Grace Ma, Peachtree Plastic Surgery, Atlanta was contracted (PAID) to perform liposuction of the abdomen and flanks. In recovery, Ma stated she'd removed 2-liters of fat from my abdomen and that I would be very pleased. At post-op, when questioned about the lack of results, Ma stated that it would be 6-months before results were noticeable. In the 2-month follow-up, when questioned about lack of results, Ma began her spiel for tummy tuck. At the time of this procedure, I was 6-years cancer-free from Stage 1A breast cancer; the surgical incision less than 1-inch above the areola. Capitalizing on my breast cancer history, Ma strongly recommended that she perform breast augmentation through fat transfer in conjunction with the liposuction procedure primarily to "reduce the hospital expenses" assessed by Piedmont Hospital. To further influence my decision, Ma shared that she is also a breast cancer survivor. Following the two-month follow-up I learned, through billing, that she charged me for BREAST RECONSTRUCTION.
M.S. Bailey (personal communication, January 8, 2016), Ma's attorney stated emphatically, "Dr. Ma in fact reconstructed your breast and her records and billing information reflect that fact. In no way will she change or alter her records". The insurance company stated that because Ma submitted a claim for a "covered expense", they had no recourse, despite the claims direct contradiction to facts of my breast surgery. Ironically, Ma is a preferred provider supposedly vetted by this insurance company. The facts are corroborated in the records of my breast surgeon, radiologist, gynecologist, primary physician, witness on day of surgery as well as by me the owner of the breast - I know my body much better than Grace Ma and her attorney. When confronted about the lack of veracity and gross malfeasance by herself and R. Scott, her office manager, Ma stated (personal communication, June 24, 2015),"As for the costs, I believe that the counsel we provided on how to handle the expenses was sound and resulted in the best net cost that was possible given the variables.''
Piedmont Medical Record (retrieved from Healthport, Sept 15, 2015) document no change following the procedure:
PREOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Abdominal and anterior flank lipodystrophy and left breast lumpectomy defect.
POSTOPERATIVE DIAGNOSIS: Abdominal and anterior flank lipodystrophy and left breast lumpectomy defect.
My reason for seeking the procedure included great discomfort from the simple task of bending to put on shoes, the fact that diet and exercise 3-7 days per week, thousands of dollars spent on diet equipment, body shapers, and waist trimmers, not working and just plain tired and disgusted by the ugly, disfiguring inner tube around my midsection.
Ma transcribed the below statement into the official Piedmont Medical record as the reason for the Initial Consult:
Patient is a healthy 57 year old nulliparous woman who is interested in liposuction of her abdomen and anterior flanks. She is not interested in an abdominoplasty because she says she has had several friends who had the procedure and all suffered from bad infections.
Below is the transcription describing the procedure:
A/P: Patient is a healthy 57 year old woman who has a large amount of lipodystrophy of the upper and lower abdomen. I feel she is an excellent candidate for liposuction of these areas, but am concerned that her skin will not retract. However, I explained that I do not feel she will obtain excellent results from an abdominoplasty at this time, either because of the large amount of supraumbilical lipodystrophy. She is here for large volume liposuction first, then abdominoplasty later if she needs it.
Following Piedmont's internal investigation, N. Brown (personal communication, June 7, 2016), Patient Relations Coordinator stated, "We have reviewed your medical bills and adjusted the hospital expenses." To date, I am yet to see a statement from Piedmont reflecting adjusted hospital expenses or an insurance adjustment for the date of service. Consults before and since, attest that to minimize risk, especially when the tumescent technique is used, general anesthesia is NOT used or warranted. Yet Piedmont's contracted anesthesiologist insisted that the procedure could only be done under general anesthesia; no other options. In my last consult, the practitioner thoroughly examined my abdomen and not one normal entry point was found however; the scar left from the cannula stuck in breast is exactly the size and shape of the four entry points expected for a proper tumescent abdominal liposuction procedure. read more
