| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1019-1021 |
| Number of pages | 3 |
| Journal | Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Nov 1 2014 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The arguments offered by this segment of the provider community are that the results of revisional surgery are not predictable in terms of hospitalization and follow-up care, that revisional surgery may have an increased complication rate compared with primary surgery and may be less successful than primary surgery, and above all, that revisional surgery may be financially disadvantageous. This negative response to revisional bariatric surgery is manifest at national, state, and local levels. There is a lack of conceptional support from the National Institutes of Health and a lack of critical financial support from the Affordable Care Act. On the state level, 28 states do not mandate or approve metabolic/bariatric procedures. Locally, the policies of some hospitals and departments of surgery, even in academic institutions, seek to eliminate or minimize revisional bariatric surgery. Yet, there are no papers in the medical literature that justify and support this perspective of denial.