Re: Rumor has it...
- From: clintonz@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 29 Apr 2005 14:28:42 -0700
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.
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.
> >
> > 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.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Rumor has it...
- From: Steven Bornfeld
- Re: Rumor has it...
- From: Joel M. Eichen
- Re: Rumor has it...
- References:
- Rumor has it...
- From: clintonz
- Re: Rumor has it...
- From: Steven Bornfeld
- Rumor has it...
- Prev by Date: Re: Rumor has it...
- Next by Date: Re: Rumor has it...
- Previous by thread: Re: Rumor has it...
- Next by thread: Re: Rumor has it...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|