Things to know when you get cancer
jjmaxwell4.com
jjmaxwell4.com
My mom was diagnosed with stage 1 cancer in 2006 in Idaho. I was a PhD student at MIT at the time and a friend in lab helped me get an appointment at Dana-Farber. I thought it was probably overkill (it was a common cancer) but we did it anyway. They said everything in Idaho was standard of care but suggested one extra test, which Idaho team then reluctantly did, which revealed distant metastasis (stage 4! ), dramatically changing her treatment trajectory. She lived another 15 years (I miss you Mom).
Asking for a second opinion sucks. A lot of us are preconditioned from birth to trust our clinicians. But you're going on a journey and your life (or the life of your loved one) is on the line. Insurance often covers it. Your doctor will NOT be offended.
Think of it this way : if you were deploying code to the mars rover, and your colleague asked to do a code review before you pushed go, would you be offended? This is even more important than that.
Anyway, I would say I actually had relatively positive experience with Thyroid cancer. I had been seeing my Endo for 10 years at that point since I had hypothyroidism. His nurse was on top of everything. Very calm and reassuring during the whole process.
But all my experiences with the healthcare system outside of that were just disappointing. I had RCVS 2 years ago and I was in the ER and the radiologist summarized the report wrong even though he has read it correctly. They were starting me on stroke protocol and giving me these drugs but I had ChatGPT read it and it was like this is wrong. It's supposed to say no significant stenosis in the neck. It actually said significant stenosis in the neck. The dr reported it immediately and the radiologist corrected it. What a shit show. No one could even give me a straight answer on if I could go back to exercising or when I can get off a medication. Every doctor I saw was completely different. Have a few other stories like that pre LLM's. But you have to advocate for yourself. And always double check the doctors with LLM's now a days.
I don't recall the specifics, but there were symptoms of an ENT infection, nothing serious. I remember being concerned about a white lump on one of my tonsils. The doctor's diagnosis? A stuck piece of rice.
No, it was not a piece of rice. It was a tonsil stone. It happens almost every time I get sick. And I guarantee that if I shared my symptoms and a photo with AI, it would render the same conclusion.
Would it be dumb to blindly trust everything a model says? Sure. Should you trust it alone, especially for major issues? No. But having received such a stupid and brain-dead diagnosis from a supposed "professional" doctor in the past, I would never give them the automatic benefit of the doubt.
Current frontier LLMs are incredibly powerful diagnosticians. They will generally give you the best assessment that can be made on the basis of the information you include in the prompt. So it's important to make sure that information is accurate, and also that it's phrased well enough to allow the model to weigh the importance of each detail.
Unsurprisingly, the same tips are important when communicating with your actual doctors.
This is literally life-and-death. My recommendation is for full transparency, it was crucial for us.
You should really try to have a copy of your own records. Different sorts of clinics may sometimes make it difficult to get a copy of studies, reports, etc. but it's something you should really insist in, to the point of avoiding places that don't give them to you. It lets you have greater selectivity of your healthcare providers by not depending on a provider for access to your own medical data. Resist the lock-in.
Also, providers may not archive your data forever. I've had one that realized my records from a visit some years earlier had been discarded/lost. They would have been really useful to make a comparison.
Having your records yourself, you won't have the need to tell them so they can ask for your records to the other provider on your behalf.
It's a good idea to tell them you came to them for a second opinion after they've already given it, so they can also give their opinion on the first opinion. However, that's different from telling them so they can get your records when you should already have them yourself.
His staff was gruff, there was such limited information as we progressed through the system, there were so many patients there from all over the western part of the US. For many of them it was their first time with cancer, and sitting there in the waiting room with my (non-medical!!!) bio training my Dad would often offer my services to "explain" something. Which I did, and I think I helped, but it was all rough.
The main doctor was so gruff and obnoxious that I emailed my MD friends in Boston (was still in grad school) asking how I could file a complaint.
But at the end of the day that process helped my father (and many of those other people ) get state-of-the-art proton beam therapy, covered by insurance.
Sadly my dad's cancer came back a short time later and he passed away (miss you too Dad).
But now, 15 years later, having been through the healthcare system in so many ways, and having many friends who are academic specialist MDs, I recognize that the doctor in SF was operating with incredible constraints, finite resources, and probably tired. And my Dad got the best possible treatment technology as a result of the second opinion.
But at the time I wanted to strangle the doctor.
I'm writing this just to say that sometimes the second opinion is tough. Sometimes it's in a far-away place or the doctors are jerks. Maybe even borderline unprofessional. They're the bastard operator from hell in their own little world. But again, this is life-and-death.
GET THAT SECOND OPINION EVEN IF THE DOCTOR IS A DICK.
(fuck cancer)
They were complete no-ops and a waste of time. Faced with that same situation today I would simply lie about whether or not a treatment plan was put into place.
Second bit of advice is to try as best you can to go into clinical trials with an understanding of the landscape of disqualifying treatments. Any immunotherapy treatment, for example, will disqualify you from nearly all subsequent clinical trials for immunotherapy.
Lastly the thing I would recommend for partners of loved ones in the crucible, don't get too distracted by trying to 'save the patient' that you miss opportunities stay connected with them in the process. It's not your responsibility to save their life, as much as it might feel that way when you're in the thick of it.
I fully encourage any patient who wants another opinion to get one. Definitely really good advice to seek one out before you start on your treatment plan, if it can be done without undue delay. I think of planning cancer treatment like lining up to take off for a flight: some plans even if imperfect are more dangerous to alter than continue if they've already been put in motion. There are--rarely, thankfully--times where we don't end up concurring at all in the diagnosis or treatment, and this is all best sorted out before the first treatment.
But a second opinion isn't a waste just because it agrees with the initial plan. In my experience, that's actually the most common outcome, and I think it's a really good thing if a second opinion can give deserved reassurance that your original team is doing everything by the book. For many common cancers, there's consensus as to the most appropriate first-line treatment because there's peer-reviewed evidence and agreement on how to apply that evidence. When all of it points towards an effective treatment, down to a standardized dose and schedule, and it's a really good thing!
There's some subtlety that arises when there isn't a clear consensus as to which of (say) two reasonable approaches used by different comprehensive cancer centers is best. If you look at guidelines, both of those approaches would be listed as appropriate, but patients might be recommended one plan at center A and a different one at center B.
What it can come down to is that center A delivering treatment A demonstrates comparable results to center B delivering treatment B. In that scenario, if a patient lives down the street from center A and travels hundreds of miles to see me for a second opinion at center B, I would almost always agree with getting treatment A at center A. Not because I'm trying to manage what center A would think of me, but because I'd truly believe it's in that specific patient's best interest. First, all else being equal, I'd have no grounds to think that traveling hundreds of miles to get treatment B at center B would be better than staying local. Second, in general, I'd strongly doubt that getting treatment B at center A (which wouldn't be the plan they'd have the most experience with) would be superior to getting treatment A at center A.
And, yes, I absolutely have recommended when appropriate for patients to transfer care to our center, and I have also recommended when appropriate for patients to leave our center to go elsewhere (for example, for a particularly promising clinical trial option). I've seen every one of my colleagues do the same without hesitation.
This is all just from one person's perspective, of course. I know patients and families can come from different and totally valid vantage points. But to sum it up, please don't worry about managing your doctors' emotions about getting a second opinion, and find a place where you can be confident that the folks giving you their second opinion likewise aren't thinking about managing your doctors' emotions. Hopefully, they'll earn your trust that a concurring opinion means they really do think your original team has laid out the plan that's best for you.
Of course, I know nothing is ever certain here. Still, having two opinions or more data can be valuable, but only when whoever makes the final decision can actually use that information: detecting any bias and deciding with a good balance between risks and rewards.
I don’t regret it.
So, unless the first two opinions are completely identical - yeah, definitely get the third. Better to go for people with slightly different specializations if relevant.
My late wife was treated for metastatic melanoma at MSK. Their approach is to have clinical teams and a tumor board that are assigned patients with related cancers. They are seeing many patients and there’s a warm hand off between specialists. Your radiation oncologist, medical oncologist and surgery / neuro specialists are on a team and know each other and are often familiar with the cases. In my wife’s case the community oncologist was wonderful, but he was a sole practitioner for this particular cancer.
In the second opinion scenario, they get to use that experience and caseload to look at a case with some perspective. Your community oncologist likely works on a small team and may not have the luxury of time and exposure to trials, etc.
Think of it as a second set of eyes.
Of course, if additional tests are done by the second doctor and new information is uncovered, that helps.
My ex-wife was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, and the first doctor said that urgent surgery was needed and both thyroids need to be removed.
She obtained a second opinion from a well-known oncologist, who said that only part of one thyroid needs to be removed, and it wasn't so urgent.
Because everyone wanted to believe the second doctor, that was the option she went for.
This was a very expensive doctor. Shortly after the surgery, he notified her that, in fact, the cancer had spread to both thyroids, and the other one had to urgently be removed as well. This led to double the medical bill, opening up her neck twice, and all the accompanying inconvenience of two surgeries.
It was a strange situation where an incorrect assessment by the doctor directly led to that doctor making more money.
Also, it highlights the tough decision in terms of how you decide between two conflicting opinions if there are no additional diagnostic results to assist.
There are generally clear discriminators determining whether a lobectomy or total thyroidectomy is called for. What is missing here is the detailed discussion with the two doctors of exactly why they were recommending their course of action and what attempts were made to reach consensus. "everyone wanted to believe" is not the way to go about such things ... but there's a good chance that the evidence favored the less radical course. A lobectomy has considerably less radical consequences and so is strongly preferred if a total thyroidectomy isn't indicated. But it's not uncommon for the pathology report of the removed lobe to indicate high-risk features that call for a "completion thyroidectomy", which is what your ex-wife had. It's not some nefarious conspiracy to make more money.
And she's wealthy.
My experience: I was horribly sick for 10 months, none of my local doctors could figure it out, then I drove to Penn Medicine in Philadelphia and they did the right labwork in the first visit. These top centers just have different mindset than your community hospitals.
The specific term is called "NCI Designated Cancer Center". If you can go there, do it.
Just take the mindset of - if this gets screwed up, where do i get sent to deal with the screw up, and just go there first.
the crazy thing is, as mentioned above, they probably take your insurance and your not going to end up paying more to be at a top notch facility.
Once you're at that point, just go to the top of the list for whatever specialty and fly out of state, or even to a different country. US healthcare is so absurdly expensive that flights and hotels kinda have to be cheaper than the care no matter how crazy you go.
One thing I would mention:
You are not dealing with a monolithic entity with regards to a hospital.
There are really multiple groups with oftentimes competing interests e.g.
- case manager wants you out and home b/c that is the best "score" for the hospital. They also DO NOT want you to qualify for Medicare if you are a senior b/c, again, "score" gets dinged if Medicare gets involved
- surgeons want you out as they don't want you to pick up hospital infection. They want you to go to a rehab facility as that will more likely lead to a good outcome
- the hospitalist wants you to be stable in the short term so will pump you with whatever medications are necessary to get you "back to normal" without addressing any root cause
- the nurses generally care about you as a person as they deal with you the most but oftentimes have the least amount of say over your case
- in one of those perverse incentives/unintended consequences: if you do TOO well on a physical ability test, that might disqualify you from certain coverage even if you are below the threshold on other ability tests. That can have gigantic insurance implications.
This is prompting me to write my own version of the OP blog post.
Personal story: I was having trouble using my left arm. Like, couldn't lift or type or do much of anything with it. Was told it was a pinched nerve by physiatrists and orthopedists, despite having no pain. Only when I specifically requested for a referral to a second neurologist did he order the head MRI which exposed a brain tumor in my motor cortex. We were able to move quickly and get me on a treatment plan which has bought me a lot of time. Had I not advocated for myself, it would have probably mutated into a much worse type and killed me soon.
People can't ignore you as effectively if you're in their physical space. When it comes to your health or the health of your family, do not back down. Doctors are used to nuts who googled the symptoms or joined a Facebook group and have all the answers already. Make it clear you have NO answers but NEED them asap.
One of the things I've learned is to apply the Socratic method, preferably in front of their colleagues if they try to brush you off. Also, if you've got scary symptoms, demand they write down what your symptoms are on your record and why they aren't concerned, then demand a copy of all relevant records (it's your property) -- this often gets them to reevaluate your risk in terms of their career.
Worst case scenario, you can make up medical history. I had a family member pass recently from colorectal cancer. They had symptoms but their PCP kept insisting they were too young. My family member suddenly "remembered" her aunt died of CRC when she was a kid. This got her referred to a gastroenterologist, and they found out she was stage 4...after her PCP delayed her diagnosis for like a year. She actually had grounds for a malpractice suit but who's got the energy or money for that when they're fighting stage 4 cancer?
Also, know your state's agency responsible for policing health insurance. This family member's insurance company routinely tried to deny life saving procedures, but a call to the right govt agency set them in line each time.
Here in Mexico, i can get to doctoralia and make an appointment with a high specialist , like a Vascular Neurosurgeon. All by myself. The first visit will to maybe $200 usd (and that's very high) and normally it's a week away at most. No waiting on the private health option.
Of course if you go with public health, it's a disaster and a shame.
The advantage of the less developed countries is that you can get pretty good private medical care for a reasonably price. The quality may not match the very best care available in the rich countries, but in many cases, it is adequate.
What is a "reasonable price"? Relative to a rich country, the price may be low. But relative to the average income to common folks in that country it is likely just as expensive as a comparable private option is in a rich country. Apples vs. oranges.
Iow, you are describing the perspective of a rich person in a poor country. I don't think a rich person in the U.S. (top 0.1 percentile, let's say) minds the health case costs in the U.S. either.
Of course the top tier private hospital and specialists can be pretty expensive, but is not that expensive to avoid the public/government health system.
I often try to go cash pay, since in many cases at this point it's actually cheaper, absurdly enough, and get told that I can't even get an appointment that way. I actually got kicked off primary care at a regional (fairly large) practice because they couldn't take my insurance, would not bill out of network, didn't service uninsured people (!!), and would not take cash, credit, barter or trade.
More common specialists you can just book with. I got an appointment with a cardiologist with no fuss.
> Doctors are used to nuts who googled the symptoms
When you were there, did you have anything else to come with than the symptoms of your family member? In other words, how did you look different to the doctor than somebody who just googled their symptoms? (Or, to put it differently, without meaning disrespect, in which way were actually different from cases you referred to in the above quote?)
And then I sat in the nurses station until the doctor finally took time to listen. They threatened to get security, but I just kept my head and kept pointing at the things the doctor himself wrote.
I didn't try to interpret anything, I didn't do any diagnosing myself and I didn't try to act like he didn't know what he was doing. I just kept saying that it was more serious and we needed a second opinion.
Does that help?
I should have mistrusted the doctor and trusted the AIs more, unless they gave me compelling reasoning. Don’t give up your decisions to anyone, incompetence is abound.
Canada introduced MAID for this reason.
You’ve dealt with every health system on earth as a patient?
> There are no specialists in all of the government-run systems
This is completely inaccurate. Every government run system has specialists.
Everything you have said is incorrect.
That doesn't sound great to me (read: broken), because it means its not evenly accessible across your society. I wouldn't count that as a good system to be honest.
I have limited experience with the New Zealand and Japanese medical systems, and from a similarly arms-length engagement with them, I think I would prefer them over everything I've read about the US system. You still have the same issues with having to advocate for yourself, but you can at least get access to good healthcare across the board - and if you go private (which as a late 30s / early 40s guy, cost around NZ$60 / month), you can get access to care at private facilities much faster than via public.
It is most definitely imperfect, but it _is_ designed to be accessible to everyone.
You read that where? What evidence do you have? In my experience, Americans are often blissfully unaware about how poor their health services are.
As someone who has seen many health services up close (from founding a health tech company and literally visiting myriad health establishments around the world, over the past few decades), the US hospitals and clinics always struck me as the most run down. But as soon as I walked in the boardroom at UHG or HCA, it suddenly all became a lot more glamorous.
And whilst the US does ok with cancer outcomes, so do other nations like Germany, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Canada, and the United Kingdom.
Most advanced nations have universal healthcare with similar outcomes to the US, but for significantly less money. They also don’t leave citizens destitute for having the unmitigated gall to impose an unexpected health emergency on themselves.
The US system funnels profit, it doesn’t provide better healthcare.
In the rest of the world, it's controlled by extended wait times. In the US, it's cost. You can have moral arguments about what's fair, but that's the economic reality.
At the time I as studying this (early 2010's), the average wait time of diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer in the US was 12 days. In NIH, it was 5 months.
No they didn't.
There are tons of specialists in Canada. You're talking out of your ass.
Oh my. I did not expect this.
I'm glad you caught it early, and I hope you have the best outcome you can, and thank you for sharing your story.
But GP's point is otherwise true. It's just a job to them. They see dozens of sick people every day. There's no way to be empathetically engaged with all of them or really any of them and still be effective. It's not personal, and they aren't ignoring you. You're a bug report in their ticket system. Understand that and you'll be able to deal with the system more effectively.
The exception to this rule is if you are in an HMO like Kaiser which force you through "level one support" (your GP) or if the specialist is so busy they require a referral to screen out the social media schizos.
If you saw a concierge specialist that is cash pay only they'd probably see you no matter what though.
Don’t forget, Doctors are just well read mechanics
The next important one is to find the best doctor you could afford. I didn't have a lot of faith on my local oncologist, especially when he said that my cancer (nasopharyngeal carcinoma) is rare and had not much experience with it. I was able to get ahold of the chief surgeon at UCSF, purely by luck. Felt a lot better when he said that this type of cancer is pretty common for south-asian descent. He has dealt with it quite often due to a large concentration of asian in the bay area.
The treatment sucks, but small price to pay considering I can spend more time with my family.
And people like this are typically not that difficult to get in contact with via email.
Hell, I’ve successfully used LinkedIn to get an appointment when calling the main office didn’t work.
Get creative and trust no one.
One thing I noticed is that the oncologists managed my brother far more than they actually worked on his case; oncologists are often overworked and, by necessity, desensitized. They are aware of new treatments because the pharma industry takes good care of that, but they are way less willing to read scientific literature relevant to a specific type of “rare cancer” present in a “single patient”, and they actually need the two things to be effective.
I feel for you and for your family; may the stars align for you and you get to be out of your crucible with the least amount of suffering.
A good shorthand is that unless a doctor has positively identified something through imaging or biopsy do not trust them when they tell you what something is or what to do about it.
If you aren't sure how best to advocate for yourself, use AI to help figure out what tests and referrals to ask for. You might feel like a jerk, but don't expect anyone to care about you more than you do.
By all accounts is amazing to her patients, but god the amount of work thrown at a PCP and the deluge of emails and just how little life the system gives you (at least while in residency, I guess I'll see what happens after)... like I have to imagine our care could be so much better if we weren't trying to optimize the system and had more resources.
My mom is a teacher and it's similar there, she loves kids so much and after a few decades she absolutely cannot wait to be done. She was excellent at the start of her career and got kudos from absolutely everyone but now she's just getting by until retirement because she can't take it anymore.
Not a doctor, and not a case worker, but someone with a deep knowledge of the American health care system and infinite patience. A trusted person to take you to and from appointments, to chat with you about how things are going, and handle paperwork.
It would be expensive, but I think it would pencil out for most working professionals who don't have the time or energy to navigate everything for themselves or for a loved one.
Minor addition: When you talk to someone who has undergone the surgery, try to find someone that's a similar age and in similar shape to you, otherwise you may get wildly varying answers.
You'll respond, experience and heal from a surgery quite differently at 40 vs 50.
jakeseliger.com
bessstillman.substack.com
At least, if it's a common cancer, a group will gather accumulated wisdom and can research better than a single person.
Also, they can help more with practical questions, like financial aid, how to manage sleep and pain, etc.
This is certainly another data point for "never trust AI chatbots".
Doctors might do the same thing, of course, but at least then there's a real (accountable) person responsible for deciding that "threshold."
It's an extremely slippery slope to having it say that about even the most basic medical information.
If you don't believe me, try any google search related to something as simple as hangover tips. The AI summary will tell you to call SAMHSA and then brutally stonewall you on anything else even tangential to alcohol.
[ if I gave you a picture of something on my skin could you diagnose it as a melanoma ]
No, I cannot diagnose skin conditions or identify melanoma from a photograph.
AI-based image analysis cannot replace a professional medical evaluation. Skin conditions—especially potentially serious ones like melanoma—require a physical examination, and often a dermatoscope or biopsy, by a qualified healthcare professional such as a dermatologist.
99% of the time I'm asking the AI medical advice questions because (1) there is no specialist available on short notice (2) most specialists I actually see do not give me the sense they take things seriously enough (3) a lot of specialists are just incompetent.
Oh, it absolutely can. If it's bloodwork I can absolutely get that done through Function Health or similar platform without a doctor's order. If it's imaging I can fly to another country and get it done faster and cheaper (including flights and accommodation) than the insured price in the US.
I also give the AI access to all my medical records at 6 institutions in 2 countries over the past 15 years, and it draws upon that context. Doctors don't usually have time for that.
An LLM might be great for summarizing that wealth of information for a doctor to consume, but it won’t compete with a doctor’s judgement or knowledge of their practice and institutional knowledge.
LLMs, even at their theoretical best, are limited to publicly recorded knowledge. If you want to know how extremely limiting this can be, look at the surgical outcome rates of surgeons by educational experience, vs outcome rates from surgeons based solely on experience. Surgeons with more experience have far better outcomes than those with any other attribute.
I vehemently disagree, based on the number of times doctors have misdiagnosed me, and AI or other internet searches have yielded a correct diagnosis and treatment.
It won't compete with the top 5% of doctors, but most of the time you are not going to get to see a top-5% doctor.
Having a doctor does not guarantee good judgement or good experience. But an LLM is guaranteed to have neither judgement nor experience.
Get a second opinion, or a third. Don’t get zero opinions.
And most of the time, you don’t need a 5% doctor, you need to find the one with the correct background of experience. Every misdiagnosis I’ve ever had was because I was at the wrong specialist. If you don’t think you’re getting the right care, sure, ask your LLM for alternatives. Then go speak to specialists in those fields.
The folks who actually go work in the field, understand the structural problems, the costs/benefits, and the long slog to bring successful treatments to patients are skeptical. But we're still more than happy to be proved wrong- if Anthropic (more than OpenAI) is working on life sciences and drops some amazing information that transforms cancer care with massive positive results, we all win.
Do we all? Or does anyone with enough money to pay for Anthropic's IP, win? Nothing states that Anthropic/OpenAI/... have to share information they have generated. As the crunch for income becomes real, I doubt valuable things will remain free.
If they succeeded, you can bet everybody else will be duplicating their results within 2-3 years.
Very few diseases are caused by individual mutations like that (typically only monogenic Mendelian). Individual mutations typically cause an increased propensity, or severity, rather than being the sole or root cause of a disease.
- You should pressure test anything an AI says with your doctors, and anything a doctor says with AI.
But you definitely want to scour the entire search space for solutions.
And the most efficient means for that is LLMs.
It's my experience that doctors are compartmentalized in their thinking, limited in their time, and definitely will not be extensively exploring your case.
E.g., I had 30 years of resistant hypertension. Multiple medications. Saw many cardiologists. Nephrologists. I was told to "just lose weight." BP was erratic over the years. ER visits. It was awful.
I googled. Pheochromocytoma. Hyperaldosteronism. Asked the cardiologist, "Could it be this?"
"NAAAAH, just lose weight."
But I insisted on a referral to an endocrinologist. And when I suggested it to them, given my extensive history, they were basically like, "Oh yes, we'll get you tested. I'm surprised you haven't been tested before?"
I had a left adrenalectomy 6 months later. BP has been controlled ever since.
They don't know everything. They can't.
Find a decent primary care doc who is not impossible to schedule with. Someday, if you do have a problem, the primary care doc will be able to send you off for scans, etc. much more easily when you are an existing patient. Getting appointments as an existing patient is much easier.
It took me decades (and a ton of advice from my wife) to understand how medical systems work and to get the results I want. Having a good relationship with your PCP is invaluable.
If Texas isn't for you, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in NYC is the next best bet AFAIK.
Three years ago, of necessity I became a big-time consumer of healthcare[1] and I can't believe I just been lucky that nearly all my doctors seemed reasonable and effectively treated me. Of the dozen or so doctors I dealt with only one left me with a bad feeling.
[1] Stage 4 renal cancer, successfully treated with immunotherapy and surgery at Perlmutter Cancer Center in NYC.
I assume so. My experience is pretty similar to yours.
My big takeaway from the whole ordeal is that you need to take a very active role in your own treatment. Unfortunately I was only able to become actively involved in managing my mother's treatment in the last few weeks. What I saw was a clear pattern of (what I'd regard as) negligence. There were so many missed opportunities to provide the care she needed. I came to the sad realisation that if you're not cracking the whip, many doctors will take the path of least resistance, and that in many cases, the only way to get documentation or help as a relative is to be ready to kick up a stink in-person.
I'd be happy to go into more detail.
I've had luck with just calling once a week or sending nastygrams asking why my claims are still denied, they usually say "oh that didn't go through I'll manually process that" and approve a few more each time. Incompetence vs maliciousness etc.
Looking at financial reports of the major health insurance stocks in the US makes me wonder if they are really "incompetence".
Take United HealthCare (UNH) for example, they reported $112.7 billion and net income of $4.11 billion in Q3/2026. That's great amount of revenue and profits to have enough resources to not stay "incompetence". It's not a coincidence.
Honest question - when physicians steer their patients, do they have any specific instructions or obligations with regard to who and what they are optimizing for?
For example, if you visit any online space where (self-reported) physicians are sharing their opinions on any of the newer self-paid testing services (e.g., Function Health blood testing, Prenuvo MRI scans) you'll clearly see some of their internal calculus around why these services are good or bad. The thing that I've been surprised by in the past is that the "impact to the system" often comes up as a reason not to use these services. Yes you the paying consumer might learn something about yourself, but it's a bad idea on the premise that you might be crowding out someone who needs the care more than you do.
I can respect that point of view, but if that is part of what informs a physician's recommendation, it should be clear and explicit. Is this something that any code of ethics covers? Optimizing for the patient in front of you first and foremost?
My problem with Prenuvo is not the screening aspect; it’s that Prenuvo is poor value. For the cost you pay out of pocket, I can find you conventional imaging centers that will charge the same (or less!) for fully diagnostic images and a fully diagnostic report. And they will give you the images on disk (or a link to a portal) right there.
If you want to be screened and have the cash to pay for it, go right ahead! Knowledge (can be) power! With the caveat that imaging is step 1 and you may need further work up. Don’t go to the Theranos of imaging; go some place truly diagnostic.
I had testicular cancer a decade ago (in Ireland). I found a lump, went to my GP, had a scan 2 days later, and surgery 12 later. Followed by chemo and a RPNLD as was needed.
I didn’t need to chase any doctors, I trusted every doctor I met (had I had AI then I wouldn’t have wasted time with them).
I got a second opinion, because why not, but they agreed with my onc.
Is this some very US coded list that isn’t relevant to my experiences in Ireland?
ps. I’m not sure why genetic testing is suggested here?
It's a very extreme form of individualism in combination with capitalism. Then we have the worship of corporations
The best way to operate under that is how you should expect everyone else to: strongly advocate for yourself, because even hospitals in cases like this will be looking after themselves first
It'll ruffle some feathers because it is a gross generalization that does not fit what most of us experience. Confirmation bias is really a thing.
I would be shocked if it did not go pretty much exactly the same in the US. Testicular cancer diagnosis is really well understood and straightforward.
The moral of my personal story in this context is probably somewhere near the intersection of "not all cancers are the same", "you can always find an anecdote which suggests something", and "luck is a factor in life".
If I were to go through it again I'd still probably get a second opinion and go to a better place even if it was a straightforward type though because why not if it's covered the same in the end.
A couple of reasons (off the top of my head). Depending on the type of cancer, there are certain genetic markers that indicate how it might progress + impact the overall risk. This is something you might want to communicate to other biological family members. Your genetics also can impact what treatments you respond the best to, and knowing ahead of time lets you start on the things that are most effective for your body in particular.
My only submission will be to consider India, which is fast becoming a hub for medical tourism. You can get any test you want and meet specialists in hours, not even days.
Anecdotal of course but left an extremely bad taste in my mouth.
I cannot recommend this enough, including writing down almost every day about symptoms and progress. I didn't have cancer, something else, but it was very valuable to be able to go back and see exactly how long time a symptom has been present and when it disappeared.
Doctors also seem to react well to being able to be precise in descriptions of what happened when.
Doc: "Do you have any other medical conditions besides your {red eye,stomach ache,itchy foot}?"
Patient: "No."
Doc: "Are you taking any meds?"
Patient: "Yes I am currently on chemotherapy for my cancer."
Doc: "Okay... so you have cancer?"
Patient: "Yes I have lung cancer."
They do. In my experience they're usually pleasantly surprised when you have dates and timelines rather than "oh I don't know, about a year ago?"
That being said the reaction differs if you offer a self diagnosis (assisted by google or chatgpt) rather than just symptoms. There will not be pleasantness. It's a toss up between a dismissive "yeah maybe" and "uh uh, did google tell you this?" Many doctors will 100% listen and consider what you say, but in my long life I've learned that offering a self diagnosis must be done very tactfully.
On one hand it's understandable, us as programmers don't enjoy having a nocoder arrive with "yeah so chatgpt says this is no good" and having to explain to them why they're wrong. On the other hand modern patients do their own research before consulting, so it's worth at least considering what's being said.
It does not always work, but a lot of doctors in my experience take some time to kindly explain why they think the other possibilities I'm concerned about are unlikely, and sometimes my questions actually prompt them to add some additional investigations.
One bad side effect of coming in with your own self-diagnosis is sometimes they will index on that and stop considering other possibilities they would have suggested if you hadn't primed them with a diagnosis.
I did resort to "self-diagnosis" once, though: for R-CPD (no-burp syndrome). Most doctors simply don't know this condition exists. I brought it up with my GP (whose referral I needed to see a specialist in Ontario), prepared for some pushback, but was pleasantly surprised that he did some brief research and then helped me forward.
Then again, I may have been lucky. I still hear stories of doctors who are less than cooperative when patients bring them "self-diagnoses", even for something as open-and-shut as R-CPD. But if most of those "diagnoses" are BS, then I can empathize with the docs, too.
You can do whatevvr you want with the audio files - have them transcribe them, summarize them, hand them to an agent, upload them to your cloud, whatever.
The standby and talk time is really great on both the pins and the credit card sized versions.
I have a lot of friends that now use them with elderly parents/their own medical care when they need to really be able to have something automatically record/transcribe the visits.
1. If you want something totally open source: https://github.com/RemiPelloux/OpenPlod
Local-first Plaud Note Pro recording vault, transcription, and Markdown workspace. Which sounds like what you want.
2. the Plaud SDK will let you pull from the device and send it wherever you want without touching their servers.
3. You can also use the mobile app, disable cloud sync, and export each audio file as mp3/wav to your phone/tablet/whatever if you don't want to use #1 or #2.
You can have it upload to your private cloud without doing any of these, but it still transits their servers first i believe, which it sounds like you are trying to avoid
In the USA, providers are openly hostile to being recorded. You had better ask at the front desk if you can record anything first. They will tell you no.
If you covertly record, then they have every right to refuse you service and eject you from the exam room.
Do not ever record anything independently with your provider. They are absolutely hostile to this and there is no getting around it.
They will tell you that it is a violation of HIPAA. It is actually a violation of CYA.
Providers do not appreciate having any independent record of one-on-ones that they cannot repudiate themselves. If they didn't document it, it didn't happen. Don't record providers.
This is done all the time, and is quite common, particularly when care is shared between multiple people or people are elderly
16% of all appointments are recorded by patients, and the number is increasing all the time. It's up like 20-30% year over year. Only 3% of those recorded are done covertly.
Basically all medical associations have issued guidance on this and the guidance is not "kick people out of the office"
I have never once had a provider become hostile or care. Nor has anyone I know. People record with phones, dial people in, etc.
This is across like 10+ states, tons of conditions, ages, and hundreds of people.
While you may have had a different experience, i dont' think i would go with "don't ever do this". It's happening in almost 1 in 5 appointments, and increasing all the time.
I have interacted over the phone with two major clinic systems who have busied out my line and hung up on me, just because I activated Call Recording on my Pixel.
You try it. Telephone your clinic/hospital and activate Call Recording, and see if they will still even stay on the line with you. Notify the human who answers, and see what happens.
This was not merely a human decision; it was the clinics' automated system countermeasures vs. recording a simple, normal phone call.
I was also reprimanded for recording at my psychiatrist's clinic. Then they posted signs that said that all recording, photos and videos are strictly prohibited.
When I asked at an independent Urgent Care facility, the front desk flatly refused. She insisted it was a HIPAA violation. It is not.
They also do that if you show them pictures of your poop when you have a bowel thing going on.
Quite a lot of serious medical things start out seeming not serious, including a lot of cancers. Basically once an ailment seems unusual, like “hmm this is not going away like usual,” start writing down every time, date, and detail you can remember back to when it started. Then keep that current.
Doing this will help the accuracy of your treatment.
There are also a bunch of implicit “timers” in standards of care, like take OTC drugs and rest for a week, then come back if it is still not resolved. Having a detailed precise timeline documented can help skip through those. The doctor may be able to look at the detail and say “ok you’ve already tried the easy fixes, let’s dig deeper.”
If we healthcare customers realized that our data is really the future of medicine, and we had a way to give each individual their own records (like some encrypted block chain or something) that they can hand out access to their healthcare professionals to (instead of the other way round), we could get a lot further in detection diagnosis and treatment
Not cancer, but after over twenty years of anti-depressants of all shapes and sizes my latest psychiatrist recommended one of genetic tests and it turns out I’m missing some enzyme that is supposedly needed for the meds to work.
Bitter sweet to find these things out so late in life, but better late than never.
In this context, though, we're talking about measuring the actual cancer (including the tumor's mutations) to determine what therapies it is likely to be responsive to.
e.g. this: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/types/biomarke... not this: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/geneti...
I'm just responding to:
"""Genetic tests for cancer are a different kind of genetic test. They test the tumor itself for mutations that are present only in the tumor, not in the rest of the body."""
Strictly speaking, BRCA is a genetic test for cancer (even if it's only a "risk factor"), and it's done on the regular genome, not on the cancer.
(None of this is important or really relevant)
> You may need to push for comprehensive genetic testing. Some doctors were weird about this and didn’t order it promptly, even after telling me they would. My surgeon, who told me he’d get it done, eventually referred me out to an oncologist. This caused a multi-month delay to getting genetic results, since the first results were done on the surgery tumor, not the biopsy tumor.
The quote further upthread lost the last bit, which is pretty clearly talking about tumor sequencing.
> Strictly speaking, BRCA is a genetic test for cancer (even if it's only a "risk factor"), and it's done on the regular genome, not on the cancer.
Yes... that's why I clarified that I believed we/the article were talking about tumor testing and not BRCA (which is mentioned in the second link I gave).
If you think something’s wrong, get it diagnosed asap. Everything depends on cancer type, but with some, a few months in either direction can be the difference between no chemo at all and months of chemo. Biting that bullet earlier can drastically improve what’s going to be a terrible experience.
1. Find patient organizations/support groups for your cancer. They often have excellent collections of info, from some of the sources covered in the article, and can help with finding the right doctor, or the right place to get a second opinion, or financial assistance. Some also list recruiting clinical trials.
2. Try and find local support groups. Other patients are often going to give you way better ideas and suggestions that you never thought of. It also helps enormously to have other folks going through similar journeys to talk to.
3. If you can afford it, Sloan Kettering does a remote consultation, where your primary oncologist can also be present, and they review all tests, suggest new ones, go over the treatment plan, etc. They do this in some international markets too. Pricey AF, but worth it for complex cases.
Our friend group went through the support-mode version of this this year and much of the advice rings true.
To add, a giant shared document that the group of friends had access to in order to take notes. Findings, theories, doctor statements will be shared when the patient isn't in a great place to be taking notes.
And for anyone reading this that might have someone facing cancer in their lives, go make a nuisance of yourself being present - feel empowered to spend a bit more time than you might initially think is necessary/helpful with them. Facing this stuff alone is when it is at its hardest.
I was hospitalised (not cancer) and completely zoinked out of my mind due to sleep deprivation, constant blood loss and being in pain 24/7. People did visit, but I guess they just thought... I have things under control? I wish they had talked to the doctors and asked more questions. In the end I came out of it fine, but I probably would have gotten a better result with someone advocating for me.
Please go and be a nuisance. As someone with a clear head you will likely be able to understand the topic better, from a more neutral standpoint, and potentially push for the best possible treatment.
In 2021/2022, I did Google Drive, so I could see it on my phone and other machines.
If this happened now (knock wood) it would be a private GH repo with every test, every image, every receipt, every appointment, every note. Then skills to ingest/OCR/normalize them all into a common format of MD. Point a Claude Code project at it, and fuzzy search it with open questions like "why did Dr. Smith say this" etc.
it's also important to remember that modern medicine, as wonderful as it is, is still limited. your particular type may have x lines of treatment, the cancer eventually mutates, your body can't handle the latter / harsher treatments, and...that's it.
Definitely get the second opinion, examine all the options, find the open minded doctor, potentially try an experimental treatment. That's all good. But there's a certain piece you or anyone can't control, and it's worth sitting with that too. That no matter what you might do, you might still end up at the end much sooner than you want to. My MIL's 5 year prognosis was awful, and she passed between 3 & 4 years.
But there's a CHANCE you might not and you might beat it, or at least live longer than expected. And even if you don't, you will pass knowing you did everything you reasonably could given the state of medicine today. Both of those are worth fighting for.
And make sure you have somebody around that will pay attention to changes in symptoms. My MIL almost died earlier this year because everyone thought her declining symptoms were the cancer. Turns out it was just too much calcium, once they treated she got a few extra months. She likely would've lived longer had they all caught it earlier.
This applies to all surgery.
The medical system uses coarse statistics, like "did the condition go away" and "did the patient survive".
"The patient went through a devastatingly painful 9 months and slowly recovered over the course of years to work towards a small improvement in the original symptom" may be classified as a success.
And don't forget that many actors in the system are financially incentivized to recommend interventions.
Yes to this. I had a thyroid nodule which I saw many doctors and had multiple tests on. At each step of the process I conferred with AI, and each time it assured me not to be concerned, it's not cancer, etc. The doctors were less certain. It turned out to be cancer. I'm OK today! But something to keep in mind.
I can literally walk into the hospital here, and a doctor/oncologist will become available within a short while.
The shortest wait was 15 minutes and the longest we waited was 3 hours. This was consistent across the 18 months of treatment.
We only had to schedule chemo, which would start within 5 minutes of prep.
- You are the least-constrained team member in your healthcare: At an appointment, your doctors only get to spend ~30 min on your problem and it's unrealistic to expect them to be as deeply involved as you are on your healthcare. Yeah, you yourself can spend days or even weeks researching you health problems and planning your healthcare.
- Research your health problems: you don't need to be an expert to read about your health problem, learn the basic anatomy involved and the high and mid-level details of the surgery or treatment. You'll have to look up a lot of terms, but it's not that bad and the articles aren't that difficult to understand at a high-level.
- You are also the manager of your healthcare: Planning and seeing the big picture is critical. You can optimize a lot of the planning of appointments, exams and surgeries buy thoughtful planning. And, you can definitely catch a lot of opportunties and mistakes in decisions that are made. Just like in a tech project, a couple of good random ideas can lead you to some fantastic outcomes.
There are many more, but yeah, working with the healthcare system is an skill that can be studied and learned. Really useful.
This advice can be applied to most things in the life. Expecting the machine in any context to take care of you will likely leave you disappointed.
As much as you need the health care system to make decisions and act, you need to do the same. And there are some kinds of cancer where talking about it is embarrassing, or fear of treatment keeps the patient from proceeding - not the doctor.
Prostate cancer detection for example has it's basic roots in the PSA test (easy enough), but also DRE (Digital Rectal Exam). As things go for exams, it's not many people's favorites and some will put it off.
Next up, say you have higher PSA. You probably will get sent off for a biopsy. Guess where they have to go to get core samples? There are a few routes, but none of them are what one might call fun at all.
So just to get diagnosed, you're going to find people who will put it off or not do it simply because they have anxiety or otherwise are uncomfortable about it.
Then there's the outcomes of the treatments - of which there are many types of treatments. The two big negatives of treatment can be incontinence and erectile dysfunction. That and your penis might be shorter post surgery if you go that route.
What that does is get people who need treatment going from doctor to doctor to find the one that tells them what they want to hear (no side effects). It's paralysis by analysis combined with fear of the not necessarily guaranteed side effects.
But there is one side effect if you do nothing for long enough - you'll die.
So do something - don't let the blocker to treatment be you.
Not that the finger test is not used so much anymore because it’s very poor at detecting cancer for much of the prostate.
I went thru all this a year ago and the MRI was 95% certain I had cancer! Turns out the biopsy showed I didn’t have cancer but another benign condition that was a rare complication of a immunotherapy treatment for bladder cancer that I did have…which is a different story.
- If insurance refuses to cover something, check your insurance site for something called an explanation of benefits for that charge, which should give a clear reason why it was denied. Sometimes though (way more often than it should be) the reason is completely wrong, or vague, or nonexistent, or is just hard to understand, in which case call the insurance and harass them daily until they either pay for it or give you a sane explanation.
- If you go through all of that and they still won't pay, get in contact with whoever made the charge (hospital, lab, doctor, etc), and tell them that your insurance refused to cover it, and that you need to negotiate the price down. This works sometimes. Even when it doesn't work, they can usually get you on some sort of payment plan so that your checking account doesn't go immediately dry.
- In general, get used to spending all your time on the phone calling insurance and doctors trying to get people to take you seriously. This is problematic obviously because you're SICK so generally you're not exactly in a state where you can do that. If you have any friends or family, see if you can enlist them to call people for you. Also, if you can get access to a social worker, sometimes they will be able to help you with calling insurance places and that kind of stuff. If you're inpatient, just ask your nurse for a social worker - at all the hospitals I was in, they had social workers on call for stuff like that.
- Write down on your phone somewhere a bullet list of all of your symptoms, treatments, diagnosis (or attempted diagnoses), etc. You will constantly (and I mean CONSTANTLY) have doctors entering your room who have not even GLANCED at your chart, who have absolutely no idea what's going on, and who will seemingly make all of their decisions based on your answer to the question "so what's going on". So make sure you have a good answer to that, which makes it clear to them that you have a serious problem that is worth taking seriously.
- Adding to that, push each new doctor that comes in for an actual PLAN. Your doctors likely WILL NOT communicate and plan with each other -- treat yourself as the project manager. You are the go-between for everybody. If the neurologist says something, then next time you see the oncologist, make sure they know that the neurologist said that. It is unfortunately your responsibility to lead the team of doctors that cares for you, at least in my experience at a few different hospitals.
- If you have pain, don't be afraid to ask for pain meds, because unless you ask for them, they won't be given to you. Even if you're writhing and moaning in pain, you will either be ignored or given extra-strength tylenol. You have to constantly advocate for yourself and be persistent about getting actual pain medication. Even when they do give you opiates, they will try to give you the smallest possible oral dose unless you specifically tell them "I need this much of this kind, and I need it IV, otherwise it doesn't help enough".
- This includes learning how to use the 0-10 pain scale. If you're like me, your instinct will be to always undershoot your pain number, because yes this is excruciating but I'm sure people who've had full body chemical burns feel far worse than this, so maybe in the grand scheme of things what I'm feeling is just a 5 -- don't do that. The 0-10 pain scale, in practice, is actually a metric of "how much do I need pain medication right now". In my experience, anything from 0-5, even if it really hurts, will not get you real pain medication. 6-7 is like "wow this hurts, it would be nice to get something for the pain", and 8+ is "this is excruciating, I need pain medication right now".
Anyways, good article and I agree with everything there, especially the part about going to a major cancer center instead of your local hospital whenever possible. Just wanted to add some more thoughts from my own experience.
Coming to peace with that uncertainty is the only way you can survive it.
And the guys advice to get a second opinion is a false confidence. The diagnostics are primitive and low signal, and they all share the same NCCN guidelines for therapies. Peace of mind has value, but you’re not going to receive any revelations.
AI slop.
I do not expect to be meaningfully employed with a group insurance plan ever again. Guess I'm hosed if it happens to me.
What's the difference for a physician today vs. 30 years ago? Among other things, today's physicians struggle because they're being crushed: continuously squeezed by the financialization of their hospital/practice, carrying larger debt, more time spent fighting the insurance machine just to get basic treatments approved. On top of all of that, they are less respected in general and often face outright hostility from patients... all while being paid relatively less than their predecessors.
The comparison rankles, obviously.
To your point, it's hard to imagine any human dealing with the conditions a lot of doctors face then showing up the way we want them to all day, every day. But how much suffering are patients supposed to absorb to subsidize the stress budget of their doctors?
I wouldn't go as far as drawing an analogy here, but it reminds me of debates surrounding police violence in high stress situations. Is there a higher standard when you're accountable for other peoples' lives? Are you off the hook or is it on you, and not the people you serve, to fight systemic and situational problems that make it hard for you to do your job well?
Also...
> You may need to push for comprehensive genetic testing.
Why?Cancer is not a condition that develops due to genes you inerited, after all, right? And also - for any cancer? Just some of them?
Hey, could you share one of these chats with the "Share chat" function? This might be of interest to a lot of law students.
Just by being posted here on hn, it will probably be discoverable by anyone that searches for cases where an LLM gave damaging medical advice.
This is good advice for any non simple medical problem. Because while you may not have the book knowledge and definitely not the clinical experience you probably can tell when your care is deviating from standard care.
Her cancer was the exact same kind, down to every detail as the one which was tested in one of the most successful cancer trials in history; 100% success rate of full recovery with no surgery. Also, her specific genetic profile was an exact match for about half of participants in that trial. Essentially she was a textbook perfect candidate for immunotherapy so it's mind-boggling that it wasn't the first recommended option.
Oh the privilege.
Note untested medicine is untested.
> PNC-27 is an anti-cancer peptide that in small in-vitro studies has been shown to induce tumor cell necrosis.