• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

This is why medical insurance should pay for LASIK...

D

DCal430

Diamond Member
or some other corrective eye surgery.

Long story short, I use contacts and a few months ago developed corneal ulcer due to contacts. I had to go to ER due to it because of extreme pain in my eye, and my vision became very blurry. The problem was fixed in time, but there is still minor scaring on the outer edge of the cornea. But overall everything is fine.

Now, yesterday I got the invoice my hospital sent to the insurance company, and what they had to pay. The amount my insurance company had to pay for the ER and subsequent treatments was close to 5K.

5K down the drain for the insurance company. If they had only paid for my LASIK, which would have been cheaper than 5K they shelled out, we would have all be better off. Instead they didn't cover corrective eye surgery and in the end my eye became cut and infected due to the contacts, costing all of use more.

Preventative care is best, and LASIK is preventative care.
 
100% agree with preventative care. You're luck you didn't go to a VA Hospital though, you wouldn't have eyeballs right now.
 
Funny thing is a week ago I got a letter asking if my eye injury was caused by a 3rd party, so they can get reimbursement from that party for their expenses. Had to tell them their was no 3rd party involved. Even if their was a 3rd party, I have no reason to tell them who.
 
Not everyone is a good candidate for Lasik.

Lasik has potential to cause problems later down the line. It's still inconclusive and would open a lot of liability concerns for insurance companies.

"LASIK is preventative care." ?? Never heard that before.
 
Insurance should also cover birth control, vasectomies, etc. 100%. It can only save them money in the long run.

Medical costs of 1 child >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20 years of birth control pills and a vasectomy
 
DCal430 said:
Funny thing is a week ago I got a letter asking if my eye injury was caused by a 3rd party, so they can get reimbursement from that party for their expenses. Had to tell them their was no 3rd party involved. Even if their was a 3rd party, I have no reason to tell them who.
Click to expand...

You should tell them that it was just them who caused the problem, by denying preventative care. 😛
 
You COULD have just paid the costs out of pocket...if you needed the LASIK and your insurance didn't cover it...YOU pay for it.
 
It depends on what kind of insurance you have.

My vasectomy was covered 100%. They correctly reasoned that it's a lot cheaper to cover that cost as compared to the cost of another child.

With regard to your situation about LASIK, I highly recommend that you contact your insurance company to see what they might be willing to do. I work for an insurance company and I know for a fact that we approve some procedures that would otherwise be denied depending upon individual circumstances. Never hurts to try, even if it is for the hundredth time.
 
The cheapest and easiest solution would have been to remain with eye glasses. (Not saying that glasses are cheap btw).

I'm sure it took a long time for insurance to finally cover a portion for contacts because they are long considered cosmetic. Higher maintenance and increase risk of eye infection just to name a couple issues with contacts.

Just as not everyone is a good candidate for Lasik, not everyone is a good candidate for contacts either.
 
Ricochet said:
The cheapest and easiest solution would have been to remain with eye glasses. (Not saying that glasses are cheap btw).

I'm sure it took a long time for insurance to finally cover a portion for contacts because they are long considered cosmetic. Higher maintenance and increase risk of eye infection just to name a couple issues with contacts.

Just as not everyone is a good candidate for Lasik, not everyone is a good candidate for contacts either.
Click to expand...

I have switched back to glasses per the ophthalmologist recommendation.
 
LASIK isn't preventative. It's functional cosmetic surgery. Nothing more. How many people have had issues with glasses in the hundreds of years of their use?
 
Just because it was beneficial in your case, doesn't mean it will be beneficial for others.

Insurance is a game of odds. If your case is 10% of all the cases, and the other 90% have no costs that the insurance company must bear, and your 10% amounts to $5,000, then on average, your situation is expected to cost them $500 for each patient.

They will only pay for preventative care if it's profitable to them - otherwise, if you have a better method, it's always your own choice to not get health insurance.

Edit: So if they bought everyone Lasik, that would be $2k/person versus $500 of expected costs for each patient. If the price of Lasik falls below the cost of not getting it, then it will be in their interest to buy it.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if you've worked through the math quite correctly. If *everyone* who wore contacts had the problem that you just experienced, then yes, it would be cheaper for the insurance company. But given the frequency of this problem, you could have died an agonizing, lingering death over the course of a month in the hospital, and it would still be cheaper for the insurance company not to cover Lasik.
 
LASIK is not without it's own set of complications possible.

In general glasses are the safest bet. I do contacts and glasses at times.

I am still not keen on LASIK, but have thought about it. Knowing people personally that have had no problems is good, but also knowing a couple that have issues (one has a dry eye and the other says it's hard to see now at night) is a bit too high of chance.

They both had their surgeries long ago though.
 
DrPizza said:
I'm not sure if you've worked through the math quite correctly. If *everyone* who wore contacts had the problem that you just experienced, then yes, it would be cheaper for the insurance company. But given the frequency of this problem, you could have died an agonizing, lingering death over the course of a month in the hospital, and it would still be cheaper for the insurance company not to cover Lasik.
Click to expand...

you can also bet that if everyone who wore contacts got that issue, insurance companies would not be covering the cost of contacts anymore. contacts would become elective and glasses the only coverable items.
 
LASIK is not even close to preventative care.

I'm pretty excited to see how much my insurance is about to shell out for my cornea transplant, though. I gots da expensive eyeballs. Only took us three months to get them to cover my $2000 contact and $400 fitting (I'm sure they ended up paying a quarter of that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top