Is it ethically wrong to bill an insurance company for an esthetic procedure when you remove a defective restoration? Or can we only bill for the replacement of the original filling?
Is it ethically wrong to bill an insurance company for an esthetic procedure when you remove a defective restoration? Or can we only bill for the replacement of the original filling?
You bill for the procedures you perform. If the insurance company doesn't agree, they simply won't pay for it. That's why it's so important to settle payment terms with your patients prior to beginning treatment. Absent evidence of insurance fraud, though, they won't spend the time or money necessary to take legal action against you.Thanks for the response. Take for instance a large amalgam which encompases the MB cusp of a first maxillary molar. In a perfect smile it can be seen in the buccal corridor. Say you replace that the amalgam with a composite because the patient wants it for esthetic reasons. Do you simply bill for the original amalgam or new cosmetic composite? The restoration could be arguably placed as a functional or cosmetic procedure. It just seems like some grey area that I would like to avoid in case any legal disputes were to ever arise with the insurance company.
Thanks for the response. Take for instance a large amalgam which encompases the MB cusp of a first maxillary molar. In a perfect smile it can be seen in the buccal corridor. Say you replace that the amalgam with a composite because the patient wants it for esthetic reasons. Do you simply bill for the original amalgam or new cosmetic composite? The restoration could be arguably placed as a functional or cosmetic procedure. It just seems like some grey area that I would like to avoid in case any legal disputes were to ever arise with the insurance company.
You bill for the procedures you perform. If the insurance company doesn't agree, they simply won't pay for it. That's why it's so important to settle payment terms with your patients prior to beginning treatment. Absent evidence of insurance fraud, though, they won't spend the time or money necessary to take legal action against you.
Incidentally, if you're replacing that restoration, it shouldn't be with a direct composite. Rebuilding an entire cusp is a lot to ask from a resin. Your patient would be much better off with an indirect restoration in the situation you're describing, if they elect to have the amalgam replaced.
Now to add even more confusion, with some insurance companies, and insome states, with the same scenario, you're allowed to bill the patient the extra $70 to reach your regular composite fee
Like Alaska? Which states? 100% reimbursement - that's where I want to practice!