Flick W G, Clayhold S
University of Illinois College of Dentistry, Chicago, USA.
Anesth Prog. 1998 Spring;45(2):57-61.
Many third-party payers try to deny benefits for dental sedation and general anesthesia. The term "not medically necessary" is often applied to these services by third-party payers. The label is poorly defined and varies from payer to payer. This paper uses original practitioner and patient opinion surveys to support the position that the definition of medical necessity is solely the joint responsibility of the patient and his/her physician. These surveys also support the argument that both patients and practitioners view dental sedation and general anesthesia as a medically necessary procedure if it allows a patient to complete a medically necessary surgical procedure that he/she might otherwise avoid.
许多第三方支付机构试图拒绝为牙科镇静和全身麻醉提供福利。第三方支付机构经常将“非医疗必需”这一术语应用于这些服务。该标签定义不明确,且因支付机构而异。本文通过原始的从业者和患者意见调查来支持这样一种观点,即医疗必要性的定义完全是患者及其医生的共同责任。这些调查还支持了这样一种观点,即如果牙科镇静和全身麻醉能使患者完成一项否则可能会避免的必要医疗手术,那么患者和从业者都将其视为一种必要的医疗程序。