My Medical Records Are Not Accurate - How Do I Dispute This

[MissALC]

My question involves public health law in the State of: New York

In the past few months, I've had several issues with my general practitioner. The issues began when she left on maternity leave and other doctors had to take on her patients while she was gone.
The 1st incidence: The new policy for anyone being prescribed controlled substances is a random drug screen. I am fine with this however, I've experienced on several occasions that I cannot urinate at the drop of a hat when doctors have asked for urine samples. That afternoon when I was seeing the other physician to get my controlled medications that I was currently out of, I signed the consent to allow drug testing. They expected a urine sample and stated that I could not get my scripts until they received this sample to do the test. Of course I experienced problems again due to not being able to urinate (which I am almost positive that my Crohn's Disease is the reason for this issue and the fistula I had a few months prior) I asked them If they could use a different method (draw blood, hair testing or any other way they can test). It was like they weren't listening to me and not taking my individual needs into consideration. I was drinking water and trying to go.. I did this for 5 hours when finally I told the doctor that I couldn't take it no longer. I went in the bathroom more than 10 times and was pushing to try to go. I started feeling stomach pains (the ones that comes with Crohn's) and at this point I was willing to walk out of there without my prescriptions if they couldn't find some other way of testing me. I was so upset and told the doctor there that I would write a letter about this experience. It was extremely embarrassing and all they had to do is take a blood sample. Well, the doctor there stated that she didn't even think of that and that they would draw my blood, write me the scripts and send me on my way.
The letter stated that everything on the drug screen came back fine.

2nd incidence: this past month when I called for my meds. I called and ordered the usual refills and the receptionist said that they would be ready the next day. On my way there (I drive 1 hour to get to this doctors' office) I phoned the office to check to be sure the med scripts were ready. A nurse got on the phone and said I needed an office visit to get another script for these meds. Okay??? Why didn't someone, anyone there tell me this prior to me getting in the car to drive there. It's like they threw up their hands and said "Oh Well". I said that I could meet with the doctor when I get there if it's necessary to get my scripts. The nurse was rude and I always stick up for myself and my needs when in a position like this.
3rd & final incidence: I got to the office , waited for the doctor and she basically said that I was disrespectful to the nurse, & then looked at my drug screen that came back normal besides the fact that it didn't show that xanax was in my blood and she had an "issue" with that. I was in need of my meds and at the time of the blood test.. it was 8pm or 7pm and I hadn't taken any xanax in 2 days. Plus my script is written "take as needed PRN" so anywayI feel like she was looking for something so she could discontinue the relationship.
A week later: I received a letter that stated I was discharged from their care "based on me breaking your pain contract and inappropriate behavior toward staff" . Pain contract?
I think they meant controlled substance contract, but even so, I never broke the contract as stated in the 1st letter I received. I dont abuse my medications and I don't want something like that on my med records that may effect my future care.

How can I get this off my records?

[Mr. Knowitall]

What is it in your records that you believe to be inaccurate? The use of the term "pain contract" instead of "controlled substance contract"?

[MissALC]

No the statement that says I broke the contract is not accurate. The pain contract instead of con. sub. doesn't mean much to me... it's the fact that by stating that I "broke the agreement" sounds as if I have a problem and misuse/abuse prescription meds. This is not true and once something like that is in your medical records, it follows you.

[Dogmatique]

I think what they're doing is using the fact that you couldn't/wouldn't (it's really not important which it is) provide a urine sample which is very often included in such a document.

There are of course patients who can't urinate on demand (come on, how many of us can?!) - but if you've signed a document saying that you'll comply with random drug testing, they do expect you to anticipate a test WHENEVER you go in expecting to receive an rx for a controlled substance.

(Yes, I'm a chronic pain patient myself).

Although not exactly the most professional office in the world from what you've said, I see no legal wrongdoing. You are entitled to add your version of events to your notes, but it's unlikely that their version will be removed.

[PandorasBox]

I have errors in mine. I just pray I never have to transfer them. I was told that a rebuttal letter could be added to my file, but nothing would be removed or corrected.

[Dogmatique]

I have errors in mine. I just pray I never have to transfer them. I was told that a rebuttal letter could be added to my file, but nothing would be removed or corrected.

That's correct. In fact, I do believe there is a federal law covering this; you can write a rebuttal letter and that will be added, but the original records cannot be changed.

[PandorasBox]

And...who is going to be believed? Your letter vs a medical expert.....

[Mr. Knowitall]

If you have a documented history of Crohns which may impact your urinating on command then that should be mentioned in the letter. I don't know why your doctor had a problem with Xanax not showing up in the blood test-that's something she should take up with their lab not you.

rebeka, based upon your posting history here, if I took everything you know and added $2, I would have $2.

From a doctor's perspective, the issue with the Xanax not showing up for a pain patient is this: If you're filling prescriptions for Xanax but aren't taking the medication, you're either trading pills or selling pills. I once spoke with a family that was very concerned about the absurd amounts of pain medications their relative, who had just died of a drug overdose, had been given by his doctors - and it was a truly ridiculous amount. Except he didn't have any pain medication in his system after his death. He died of a benzodiazepine overdose, a habit he supported by trading or selling his pain pills. This kind if thing is a huge deal for doctors who treat chronic pain patients.

If you take Xanax, you can realistically expect it to show up in a blood test for 7 - 10 days. Potentially longer if you take it on a regular basis. When a lab test comes back and shows no Xanax in a patient's system, and the patient says "I hadn't taken it for two days", it should nonetheless show up. When the patient starts to argue, "It's PRN so I shouldn't have to take it every day," it sounds like the patient is making excuses. When the patient's associated attitude and demeanor is one of disrespect, it casts an even darker shadow over the patient. The doctor can also look at the prescription history which can highlight inconsistencies in the patient's story - "If you have been receiving 30 day prescriptions of Xanax and have filled or refilled them every thirty days, how is it that you're taking Xanax so irregularly and infrequently that it doesn't even show up on your blood test?" And, frankly, the odds that a blood test is going to be accurate across the board but give a false negative on benzodiazepines is vanishingly small.

I'm not commenting on what actually happened in the specific case above, but that's why a "doctor [would have] a problem with Xanax not showing up in the blood test".

[Mr. Knowitall]

In your case, perhaps less.

[Dogmatique]

No, actually.

Some advice you read online can be stellar. It's more a matter of knowing who and what to trust. The posts from a long-standing contributor with an obvious and solid background in legal subjects versus...someone who hasn't been around long AND has gotten things wrong or at least "not quite right" quite often during their short-yet-prolific history?

Well, all snark aside, it sort of speaks for itself. I know who I'd trust.

- - - Updated - - -

In your case, perhaps less.

I wish I'd seen this before I'd hit "post"