This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Labe Scheinberg, MD
Department of Neurology Mount Sinai Medical Center New York, NY 10029

Arch Neurol. 1995;52(3):231-232.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

As the health delivery system progresses to ever more expensive high technology, testing the discipline of neurology faces the problem of its justification to other specialties and its cost-effectiveness. In the area of diagnosis and management of multiple sclerosis, this becomes more apparent. The diagnosis and outcome assessment are becoming more and more confined to neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging), electrodiagnostic testing (evoked potentials), spinal fluid examination (cell counts, oligoclonal bands, and myelin basic proteins), neuropsychologic testing (tests too numerous to be listed), and disability determination by rehabilitation professionals. Will it be some day that the patient notices blurred vision in one eye, goes to the eye specialist who then refers the patient for a magnetic resonance imaging, and does not pass the neurologist who does not collect $200? It may occur that, with the development of new effective cures, the neurologist will be left out of the loop.

This letter . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?