Search

Emergency response is not directly addressed, but the policy of allowing otherwise ineligible people to full access to the emergency medical system indirectly is effected and has its own challenges, disputes, and implications.

The arguments are supported by data from the National Institute of Health and beyond as well as interviews with people on the ground.

The assessments that patients take are not visible to the public so I can not elaborate on it. This is what is quoted from the company’s website about the “Easy Clinical Screenings”:

“Patients take digital, gamified mental health assessments conveniently on their mobile device to learn their actual diagnosis and become more self aware. Providers can deploy customized assessment questions specific to each patient. Patients can see their charted progress over time. Assessments are reimbursable by insurers.”

The claims are supported by personal interviews/surveys by the author as well as external data from the state and other sources and studies. 

The way that countries and the world address nuclear emergencies is addressed in this article. Currently there is no central international response resources or authority. Because of the rarity of nuclear catastrophic nuclear emergencies, there are few pockets of professionals with field experience with dealing with these types of emergencies. Japan greatly lacked the assistance of these people during this disaster. These things all contribute to a less optimal emergency response. By addressing these issues the quality of response to nuclear emergencies can be greatly increased.

Dr. Kramer refers to various people in various medical cases but redacts their names.

The Journal of the American Medical Association and the medical community as a whole embraced “evidence based medicine” back in the 90s and claimed that individual case stories were inferior, antiquated, and a thing of the past.

Oxford University press and the New England Journal of Medicine started writing case reports embracing stories.