nellie wrote:Donnchadh---Thanks for the update. I know Dr. Cumming in Mpls. wrote in April patients were being denied but we haven't had an update since then. I think Dr. Sclafani had stated not long ago his patients had coverage with Medicare. I wonder if coding is the difference. If coding is not the difference I wonder why New York is different then Mpls. on coverage when it comes to Medicare. Does anyone know?
Cece wrote:Thanks for the update on Medicare, although I wish it were better news. Now we need a few randomized controlled studies to go our way.
I really object to the BCBS policy that stated this is CCSVI treatment for MS. What I received was CCSVI treatment for CCSVI. I had improved color vision before I left the OR, at the end of my first procedure. MS is a condition of inflammation and damaged nerves; it's not like those healed suddenly that afternoon. What was healed was the blood flow. My symptoms had been grouped as MS symptoms. But they turned out to be CCSVI syndrome symptoms instead.
1eye, yeah, if I knew someone who was being investigated for MS, I would strongly advise that they first get tested for CCSVI before they get the diagnosis of MS. There was no mention of MS on some claims that have been denied, which means that the insurance company is looking elsewhere in the patient's records for that diagnosis and using that to deny the claims.
Donnchadh, will you pay out-of-pocket for an ultrasound, or have you been doing well enough that you're not worried about restenosis?
Donnchadh wrote:I am curious to find out if the private medical insurance carriers will now follow Medicare's lead and also deny coverage? If yes, this would have the result of having CCSVI treatments come to a screeching halt, as only whose who can afford cash self-pay or included in a funded research project would be treated.
pklittle wrote:The diagnosis code for Multiple Sclerosis is 340. What is the diagnosis code for CCSVI?
There was no mention of MS on some claims that have been denied, which means that the insurance company is looking elsewhere in the patient's records for that diagnosis and using that to deny the claims.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users