned whether I had a "very rare cancer" which my doctor wanted me to have chemotherapy for - for 4 to 5 months at 6 hours each session, I had my new primary care physician order a second opinion of the pathology at UCLA. Fortunately, I did that because it showed the Director of Clinical Laboratories was in fact, the same woman who interviewed me one week prior to my surgery on may 21, 2008, but she never introduced herself as a doctor, let alone the Director of Clinical Laboratories at UCLA. This took place in an office many blocks from her office, so I would never guess who she was. There was an alleged conspiracy in the making. I did not know until late 2009 that my Cancer Tumor Antigen 125 test (CT) was in the "normal range" one week before I had surgery. This should have set off alarms that I did not have cancer in my body...but it didn't. My "slides" from Cedars said I had Stage 3 Endometrial Cancer, and that was good enough for UCLA to proceed with major surgery.
As it turns out, my pathology from Cedars-Sinai was not my pathology at all. I do not have cancer and never did. But what Cedars did for me was the ULTRASOUND of the uterus, because it not only said I had a FIBROID condition that lead me to believe I had cancer - as was told to me by two different doctors from two different hospitals - Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and UCLA Medical Center, but the sizes of the uterus and left ovary that shows they are not the same size from the two hospitals. I knew then, the pathology from UCLA was not from my body but from somebody else's.
I watched in the doctor's office as the ultrasound circled the fibroid, but could not watch the pathologist at UCLA do her testing. The alleged cancer I had was in a polyp and had not spread, but still the doctor at UCLA did a radical hysterectomy on me and wanted me (on three separate visits) to have chemotherapy, which I declined from day one.
This whole situation is now under investigation by the federal government and the reason I am writing this blog, so that women and men will question their pathology reports - especially if they are feeling healthy and their gut feeling tells them to check things out before undergoing surgery for any condition they are confronted with.
I will keep you informed as to how this whole thing turns out.
I have posted this picture on line of me and my two sons, Tony and Eric, taken in 1982, so that there is no misunderstanding as to who I am and to who this blog belongs to. I have been the victim of identity theft and I am not blonde and do not live in either Baltimore, Maryland or New Orleans, Louisiana.
Bye for now..
Last year in 2008, I did not know if I would be alive today to tell the ordeal I have gone through, and as a result of that, I vowed that what happened to me will not happen to another woman in the United States - by fraudulent medical pathology reports for surgery that were for financial gain only.
On March 7, 2008, I went to a doctor connected with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, and at that meeting, after I had an ultrasound, I was told I had a FIBROID in my uterus the size of an orange and that it probably was not malignant. However, on March17th, the doctor called and told me that the pathology report said I was "positive" for cancer. I decided to get a second opinion at UCLA, and made sure through Medicare that it would be paid for.
On March 25th, 2008, I saw a gynecological oncologist at the UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, and I gave him my medical records that I had picked up from the doctor who was affiliated with Cedars-Sinai. It turns out that this was a blessing in disquise because it was the evidence I needed to prove that I did not have cancer, let alone, "a very rare cancer" which I would be told I had on June 10, 2008, after having undergone a radical hysterectomy - where I ended up in the UCLA ER Room twice as a result of the surgery, which was only performed 12 days prior on May 28, 2008.
Because I questioned whether I had a "very rare cancer" which my doctor wanted me to have chemotherapy for - for 4 to 5 months at 6 hours each session, I had my new primary care physician order a second opinion of the pathology at UCLA. Fortunately, I did that because it showed the Director of Clinical Laboratories was in fact, the same woman who interviewed me one week prior to my surgery on may 21, 2008, but she never introduced herself as a doctor, let alone the Director of Clinical Laboratories at UCLA. This took place in an office many blocks from her office, so I would never guess who she was. There was an alleged conspiracy in the making. I did not know until late 2009 that my Cancer Tumor Antigen 125 test (CT) was in the "normal range" one week before I had surgery. This should have set off alarms that I did not have cancer in my body...but it didn't. My "slides" from Cedars said I had Stage 3 Endometrial Cancer, and that was good enough for UCLA to proceed with major surgery.
As it turns out, my pathology from Cedars-Sinai was not my pathology at all. I do not have cancer and never did. But what Cedars did for me was the ULTRASOUND of the uterus, because it not only said I had a FIBROID condition that lead me to believe I had cancer - as was told to me by two different doctors from two different hospitals - Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and UCLA Medical Center, but the sizes of the uterus and left ovary that shows they are not the same size from the two hospitals. I knew then, the pathology from UCLA was not from my body but from somebody else's.
I watched in the doctor's office as the ultrasound circled the fibroid, but could not watch the pathologist at UCLA do her testing. The alleged cancer I had was in a polyp and had not spread, but still the doctor at UCLA did a radical hysterectomy on me and wanted me (on three separate visits) to have chemotherapy, which I declined from day one.
This whole situation is now under investigation by the federal government and the reason I am writing this blog, so that women and men will question their pathology reports - especially if they are feeling healthy and their gut feeling tells them to check things out before undergoing surgery for any condition they are confronted with.
I will keep you informed as to how this whole thing turns out.
I have posted this picture on line of me and my two sons, Tony and Eric, taken in 1982, so that there is no misunderstanding as to who I am and to who this blog belongs to. I have been the victim of identity theft and I am not blonde and do not live in either Baltimore, Maryland or New Orleans, Louisiana.
Bye for now..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
