>The receptionist informed that I cannot get in for a cleaning until
>February!
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>It shouldn't take a Ph.D. in economics to figure this out.
That's why I like the NHS. Not the dental arm of the NHS but the
doctor/hospital side. Priority is given on the basis of need. The
dental side of it has got too mixed up with private practice and the
money grabbing/greed side of people has been encouraged.
Ann
>The receptionist informed that I cannot get in for a cleaning until
>February!
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>twenty-dollar bills in front of the receptionist. It will take up the
>whole desk.
Sounds like you have experience with this!
>Let's say that you were to tell them that you needed a cleaning THIS
>WEEK and the whole two thousand bucks is theirs!
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>- dentaldoc
W_B - 21 Nov 2005 17:39 GMT
>>Let's say that you were to walk into that office with $2000 in cash.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Sounds like you have experience with this!
Has a standing appointment at the Bunny Ranch...
...so I hear.
--
W_B
Take out the G'RBAGE
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
>The receptionist informed that I cannot get in for a cleaning until
>February!
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
>- dentaldoc
No, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out.
However, it is not a matter of thousands of dollars, and it IS a
matter of the dentist living up to their end of a deal.
While you can argue that the dentist IS offering the cleaning (in
February), the fact is, that it is indeed not in a timely manner, and
there is an unwritten expectation that one should be able to get a
cleaning in a timely manner. I should think that I should be able to
get a cleaning - a 15-25 min. procedure - some time within a month.
Therefore he is not living up to his end of the deal, imho, and I
think this is morally wrong and reprehensible.
It seems to me the whole matter of "dental insurance" is a scam and
very dishonest, and that many - not all - of the dentists
participating in this scam are guilty of scamming their patients one
way or another.
It's one thing for a dentist to accept $2000 cash for a cleaning
before scheduling a "free" one, as in your scenario. Any fool would do
that. But it is another for him to basically avoid giving a free
cleaning to someone he has contracted to give one to, within a
reasonable amount of time.
People expect "dental insurance" to operate like medical insurance.
When I am sick I can usually get an appointment with a doctor within a
week even if the doctor is indundated with patients during flu season.
But dental "insurance" does not operate under the same principles as
medical insurance, and so the whole thing is basically dishonest. It
is SOLD as meeting certain expectations, yet those expectations are
not met. Even calling it "insurance" is really dishonest.
I'm just venting.
I'm going to complain about this to the dental group once I get my
crown done. (I don't want an angry dentist working on my crown - in
case he finds out I complained) After December I'm looking for a new
dentist and I'll let them know why (for all the good that will
do)(zip).
Steven Bornfeld - 20 Nov 2005 16:28 GMT
>>The receptionist informed that I cannot get in for a cleaning until
>>February!
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
> dentist and I'll let them know why (for all the good that will
> do)(zip).
While it is natural to be angry at the dentist for "not living up to
his end of the deal" (and I agree), it is really even worse than that.
Generally the insurance companies don't care (in fact they are aware of
the scamming and bait-and-switch that goes on) and are very unlikely to
strongly police these practices.
The "system" (such as it is) allows the insurance companies to maintain
a list of dentists, so they can sell these plans to employers. The
employers can show their concern for their employees by offering a
dental benefit. Everyone wins--except the patient.
These plans do not fit any real definition of insurance--you are quite
right.
Steve
JimSocal - 21 Nov 2005 05:56 GMT
> While it is natural to be angry at the dentist for "not living up to
>his end of the deal" (and I agree), it is really even worse than that.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Steve
I agree with everything you said.
W_B - 21 Nov 2005 17:59 GMT
>Everyone wins--except the patient.
...and the dentist.
--
W_B
Take out the G'RBAGE
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
Amatus Cremona - 21 Nov 2005 19:57 GMT
> ...and the dentist.
Unless it is a switch-and-bait office.

Signature
/
Amatus
/
>
>>Everyone wins--except the patient.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Take out the G'RBAGE
> wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
W_B - 21 Nov 2005 20:22 GMT
But is that really winning ?
>> ...and the dentist.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
>> W_B
--
W_B
Take out the G'RBAGE
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
Amatus Cremona - 21 Nov 2005 21:43 GMT
> But is that really winning ?
Those that I have spoken to say they make a lot of money with the
bait-and-switch deal.

Signature
/
Amatus
/
>
> But is that really winning ?
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Take out the G'RBAGE
> wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com
Bill - 20 Nov 2005 18:44 GMT
It's one thing for a dentist to accept $2000 cash for a cleaning
before scheduling a "free" one, as in your scenario. Any fool would do
that. But it is another for him to basically avoid giving a free
cleaning to someone he has contracted to give one to, within a
reasonable amount of time.
________________________________________
It's not really another thing. By scheduling the $2000 cleaning he has
to free up the time to do it. That will generally be done by avoiding a
"free" cleaning, which is a total loss to the dental office anyway.
If the capitation cleaning is a "free" cleaning, then the dentist
ALWAYS has an incentive to minimize the number of "free" cleanings
scheduled, and maximize the cleanings that actually bring in revenue to
pay the office expenses.
It doesn't matter whether he gets paid just $100, or a fanciful $2000
for the cleaning; either case is much better than a "free" cleaning.
So to paraphrase and agree with your comments above, any fool would
schedule a paid cleaning before doing the work for free.
You're absolutely right when you say:
"But dental "insurance" does not operate under the same principles as
medical insurance, and so the whole thing is basically dishonest. It
is SOLD as meeting certain expectations, yet those expectations are
not met. Even calling it "insurance" is really dishonest."
Agreed! As I have mentioned elsewhere, there is a big difference
between true insurance and a capitation dental plan.
Read the comments by Dr. Steven Bornfeld. He's right on target.
Best regards,
- dentaldoc
Amatus Cremona - 21 Nov 2005 19:56 GMT
> While you can argue that the dentist IS offering the cleaning (in
> February), the fact is, that it is indeed not in a timely manner, and
> there is an unwritten expectation that one should be able to get a
> cleaning in a timely manner. I should think that I should be able to
> get a cleaning - a 15-25 min. procedure - some time within a month.
The dental office has it figured out down to the last possible moment. They
review the HMO contract with a lawyer and determine exactly how far out they
can post-pone your "free" therapy without being in violation of the
contract. They schedule you as far out as possible, then never confirm your
appointment, plus they will certainly book someone else into the same slot.
Often they will book many HMO patients for the same slot 2-4 months away.
They figure if they book 5 people for the same appointment, one of them
might remember on their own and show up. The HMO system does not lend
itself to any reasonable level of care in the dental setting. Period . The
insurance company cannot say they are in violation of the contract if they
make the "free" appointment within the allotted time frame (even if it is on
the last day of that time-frame). The dental office is under _no_
obligation to confirm or remind you of your appointment. They need you to
forget about it. Many HMO offices will train the staff to never provide a
written confirmation of the time that is given to the patient, as this would
be proof that the appointment exists.

Signature
/
Amatus
/
>
>>The receptionist informed that I cannot get in for a cleaning until
[quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> dentist and I'll let them know why (for all the good that will
> do)(zip).
JimSocal - 22 Nov 2005 07:05 GMT
>insurance company cannot say they are in violation of the contract if they
>make the "free" appointment within the allotted time frame (even if it is on
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>written confirmation of the time that is given to the patient, as this would
>be proof that the appointment exists.
Just to clarify, mine is not an HMO dental contract, it is a Delta
PPO. And the office did actually call us to tell us we were due for an
appointment, back in OCT. but we were too busy and could not go, then
forgot about it (we just never made the appointment). I think this PPO
contract is big on the bait and switch approach to making money as
opposed to the not scheduling scam. They figure that they will get you
in there, find a cavity, and sell you up on something.
>It shouldn't take a Ph.D. in economics to figure this out.
>
>- dentaldoc
JimSoCal didn't even finish elementary school.
--
W_B
Take out the G'RBAGE
wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com