Re: State Insurance Review in NY state

[Guest guest]

Have you found a doc in NY who is willing to do IV

chelation? I queried east coast colleagues about this

issue: Though this reply does not help you much, it

is interesting and worrisome for all of us docs doing

chelation (because the more kids get better on

chelation the more obvious it is that mercury

poisoning is a probable cause of their autism). You

do need to check if the doc would still do it if you

go to the state examiner.

" The statement " given us the option to have a state

examiner review the treatments " is bad, bad, bad. The

insurance company is hoping the parents say " yes " so

that the company can then file a complaint against the

state medical board against the medical provider

performing the chelation. It is a trick that insurance

companies use to get out of paying for things they

consider " quackary " , and also a tactic they use to

file a complaint against the state medical board

against the " quack " . I hear of patients sometimes

getting IV chelation paid for, and I sometimes cringe,

because I know at some point the insurance company is

going to (maybe) look at that

provider and try to " take them out " .

As an aside, if the NIH chelation study turns out to

be a negative study (which it might, due to various

reasons that have been previously mentioned), then it

is going to put even more pressure on us to stop

doing chelation. If it turns out to be a negative

study, it would have been better if it had never been

done! "

--- worryfree wrote:

> Our insurance co has denied IV chelation treatments

> on grounds that it is

> experimental. They have given us the option to have

> a state examiner review

> the treatments. We have spent over 50k in

> treatments and we don't know

> whether this will be favorably reviewed. Can

> someone with the same

> experience in NY state or elsewhere provide us some

> guidance and tips. We

> would be grateful for any advice.

>

>

>

> AJ

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>