An ultrasound on one leg seems to cost around $1300 to $1500 in the NJ/DE area. At least that appears to be what my insurance company has been charged when I last looked. I have seen it as high as a bit over $2000 when both legs were done.

Emergency room visit ones seem to be substantial morecost. But that may just be a hospital or state difference. My emergency ones have always been in NJ. My scheduled ones take place in Delaware.

And there is even another option before you come off anticoagulation besides a doppler if you truly want even more information on the state of your veins -- that is a venogram. That is an expensive procedure and not all insurance will pay for it and not every patient would even want it because it can be viewed as invasive. But that truly does give your doctor the best view of what is going on.

I'm with Stephan in that I'm with she second group of thought. Better not to end up with a second clot and end up on life long anticouaglation. Also, just in general better not to have a second clot if it can be avoid. We all know a second clot doesn't just risk more damage to your leg veins, it risks a P.E., the thing that I have been lucky to avoid so far and I would like to keep it that way.

Makes sense except you're already at a risk for a second clot by the very nature of having your first clot, regardless of the second ultrasound.

Here's the thing about medical utilization that no one likes to talk about- it's one of the biggest factors in why health care costs are so high in the US. The more tests run (utilization), that increases costs that ultimately hit the consumer. So I don't care what medical program anyone has, whether it's an HMO, a PPO, or state/ country run program... the fact is, someone is paying for that, maybe not up front, maybe not immediately, maybe not the patient directly, but those costs are spread about and then we all pay.

One of the biggest factors in increased health care costs is over testing. There's something called "defensive medicine" which is ordering redundant or unnecessary tests and procedures. Many doctors do this to protect themselves from malpractice.

So I think it makes more sense to really drill down to the actual benefit of the test. I'm not saying no one should have a second test, but I'm definitely not advocating everyone have a second test. That makes no sense medically, or monetarily. It should be on a case by case basis. determined by a person's individual situation.

Full disclosure, I work in the health care regulatory industry.

rmb, yes, you are right that the biggest risk factor of the second DVT is a previous DVT, but not much can be done about that, unless you have the time machine and travel back in time before you noticed the symptoms to take some preventive measures. The question is thus whether to evaluate the risk of other factors for DVT recurrence should be evaluated or not.

Is the cost of a ultrasound of one leg over $1000 !!!! I had one here in Spain and I think they cost less than $150 (calculated from euros) and the sonographer is very good. $1000 for a simple procedure like an ultrasound is extremely high!!!!.Maybe I should become a sonographer in US and become rich. No wonder that people think twice about the necessity of having an ultraound because of financial reason in the US. Personally, I would never pay over $1000 for an ultraound unless it was considered so urgent that my life and limbs were at stake....

Remember, most insurance covers a portion of that so it's not necessarily a $1000 out of your own pocket. Also, we pay radiologist to read those ultrasound results so that's a cost as well that goes beyond the ultrasound tech charges. But ultimately costs gets spread out and affect everyone. Doctors fork out so much money in malpractice protection and law suits here. That's part of why things cost so much, to supplement that. Also, new technology and new medication s a major cost point as well.

Frankly, I've had excellent care here in the US, and I'll gladly pay for things that I need to have done, that are medically necessary. And I'll find the best doctors to do it. I have the luxury of choice and access in that matter . It's the stuff I feel I don't need to have done that I put my foot down about and it's not always about my personal cost but what that does to the medical system overall, and of course, what I think makes sense to have done or not have done. Imagine 100s of patients having ultrasounds that aren't needed every day in a particular state? The insurance companies don't get rich off that. Yes they are a part of the equation, but ultimately, they're paying the providers.

Anyway, sometime, over drinks, I'd love to give everyone a primer in how insurance and medical care actually works, not how people imagine it works. The reason for the drinks is so people wouldn't be bored to death, ha ha!

I wear them all the time as they help a lot. I did take a few days off from wearing them and noticed the big toe on both feet got a purple color to them. Once I went and out stocking back on the color change disappeared. As much as I am ready for summer after the winter we have had here in NH I can tell you this when I wear shorts I will NOT be wearing my stockings. With pants on no one can tell you have them on but with shorts you get some really strange looks from people. I am far from caring what people think or say but the looks you get are horrid.

Yeah it's not fun wearing them with shorts. I only wear them when I need to and honestly, I don't wear them in the summer. I find them really uncomfortable. But for some people, they really suffer when the don't wear their stockings daily. I have 30-40 compression and they really are ugly. I wear tights over mine in the winter so I can wear them with dresses and skirts to work. Summer... I just suck up the swelling and discomfort and go bare legged.