Asthma & Allergy Center of Roanoke, PLC

The patient was re-tested last year, at which point his/her injection
vials changed to a new formulation in response to the current testing results. There
were several new allergens added to the injection serum and several removed. The
patient had been receiving the new formula for approximately...

a year with few
problems when a systemic reaction occurred. The reaction was due to an
increased dose (Increased in line with set protocols). Once the reaction
occurred, the doctor informed the patient that the serum on the current
formulation (created after the retest) would be diluted (re-mixed) to previous
levels where there had been few problems (in accordance with set protocol). There
is a charge associated with this process. To achieve efficacy, Immunotherapy
needs to slowly increase the serum strength until it reaches a maximum. At that
point, the patient is put on a maintenance schedule to maintain a normal immune
response and prevent allergic reactions. The maintenance dosage does little to
build resistance to a new allergen. Thus, a return to the formulation previous
to the retest wouldn’t be providing any meaningful care as the patient was
already on a maintenance dose on the previous formulation. We believe this
matter to be a misunderstanding and we look forward to being able to help get
it resolved. It should also be noted that this misunderstanding was only
brought to our attention one week previous to the complaint being made. We were
still in the process of resolving the patient’s concerns.

Review: To the Asthma and Allergy Center,

I have been a longtime client of the Asthma and Allergy center. They recently re-tested me and found that I had new allergies. I began to receive new vials of injections which progressively caused greater allergic reactions. On my last trip to the center, I returned after having a bad reaction where my throat felt like it was closing up. I was administered an epi injection. Following this, the doctor informed me he would be changing my vial. He explained it to me as a return to my previous shots before the retest which were helpful and resulted in no reactions. When I called to confirm this, they informed me that they made a vial of the current shots that had been diluted. I have not been back to take the injections because it was not what we discussed and was dangerous to my health. I received a bill for the injection vial that I did not want and was forced to pay. The doctor conveyed one thing to me, but wrote another thing down. They did not have my permission to make the vial they made me pay for. I would, ultimately, like a refund for the vial. I can no longer trust them to act in the best interests of my allergy condition. Further, I have had no shots for three months and have had no allergic reactions or allergy issues.

Dissatisfied.Desired Settlement: I would like a refund of the bill I was pressured to pay (deadline coming up and I have never made a late payment), despite not giving Asthma and Allergy the right to create the medicine (which I never came to take).

Business

Response:

The patient was re-tested last year, at which point his/her injection

vials changed to a new formulation in response to the current testing results. There

were several new allergens added to the injection serum and several removed. The

patient had been receiving the new formula for approximately a year with few

problems when a systemic reaction occurred. The reaction was due to an

increased dose (Increased in line with set protocols). Once the reaction

occurred, the doctor informed the patient that the serum on the current

formulation (created after the retest) would be diluted (re-mixed) to previous

levels where there had been few problems (in accordance with set protocol). There

is a charge associated with this process. To achieve efficacy, Immunotherapy

needs to slowly increase the serum strength until it reaches a maximum. At that

point, the patient is put on a maintenance schedule to maintain a normal immune

response and prevent allergic reactions. The maintenance dosage does little to

build resistance to a new allergen. Thus, a return to the formulation previous

to the retest wouldn’t be providing any meaningful care as the patient was

already on a maintenance dose on the previous formulation. We believe this

matter to be a misunderstanding and we look forward to being able to help get

it resolved. It should also be noted that this misunderstanding was only

brought to our attention one week previous to the complaint being made. We were

still in the process of resolving the patient’s concerns.