Docality.com Logo
 
Dr. Johannes  Blom  Md image

Dr. Johannes Blom Md

3702 Washington St Suite 202
Hollywood FL 33021
954 646-6114
Medical School: Boston University School Of Medicine - 1991
Accepts Medicare: Yes
Participates In eRX: No
Participates In PQRS: No
Participates In EHR: No
License #: ME94285
NPI: 1184654519
Taxonomy Codes:
207XS0114X

Request Appointment Information

Awards & Recognitions

About Us

Practice Philosophy

Conditions

Dr. Johannes Blom is associated with these group practices

Procedure Pricing

HCPCS Code Description Average Price Average Price
Allowed By Medicare
HCPCS Code:99223 Description:Initial hospital care Average Price:$696.08 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$207.65
HCPCS Code:J7324 Description:Orthovisc inj per dose Average Price:$502.79 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$167.55
HCPCS Code:99204 Description:Office/outpatient visit new Average Price:$502.83 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$171.92
HCPCS Code:76942 Description:Echo guide for biopsy Average Price:$460.18 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$217.45
HCPCS Code:99203 Description:Office/outpatient visit new Average Price:$320.41 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$112.38
HCPCS Code:99214 Description:Office/outpatient visit est Average Price:$313.24 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$110.03
HCPCS Code:97001 Description:Pt evaluation Average Price:$268.39 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$76.77
HCPCS Code:76000 Description:Fluoroscope examination Average Price:$196.33 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$8.92
HCPCS Code:76881 Description:Us xtr non-vasc complete Average Price:$300.00 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$129.99
HCPCS Code:20610 Description:Drain/inject joint/bursa Average Price:$218.18 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$73.64
HCPCS Code:99213 Description:Office/outpatient visit est Average Price:$202.19 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$74.51
HCPCS Code:G0180 Description:MD certification HHA patient Average Price:$172.33 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$55.39
HCPCS Code:73564 Description:X-ray exam knee 4 or more Average Price:$142.20 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$46.93
HCPCS Code:73510 Description:X-ray exam of hip Average Price:$127.29 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$34.74
HCPCS Code:97150 Description:Group therapeutic procedures Average Price:$110.85 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$19.45
HCPCS Code:72040 Description:X-ray exam of neck spine Average Price:$127.48 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$43.46
HCPCS Code:72100 Description:X-ray exam of lower spine Average Price:$123.32 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$40.53
HCPCS Code:73562 Description:X-ray exam of knee 3 Average Price:$116.93 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$36.26
HCPCS Code:20552 Description:Inj trigger point 1/2 muscl Average Price:$136.50 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$57.41
HCPCS Code:73110 Description:X-ray exam of wrist Average Price:$116.16 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$38.28
HCPCS Code:73080 Description:X-ray exam of elbow Average Price:$112.45 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$34.97
HCPCS Code:97110 Description:Therapeutic exercises Average Price:$106.47 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$29.03
HCPCS Code:97112 Description:Neuromuscular reeducation Average Price:$109.20 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$32.05
HCPCS Code:73610 Description:X-ray exam of ankle Average Price:$105.27 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$33.20
HCPCS Code:97535 Description:Self care mngment training Average Price:$102.38 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$32.36
HCPCS Code:97140 Description:Manual therapy Average Price:$95.47 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$26.66
HCPCS Code:73630 Description:X-ray exam of foot Average Price:$101.73 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$33.25
HCPCS Code:73030 Description:X-ray exam of shoulder Average Price:$101.04 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$33.38
HCPCS Code:97116 Description:Gait training therapy Average Price:$91.76 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$25.30
HCPCS Code:73130 Description:X-ray exam of hand Average Price:$97.17 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$31.13
HCPCS Code:73560 Description:X-ray exam of knee 1 or 2 Average Price:$99.19 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$33.16
HCPCS Code:73550 Description:X-ray exam of thigh Average Price:$96.32 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$31.74
HCPCS Code:72170 Description:X-ray exam of pelvis Average Price:$88.75 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$27.69
HCPCS Code:73500 Description:X-ray exam of hip Average Price:$89.21 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$28.37
HCPCS Code:G0283 Description:Elec stim other than wound Average Price:$44.84 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$12.53
HCPCS Code:J0702 Description:Betamethasone acet&sod phosp Average Price:$19.73 Average Price Allowed
By Medicare:
$5.54

HCPCS Code Definitions

73610
Radiologic examination, ankle; complete, minimum of 3 views
97150
Therapeutic procedure(s), group (2 or more individuals)
97535
Self-care/home management training (eg, activities of daily living (ADL) and compensatory training, meal preparation, safety procedures, and instructions in use of assistive technology devices/adaptive equipment) direct one-on-one contact, each 15 minutes
99203
Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these 3 key components: A detailed history; A detailed examination; Medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate severity. Typically, 30 minutes are spent face-to-face with the patient and/or family.
99214
Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least 2 of these 3 key components: A detailed history; A detailed examination; Medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Typically, 25 minutes are spent face-to-face with the patient and/or family.
73550
Radiologic examination, femur, 2 views
72100
Radiologic examination, spine, lumbosacral; 2 or 3 views
97112
Therapeutic procedure, 1 or more areas, each 15 minutes; neuromuscular reeducation of movement, balance, coordination, kinesthetic sense, posture, and/or proprioception for sitting and/or standing activities
20610
Arthrocentesis, aspiration and/or injection; major joint or bursa (eg, shoulder, hip, knee joint, subacromial bursa)
20552
Injection(s); single or multiple trigger point(s), 1 or 2 muscle(s)
72040
Radiologic examination, spine, cervical; 2 or 3 views
76000
Fluoroscopy (separate procedure), up to 1 hour physician or other qualified health care professional time, other than 71023 or 71034 (eg, cardiac fluoroscopy)
97110
Therapeutic procedure, 1 or more areas, each 15 minutes; therapeutic exercises to develop strength and endurance, range of motion and flexibility
76942
Ultrasonic guidance for needle placement (eg, biopsy, aspiration, injection, localization device), imaging supervision and interpretation
76881
Ultrasound, extremity, nonvascular, real-time with image documentation; complete
73110
Radiologic examination, wrist; complete, minimum of 3 views
73130
Radiologic examination, hand; minimum of 3 views
73630
Radiologic examination, foot; complete, minimum of 3 views
73030
Radiologic examination, shoulder; complete, minimum of 2 views
73080
Radiologic examination, elbow; complete, minimum of 3 views
97001
Physical therapy evaluation
72170
Radiologic examination, pelvis; 1 or 2 views
J0702
Injection, betamethasone acetate 3mg and betamethasone sodium phosphate 3mg
73562
Radiologic examination, knee; 3 views
J7324
Hyaluronan or derivative, orthovisc, for intra-articular injection, per dose
73560
Radiologic examination, knee; 1 or 2 views
G0180
Physician certification for medicare-covered home health services under a home health plan of care (patient not present), including contacts with home health agency and review of reports of patient status required by physicians to affirm the initial implementation of the plan of care that meets patient's needs, per certification period
73500
Radiologic examination, hip, unilateral; 1 view
G0283
Electrical stimulation (unattended), to one or more areas for indication(s) other than wound care, as part of a therapy plan of care
99223
Initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive examination; and Medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the problem(s) requiring admission are of high severity. Typically, 70 minutes are spent at the bedside and on the patient's hospital floor or unit.
99204
Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these 3 key components: A comprehensive history; A comprehensive examination; Medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Typically, 45 minutes are spent face-to-face with the patient and/or family.
99213
Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least 2 of these 3 key components: An expanded problem focused history; An expanded problem focused examination; Medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and coordination of care with other physicians, other qualified health care professionals, or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. Typically, 15 minutes are spent face-to-face with the patient and/or family.
97140
Manual therapy techniques (eg, mobilization/ manipulation, manual lymphatic drainage, manual traction), 1 or more regions, each 15 minutes
73564
Radiologic examination, knee; complete, 4 or more views
73510
Radiologic examination, hip, unilateral; complete, minimum of 2 views
97116
Therapeutic procedure, 1 or more areas, each 15 minutes; gait training (includes stair climbing)

Medical Malpractice Cases

None Found

Medical Board Sanctions

None Found

Referrals

NPI
Doctor Name
Specialty
Count
1881700615
Internal Medicine
951
1043266703
Cardiovascular Disease (Cardiology)
801
1740221845
Cardiovascular Disease (Cardiology)
751
1811923352
Internal Medicine
614
1861448532
Cardiovascular Disease (Cardiology)
613
1154360485
Cardiovascular Disease (Cardiology)
535
1194728287
Diagnostic Radiology
515
1518904382
Cardiovascular Disease (Cardiology)
509
1932112661
Endocrinology
493
1497861215
Internal Medicine
473
*These referrals represent the top 10 that Dr. Blom has made to other doctors

Publications

Participation rates for organized colorectal cancer screening programmes: an international comparison. - Journal of medical screening
Participation, an indicator of screening programme acceptance and effectiveness, varies widely in clinical trials and population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes. We aimed to assess whether CRC screening participation rates can be compared across organized guaiac fecal occult blood test (G-FOBT)/fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based programmes, and what factors influence these rates.Programme representatives from countries participating in the International Cancer Screening Network were surveyed to describe their G-FOBT/FIT-based CRC screening programmes, how screening participation is defined and measured, and to provide participation data for their most recent completed screening round.Information was obtained from 15 programmes in 12 countries. Programmes varied in size, reach, maturity, target age groups, exclusions, type of test kit, method of providing test kits and use, and frequency of reminders. Coverage by invitation ranged from 30-100%, coverage by the screening programme from 7-67.7%, overall uptake/participation rate from 7-67.7%, and first invitation participation from 7-64.3%. Participation rates generally increased with age and were higher among women than men and for subsequent compared with first invitation participation.Comparisons among CRC screening programmes should be made cautiously, given differences in organization, target populations, and interpretation of indicators. More meaningful comparisons are possible if rates are calculated across a uniform age range, by gender, and separately for people invited for the first time vs. previously.© The Author(s) 2015.
Five-year experience of organized colorectal cancer screening in a Swedish population - increased compliance with age, female gender, and subsequent screening round. - Journal of medical screening
To evaluate compliance by age, gender, and screening round in the population based Stockholm/Gotland colorectal cancer screening programme.All individuals aged between 60 and 69 living in the counties of Stockholm and Gotland (Sweden) have, since 2008, successively been included in a colorectal cancer screening programme using biennial faecal occult blood tests (Hemoccult®). Personal invitations including test kits have been sent to home addresses, and individuals with a positive test result have been called to a defined clinic for an assessment colonoscopy. Descriptive statistics have been used to evaluate different aspects of compliance.Over the five-year period 2008-2012, more than 200,000 individuals from nine different birth cohorts have been invited, with a compliance rate of approximately 60%, which increased by age, female gender, and subsequent screening round. In total, 4,300 individuals (2.1%) with positive tests were referred to assessment colonoscopy, where 213 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. The compliance with the follow-up colonoscopies varied by year, and ranged from 85.6-92.4%.The strong organization of the programme contributed to a high compliance rate, that increased by screening round. The lower participation rate among men and among individuals at younger ages needs further attention.© The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.
Sorting out measures and definitions of screening participation to improve comparability: the example of colorectal cancer. - European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)
Participation is a key indicator of the potential effectiveness of any population-based intervention. Defining, measuring and reporting participation in cancer screening programmes has become more heterogeneous as the number and diversity of interventions have increased, and the purposes of this benchmarking parameter have broadened. This study, centred on colorectal cancer, addresses current issues that affect the increasingly complex task of comparing screening participation across settings. Reports from programmes with a defined target population and active invitation scheme, published between 2005 and 2012, were reviewed. Differences in defining and measuring participation were identified and quantified, and participation indicators were grouped by aims of measure and temporal dimensions. We found that consistent terminology, clear and complete reporting of participation definition and systematic documentation of coverage by invitation were lacking. Further, adherence to definitions proposed in the 2010 European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Cancer Screening was suboptimal. Ineligible individuals represented 1% to 15% of invitations, and variable criteria for ineligibility yielded differences in participation estimates that could obscure the interpretation of colorectal cancer screening participation internationally. Excluding ineligible individuals from the reference population enhances comparability of participation measures. Standardised measures of cumulative participation to compare screening protocols with different intervals and inclusion of time since invitation in definitions are urgently needed to improve international comparability of colorectal cancer screening participation. Recommendations to improve comparability of participation indicators in cancer screening interventions are made.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A 9-year follow-up study of participants and nonparticipants in sigmoidoscopy screening: importance of self-selection. - Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology
Self-selection may compromise cost-effectiveness of screening programs. We hypothesized that nonparticipants have generally higher morbidity and mortality than participants.A Swedish population-based random sample of 1,986 subjects ages 59 to 61 years was invited to sigmoidoscopy screening and followed up for 9 years by means of multiple record linkages to health and population registers. Gender-adjusted cancer incidence rate ratio (IRR) and overall and disease group-specific and mortality rate ratio (MRR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated for nonparticipants relative to participants. Cancer and mortality rates were also estimated relative to the age-matched, gender-matched, and calendar period-matched Swedish population using standardized incidence ratios and standardized mortality ratios.Thirty-nine percent participated. The incidence of colorectal cancer (IRR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8-5.9), other gastrointestinal cancer (IRR, 2.7; 95% CI, 0.6-12.8), lung cancer (IRR, 2.2; 95% CI, 0.8-5.9), and smoking-related cancer overall (IRR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.7-2.5) tended to be increased among nonparticipants relative to participants. Standardized incidence ratios for most of the studied cancers tended to be >1.0 among nonparticipants and <1.0 among participants. Mortality from all causes (MRR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-3.4), neoplastic diseases (MRR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5), gastrointestinal cancer (MRR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.1-20.7), and circulatory diseases (MRR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.2) was significantly higher among nonparticipants than among participants. Standardized mortality ratio for the studied outcomes tended to be increased among nonparticipants and was generally decreased among participants.Individuals who might benefit most from screening are overrepresented among nonparticipants. This self-selection may attenuate the cost-effectiveness of screening programs on a population level.
Toward understanding nonparticipation in sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer. - International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer
Understanding the reasons for nonparticipation in cancer screening may give clues about how to improve compliance. However, limited cooperation has hampered research on nonparticipant profiles. We took advantage of Sweden's comprehensive demographic and health care registers to investigate characteristics of all participants and nonparticipants in a pilot program for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy. A population-based sample of 1986 Swedish residents 59-61 years old was invited. Registers provided information on each individual's gender, country of birth, marital status, education, income, hospital contacts, place of residence, distance to screening center and cancer within the family. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), modeled with multivariable logistic regression, estimated the independent associations between each background factor and the propensity for nonparticipation after control for the effects of other factors. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Being male (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.03-1.57, relative to female), unmarried or divorced (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.23-2.30 and OR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.14-1.95, respectively, relative to married) and having an income in the lowest tertile (OR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.27-2.23, relative to highest tertile) was associated with increased nonparticipation. Living in the countryside or in small communities and having a documented family history of colorectal cancer was associated with better participation. Distance to the screening center did not significantly affect participation, nor did recent hospital care consumption or immigrant status. To increase compliance, invitations must appeal to men, unmarried or divorced people and people with low socioeconomic status.(c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Real-time computation of a patient's respiratory effort during ventilation. - Journal of clinical monitoring and computing
In this paper, a new algorithm is proposed to compute the spontaneously generated respiratory effort during ventilation.The algorithm computes a ventilated patient's respiratory effort in real-time by analyzing the respiratory pressure and flow signals that are acquired from the ventilator. The method requires an initial period where the patient's respiratory muscles are fully relaxed, for example during or shortly after surgery. During this period the patient's inspiratory airway resistance R(in), the expiratory airway resistance R(ex), the lung-thorax compliance C(lt) and the residual pressure after an infinitely long expiration P(0) are estimated by fitting the measured flow onto the measured pressure at the mouth using a model of the patient's respiratory system. When the patient starts breathing, the relation between the measured pressure and the flow changes, from which the respiratory effort of the patient P(mus) can be computed.The pressure P(mus) can be computed in real-time by using an equivalent model of the respiratory system of the patient. The estimation can be done with a recursive least squares (RLS) method. Further, the resulting P(mus) signal appears to have a constant shape, in which the main changing factor is the maximum amplitude per breath.The respiratory effort increases over time until the patient is disconnected from the ventilator. We hope the maximum amplitude can be used as an indicator of the pressure the muscles of the patient are able to produce. This amplitude of the (mus)-signal in combination with the standard deviation (SD) may eventually lead to a new indicator to determine the moment that the patient can be weaned from the ventilator. This will have to be examined in the future.
Approaches for creating computer-interpretable guidelines that facilitate decision support. - Artificial intelligence in medicine
During the last decade, studies have shown the benefits of using clinical guidelines in the practice of medicine. Although the importance of these guidelines is widely recognized, health care organizations typically pay more attention to guideline development than to guideline implementation for routine use in daily care. However, studies have shown that clinicians are often not familiar with written guidelines and do not apply them appropriately during the actual care process. Implementing guidelines in computer-based decision support systems promises to improve the acceptance and application of guidelines in daily practice because the actions and observations of health care workers are monitored and advice is generated whenever a guideline is not followed. Such implementations are increasingly applied in diverse areas such as policy development, utilization management, education, clinical trials, and workflow facilitation. Many parties are developing computer-based guidelines as well as decision support systems that incorporate these guidelines. This paper reviews generic approaches for developing and implementing computer-based guidelines that facilitate decision support. It addresses guideline representation, acquisition, verification and execution aspects. The paper describes five approaches (the Arden Syntax, GuideLine Interchange Format (GLIF), PROforma, Asbru and EON), after the approaches are compared and discussed.

Map & Directions

3702 Washington St Suite 202 Hollywood, FL 33021
View Directions In Google Maps

Nearby Doctors

3801 Hollywood Blvd Suite 250
Hollywood, FL 33021
954 618-8303
3363 Sheridan St Suite #210
Hollywood, FL 33021
954 874-4100
5351 Sheridan St
Hollywood, FL 33021
954 638-8282
4700 K Sheridan St
Hollywood, FL 33021
954 620-0040
3220 Stirling Rd Suite 103
Hollywood, FL 33021
954 660-0404
3501 Johnson St
Hollywood, FL 33021
954 872-2000
3501 Johnson St Memorial Regional Hospital Dept Critical Care
Hollywood, FL 33021
954 659-9976
4350 Sheridan St Suite 201D
Hollywood, FL 33021
954 810-0012
3501 Johnson St
Hollywood, FL 33021
954 733-3793
1051 N 35Th Ave Ste 202
Hollywood, FL 33021
954 633-3535