Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jimkay21 t1_iyc2dt3 wrote

Reply to comment by plutothegreat in Common treatment for joint pain may be linked to faster arthritis progression, research suggests by SunCloud-777

Actually…your insurance provider won’t pay for a viscosupplement shot ($500+) until you have a cortisone shot ($10).

7

OskaMeijer t1_iyc3tt3 wrote

I find it absolutely absurd that insurance companies are able to override doctors and dictate medical treatment. Doctors actually went to school for medicine and are much more qualified to know what is needed, insurance should be barred from this practice, it should really be considered practicing medicine without a license.

19

EA888 t1_iycseon wrote

FWIW - insurance companies typically do base their decisions off of medical evidence/papers/science. I wanted to get a vicosupplement shot in my shoulder 5 years ago and insurance wouldn't cover it, but they would cover it if it was in my knee and not my shoulder.

Turns out there isn't great evidence for the shot working in a shoulder joint but there is evidence for it working in the knee. By evidence I mean an actual scientific paper/experiment that is run on the treatment that proves the treatment is effective.

I am sure there are plenty of business decisions that do come up though that a doctor should have more discretion over and not the insurance company.

2

themagicflutist t1_iycx95q wrote

My problem with insurance is that when everything proven fails, they still won’t pay for alternative treatments. Like what do they expect me to do at that point?

3

mokutou t1_iydmgnx wrote

They expect you to just go away. Honestly that’s why insurance will give the runaround on things. They hope you will get frustrated and give up.

3

themagicflutist t1_iydvao0 wrote

As if I have the option to give up! I guess they’d rather have me dead. Genuinely feels like they are trying to drive me to that sometimes.

2

EA888 t1_iycxmmf wrote

Most medical treatment is supposed to be backed by science. And from the insurance companies perspective, why would they pay for something that has no scientific evidence of working?

−1

ultraboof t1_iyd1q7f wrote

I agree mostly with your perspective here but I also see some bullshit cases of people having their doctor vouch that an operation is medically necessary and their insurance company begging to differ, it just sounds like they’re folding their arms and saying “nah” so they don’t have to pay out — shouldn’t it be like doctors notes for your employer, in that your doctor is trusted and qualified to make these kinds of decisions case-by-case?

3

themagicflutist t1_iydv49b wrote

I get it, but if there is any chance of it working, I’d appreciate it if they recognized that it is in their better interest (and mine!) than me having surgery every two years, or being on a ton of medication, or getting steroid shot after steroid shot.

2

Permit_Responsible t1_iyccd0a wrote

My insurance still won't pay for it even though I had a bad reaction to steroid injections. They claim the research doesn't support HA shots as being effective. Would cost me thousands out of pocket at a drs office.

5