> It wouldn’t just be covered as screening (since it was an incident rather than preventive at that point). She said it was better just to get the colonoscopy due to health insurer rules.
Well yeah...it isn't screening then. It's a treatment. So the question becomes whether or not the treatment is necessary. If the prior "screening" didn't show definitive evidence that the treatment is necessary, then...what are you doing, exactly?
I understand that colonoscopies mix up the notion of treatment and screening, but the doctor is basically saying "our screening tests don't work very well, so we should just do the treatment without evidence because they'll pay for that."
Well yeah...it isn't screening then. It's a treatment. So the question becomes whether or not the treatment is necessary. If the prior "screening" didn't show definitive evidence that the treatment is necessary, then...what are you doing, exactly?
I understand that colonoscopies mix up the notion of treatment and screening, but the doctor is basically saying "our screening tests don't work very well, so we should just do the treatment without evidence because they'll pay for that."