Conference 7.286::digital

    
    	I believe the intent of getting the unbiased opinion is that since
    the second surgeon can't benefit financially from knowing that the
    surgery will not be done by him/her, he/she is more likely to give the
    "real" picture.
    
    	Yes, however, this does mean that you can't use that second surgeon
    without paying the 30% penalty.  If I found that the second surgeon was
    significantly better than the first one I talked to, I'd be tempted to
    go talk to a third or fourth to see how I like them.  (Really, to see
    if surgeon #1 was way below average or if #2 was way above average.)
    Just because you can't use #2 doesn't mean you can't use #3 or #4 or...
    
    								-craig

re: .0

That's sort of what I thought too, but think about it.  How often do you go
directly to a surgeon and have him determine that surgery is needed?  You
probably go to your family doctor and tell him your symptoms.  He will then
suspect that surgery is required and refer you to a surgeon.  If the surgeon
says, "Yep, it's gotta come out", you then get a second opinion.  Where is
the referral to the second opinion coming from?  Either the first surgeon
or the Yellow pages or a Medical directory, etc.  If you trust your family
doctor, there should be no problem with the first surgeon performing the
surgery.

If you really want the second surgeon to do the surgery, rather than pay the
30% penalty, why not just pay the first surgeons exam fee and never turn in
a claim for it.  Then, you could have the second surgeon be the first surgeon
as far as the insurance is concerned, and the exam fee is going to be a whole
lot less than the 30% penalty.  Disclaimer:  This might be interpreted as
insurance fraud in some states.

Another possibility would be to tell the second surgeon about the 30% penalty
and ask him if he will accept whatever the insurance pays as payment in full.
You would be surprised what they will accept.

Bob_whose_wife_negotiates_physician/surgeon_fees_as_a_part_of_her_job

    After reading the mailing John Hancock sent out, I interpreted it to
    mean that if you do want the 2nd surgeon to perform the surgery yet not
    get the 30% penalty, you are only required to get a 3rd opinion before
    any surgery is done.  Then you can choose the 1st or 2nd surgeon
    without any penalty.  If you want the 3rd surgeon to do the work,
    you'll need to get a 4th opinion.  In other words, whatever doctor you
    choose to do the surgery needs a "second opinion".  Am I interpreting
    this wrong???  Can someone from Human Resources write in to clear this
    all up?
    
    -Jill-

>    without any penalty.  If you want the 3rd surgeon to do the work,
>    you'll need to get a 4th opinion.  In other words, whatever doctor you
>    choose to do the surgery needs a "second opinion".  Am I interpreting
>    this wrong???  Can someone from Human Resources write in to clear this
>    all up?
    
That's the way it was explained to us.  It seems pretty wasteful.

Edie

    re .4:
    
>   That's the way it was explained to us.  It seems pretty wasteful.
    
    Only if you start going through strings of doctors, which doesn't seem
    too likely unless whoever you are getting references from is a real
    turkey.  Also, if you go to two different doctors and both say you
    need surgery, isn't either one usable as the "second opinion"?  Of
    course, if one says you need surgery and the other says you don't,
    then a tie breaker would be needed in any case.
    
    /Dave

    This just shows you where the *real* costs in health care are located:
    
    Surgery.

    I disagree about surgery being where the real costs are....I think it's
    in the insurance that doctor's must pay. The cost is just transferred
    to us. 
    
    

    If you like the second opinion Doctor better than the first, just go on
    and get a third opinion and give him/her the second opinion form. The
    whole idea is to prevent a rubber stamp by the second doctor just so he
    gets the $$$money. If you get three the same, I am sure rational minds
    coupled with selective ordering can get you the doctor of choice while
    still preserving the protection from unreasonable charges. I called
    John Hancock about this, they deferred to Digital personel. I called
    personnel, they told me to call John Hancock. I told them that I had
    already done that, and they said they would find out. Two days later
    they said that the third opinion Dr. getting the second opinion form
    was Ok with them.
    
    Gary