Re: Rumor has it...
- From: "Joel M. Eichen" <joeleichen@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:47:36 -0400
<clintonz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1114810122.454238.263040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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.
>
REPLY
Did you hear the rumor from the same
rumor mill that explained how amalgam poisons people?
Joel
>
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
.
- References:
- Rumor has it...
- From: clintonz
- Re: Rumor has it...
- From: Steven Bornfeld
- Re: Rumor has it...
- From: clintonz
- Rumor has it...
- Prev by Date: Re: Rumor has it...
- Next by Date: Re: Dentistry on eBay
- Previous by thread: Re: Rumor has it...
- Next by thread: Re: Rumor has it...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
