>When a recommendation like this is made
>to me on general preventative grounds,
>I tend to factor in the implicit opinion
>of the insurance company that the benefits
>are dubious. Am I justified in so doing?
You are justified in suspecting that your
insurance company limits benefits and does
not really know or care about your individual
dental health. If you base your care on what
the dental insurance pays for, you could be in
very big trouble.
I would suspect there is some reason that the
dental office would make this recommendation
(other than financial gain). Are you diabetic?
Do you smoke? Have you had gumline cavities?
Do you take medications that dry your mouth?
Do you have crowns and bridges that would be
difficult and expensive to remake?
The right dental office is trying to save your
teeth, and in the long run, save you money. The
insurance company has only one motive. That is
to make money for the insurance company.
Dartos
Morrie the mailBoy enquires:
(apparently juicy details like this are
recorded). So she recommended that I use
Prevident. This also is not covered by
insurance.
------------------------
You want, we should, maybe, have you sign a waiver every time we make
recommendations and youse decide to be *wise* and let it slide;
thinking that it is just slick marketing?....
....eh?......
Fine... but if youse are developing root caries, or have hard-to-reach
caries, you would not then be able to blame the PTBarnum clinic,
claiming they failed to inform youse.
You know; you _don't_ have to buy it from _them_... Your pharmacist of
choice will have it. 1.1pc Fluoride is technically prescription
strength, and so it will be behind the counter, right beside the
Nicorette Gum, and the Thorazine. Just ask with a smile.
Youse can look it up for yourself: Google Prevident; it should take you
to a Colgate page where you can look and decide for yourself. Also
check out its little sister: Gel-Kam.
Just my chicken scratchin's
SP
mailbox@cpacker.org - 14 Nov 2005 12:36 GMT
> Morrie the mailBoy enquires:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> recommendations and youse decide to be *wise* and let it slide;
> thinking that it is just slick marketing?....
No, when one hygenist suggests something
that the other hasn't, I think that's
not a consensus. And dentistry's an
art, not a science, right? In that
kind of situation, what the insurance
company will support or not support
shouldn't be ignored. At least that's
how it looks from the consumer side.
--
mailbox@cpacker.org (Charles Packer)
(spoken as: mailboxATcpacker.org)
http://cpacker.org/whatnews
Dartos - 14 Nov 2005 20:07 GMT
Insurance companies write contracts. What
they will cover is in the contract. Anything
not in the contract is not covered.
This can include many different items. Some
may be scientifically valid and some are not.
For a person with a few fillings, brushing
with a fluoride gel may have limited benefits.
What the heck if after a year or two there is
one more small cavity. $100 and they are fine.
For a patient with bridges and crowns, 'one
little cavity' can be disasterous. Instead
of $100 and you're good as new, it's $1-3K
for remaking a crown or bridge.
Roll the dice as you see fit.
Dartos
> No, when one hygenist suggests something
> that the other hasn't, I think that's
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> shouldn't be ignored. At least that's
> how it looks from the consumer side.