Re: Rumor has it...



clintonz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: 
Steven Bornfeld wrote:

Just a couple of comments


clintonz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Which if any of the following statements are true:

1. Quackwatch, run by Stephen Barret is funded by the Aetna

I have not heard this. Can you provide some more 

information/references?


This is a rumor I heard. I can't verify that it is true/untrue
but I may get more information. I thought somebody here might
also know if this was true.



3. Some dental Boards are trying to take away the liscence
  of dentists who treat NICO or other types of jaw legions which
  , and may use the cavitat which costs big $$$ to Aetna



	I am unaware of any insurance company that actually would cover a
procedure known as "cavitat" per se.  Claims may of course be


submitted  for a similar osseous surgical procedure, and the
consultants of Aetna  or any other insurance carrier is within their
rights to question  reimbursement for any service outside the
particular service contract.  Therefore, I doubt very much in the
extreme that these procedures are

costing Aetna any astronomical sum.
	The dental boards of course are charged with regulating the standard


of

care, and may choose to take action against licensees they feel are
practicing outside the standard of care.  You may of course choose to


disagree with the standard of care. I may as well; but unlike you I 

do

at my peril.
	The issue as to whether insurance companies have undue influence on


the

standard as understood by state licensing bodies is a legitimate one
that I agree bears watching carefully.



I'm not sure that any Insurance companies ever cover the cavitat.
You are right, they probably don't. I think in at least few cases
procedures similar to cavitational surgery have been covered but in
many cases they don't cover it. However
if these are proven to valid diagnoses insurance companies could still
be sued, as was mentioned in the threads disscussing the Cavitat
lawsuit, for a number of reasons.

Of course, anyone can be sued for anything. However (and I'm not up to date on the case law here) liability for failure to provide coverage for any particular medical treatment is limited under ERISA. I know that there have been attempts to overturn the protections granted the insurance companies, but I'm not aware that any have succeeded.


More importantly though the dental boards seem to be targeting
dentists who do osteoncrosis/osteomyletis/cavitational surgery
mainly because the existence of these legions is not accepted
as possible without a positive x-ray, especially in non-acute
forms.

Dental boards will target unprofessional conduct--that is their job. We could argue as to whether cavitational surgery constitutes unprofessional conduct, but I won't. I have no reason to think the true believers are being other than totally sincere in their convictions.





4. The dental boards would like to assert that x-rays are 100%
  diagnostic and that root canals cannot become infected, using
  their power to investigate/harasses any dentist which disagrees
  with their stance on what is the most profitable procedure in
  dentistry


	Again, I would ask you to give evidence for this statement.  I have
never, NEVER heard any dentist (much less a dental board)claim that
x-rays are 100% accurate.

Steve 


In fact in practice this is true. Many oral surgeons are refusing to
treat patients with various jaw infections (shown to be present in
later surgies/biopsies) based on false negative x-rays, and dentists
who remove root canals that are not clearly infected according to
x-rays, (based on current accepted standards) are subject to attack by
state boards.

I don't want to mention any specifics but I will email you one
reference.

Refusing to treat based on lack of radiologic findings is very different from asserting that x-rays are 100% effective. Certainly it is accepted that diagnosis of intraosseous lesions based solely on radiographs frequently is difficult esp. when the cortical plates have been neither expanded nor perforated. Furthermore, biopsies are frequently done of intraosseous lesions. However, a surgeon should have some justification for performing osseous surgery. There should (in other words) be SOME evidence indicating surgical intervention is necessary--whether radiological or otherwise.

Steve




--
Cut the nonsense to reply

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cavitat/Aetna suit settled
    ... It was a confidential settlement, so even those who know its details ... "I heard that Aetna settled BIG with Bob Jones' Cavitat Case. ... look at cavitational osteopathosis, NICO, and "biological dentistry." ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Rumor has it...
    ... >> practicing outside the standard of care. ... > I'm not sure that any Insurance companies ever cover the cavitat. ... > dentists who do osteoncrosis/osteomyletis/cavitational surgery ... >> x-rays are 100% accurate. ...
    (sci.med.dentistry)
  • RICO NICO Colorado , NICO Man goes to Texas
    ... AETNA, INC. state as follows: ... Technologies, Inc. ("CAVITAT, Inc.") is a corporation ... that uses ultrasound technology to create a computer ... Plaintiffs received final FDA clearance on February ...
    (sci.med.dentistry)
  • Cavitat/Aetna suit settled
    ... Cavitat/Aetna suit settled. ... Cavitat Technologies. ... Cavitat had charged Aetna with acting ... The settlement terms are confidential, but the suit appears to have ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Tim Bolen on Aetna (Cavitat case)
    ... AETNA Loses Major Dental Case ... In August of 2004, a small manufacturer of medical devices, Cavitat ... Robert S. Baratz MD, DDS, PhD, the National Council Against Health ... to change the trial to as different Court. ...
    (sci.med.dentistry)