Originally Posted by
Retired Doc
First post. I have followed this thread with great interest for years but have been unable to post until now because of my email being gmail. I am impressed with the depth of much of the content and I am grateful to the members who have contributed. With regard to the recent negatives surrounding the successful appeal of a health insurance plan** against recompensing for a Cxbladder test - this is typical insurance company behaviour but to my mind it is very short sighted as they are, seemingly, opting to stick with urine cytology, which should soon disappear into the mists of antiquity, and cystoscopy which possibly has a little advantage re its specificity cf Cxbladder. However cystoscopy as a procedure is loathed by patients - well certainly by all I have dealt with over the years - and is inconvenient and very importantly as has been pointed out is not particularly "Covid safe" vs Cxbladder.
I am not surprised that the AUA has not yet adopted Cxbladder as a guideline item as the widespread use of Cxbladder will be a major disrupter to urology and likely affect income stream significantly and this will also apply to privately funded hospitals- this being the majority in the US. Much better to have the revenue retained by a cystoscopy in your own system than to have it go to a third party lab......."follow the money."
I have a growing concern that PEB picked the wrong target in choosing the US as its main marketing objective. The US health "system" appears to be one of awful inconsistencies and does not give the impression of being patient centred overall. The other general concern is the apparent descent of the US to a dystopia and the chaos that may inflict on US healthcare. Sorry to bring in politics......
** Oxford is the insurance company who brought the appeal - the published customer reviews are not flattering!