NYS has not yet approved it tho the company has applied for it to be in NY.... I wonder if insurance would pay for it, if I go to another state....
In any case, do you know what your NT measurement was? Mine was 1.80 mm which was great njust waiting on the bloods, but doc made it seem useless to even look at the data.
Like I said before, your doctor might be right. I have come to this conclusion after finding some information on the net that I posted on another thread and I am quoting it again here to clarify what I mean.
As I was researching the Internet on the subject of the 1st trimester screening, I have come across the forum discussing the same issue and read the answer of a pregnant woman who was also a
Statistician. I am posting part of her answer (most relevant) below. She was replying to another lady who was worried about getting the high risk for the Down syndrome (1:47) based on her combined NT/blood testing. I found her explanation interesting and perhaps it will also help any of you understand things about prenatal screening.
"...I'm answering you as both, as a statistician and as a mother. Statistician's voice: The way the ''nuchal test'' is typically conducted in medical practices in the US these days is an unfortunate marriage between a relatively reliable and a very unprecise indicator. I can not see how these two very different things can, even half-resonably, be combined into one likelyhood:
(A) The measurement of the nucal fold taken during an ultrasound. If the measurement is above a certain threshold (2.5 if I remember well), this is a semi-quantitative (but relatively reliable) indicator for Down syndrome.
(B) A measurement of the concentration of a hormones released in pregnancy, and some other data. It has been observed that the concentrations of this hormon develop slightly differently when the fetus has Down syndrome (or other chromosomal problems, or spina bifida). A deviation from the typical curve can, but does not have to, be caused by Down syndrome or one of the other diseases. Unfortunately, the evaluation of the results is extremly sensitive to the estimated time of conception. The latter is estimated by the date of last period, or by ultrasound. Both methods are not precise enough to ensure the interpretation is even half reasonable.
I would encourage doctors to report their findings separately. Every woman who chooses to do this test should be reported the measurement from (A). She could then choose by herself if she wants to put any confidence in part (B) or not. In particular, if she already has reasons to belief that the date of conception (the doctors will talk about ''due date'' for the birth, actually) was well estimated. For example, if her cycle lengths are not the ''normal'' 28 days, if she's not sure about her date of last period, or if the dates based on the day of last period and the date based on ultrasound differ. I actually talked to the statistician in charge of the Californian program for screening for genetical diseases. He said that something like three days off the correct date of conception can completely falsify the results. Doctors and their assistents usually do not even know this, and go ahead to do a useless computation. The results they report to the women are probabilities of a precision that is misleading. I would like to see the standard errors for their computations. It would not be surprising to see: ''the probability your fetus has Down syndrome is, most likely, some number between 1/10 and 1/300''. What are you making out of this information?..."
And just to prove the point above and to answer your question, my NT measurements were 2.3 and 1.8 at 12w and 13w6d respectively, my combined risk came back as 1:9, but the baby is normal, as confirmed by MaterniT21. So, as you can see the U/S is a better predictor of the reality, but for those who need to know for sure, the diagnostic test of some sort will still be necessary.
I would insist on having it done if it is something you want, or request a second opinion!
If I find out, I will let you know. I am surprised that they don't have it in NY, unless you mean the state and not the NYC. It may be available in NYC and the cities of that size. (i.e. Phoenix, LA, etc.)
