mexico or deal with insurance company

[Kat1969 3]

hi everyone i am considering vsg i dont know if i want to deal with all the hoops and time that i am sure my insurance company is gonna try and put me through to get approved when i can get it done in mexico for 5k has anyone had a bad experience in mexico from everything have read so far on here everyone says what a good experience they had i have aways said i would never go to mexico for a medical procedure. my husband is in the medical filed and is not happy about me even considering mexico.

[enigma_007 95]

hi everyone i am considering vsg i dont know if i want to deal with all the hoops and time that i am sure my insurance company is gonna try and put me through to get approved when i can get it done in mexico for 5k has anyone had a bad experience in mexico from everything have read so far on here everyone says what a good experience they had i have aways said i would never go to mexico for a medical procedure. my husband is in the medical filed and is not happy about me even considering mexico.

I think, personally i wouldnt want to get it done in mexico if the option to get it done here is available. Im going through the insurance hoops currently. Its frustrated having to wait so long but honestly it has prepared me mentally and physically. This is not something i would want to jump right into. Another aspect to think abt is the after care. Having ur surgeon and his team here for u after surgery is a big help. I have read stories from.ppl who have done it in mexico who flet a lil lost after surgery. I kno not every doc in mexico is the same, but this is something that ive come across. And god forbid any complications occur its good to have the surgeon who operated close by. This is just my opinion. I would only choose to do it in mexico if there was no other optiom bc it is much cheaper there when u r paying out of pocket.

Sent from my SM-G950U using BariatricPal mobile app

[Ldyvenus 317]

I got my VSG done in Puerto Vallarta. Everything went well. But, I chose this route after first looking into what my options were in Canada. I wish I had more prep before I got the surgery, everything I know came from internet research.

This surgery is not a quick fix, you have to learn how to make lasting lifestyle changes and deal with any mental/emotional issues that come up when all you can do is drink your calories for the first few weeks. I highly recommend jumping through the hoops before you consider Mexico.

[bellabloom 2,467]

I would definitely consider Mexico. Tijuanna has a top notch facility dedicated to bariatric and plastic surgery only. Just remember if you have a complication like with your gallbladder for example, you might have to return. Although your insurance here will likely cover gallbladder stones.

Mexico is a great choice.

[Brandeis 401]

The "hoops" aren't that bad, in most places -- and are there as much to protect you as to protect the insurance companies. They're there to make sure you know what you're getting into, and what to expect afterward, and how to make the most of the sleeve you're getting.

Cutting corners NOW isn't a good sign for your future, in my opinion. If you have no other choice, then I can completely understand going to Mexico, you do you! But if you just don't want to deal with a little bit of hassle, I feel like you're starting this out on the wrong foot.

[summerset 5,261]

4 hours ago, Brandeis said:

The "hoops" aren't that bad, in most places -- and are there as much to protect you as to protect the insurance companies. They're there to make sure you know what you're getting into, and what to expect afterward, and how to make the most of the sleeve you're getting.

Insurance companies want to save money and nothing else. They're definitely not protecting patients. If they only wanted to protect patients the whole process would be different, e. g. you would have to go to certain classes and appointments and after a waiting period of e. g. 6 months you would be guaranteed to get the procedure if you still want it.

[Ldyvenus 317]

3 hours ago, summerset said:

Insurance companies want to save money and nothing else. They're definitely not protecting patients. If they only wanted to protect patients the whole process would be different, e. g. you would have to go to certain classes and appointments and after a waiting period of e. g. 6 months you would be guaranteed to get the procedure if you still want it.

Although I agree insurance companies try to save money, I completely and respectfully disagree with this statement. Some people have physical and mental issues which prevent them from ever being good candidates for bariatric surgery. The process is in place to make sure the right people are chosen, and to provide those people with the tools necessary to be successful long term.

[summerset 5,261]

26 minutes ago, Ldyvenus said:

Some people have physical and mental issues which prevent them from ever being good candidates for bariatric surgery.

It's the responsibility of the treatment team to decide if a patient is eligible or not.

I don't know about the insurance system in the US but I doubt that insurance office workers in the US have the necessary knowledge to decide if a patients needs to be "protected" from their own decisions or not or if he/she is eligible for surgery or not.

What's next? An insurance office worker deciding if therapy option A for treating a cerebral aneurysm is a better choice for the patient than therapy option B?

[Brandeis 401]

On 12/4/2017 at 2:28 AM, summerset said:

Insurance companies want to save money and nothing else. They're definitely not protecting patients. If they only wanted to protect patients the whole process would be different, e. g. you would have to go to certain classes and appointments and after a waiting period of e. g. 6 months you would be guaranteed to get the procedure if you still want it.

Well, going to Mexico means completely avoiding any kind of tests to make sure you're a good candidate, so..........

But I also disagree. But sure, we can go the cynical route, and my point still stands. Insurance companies are evil, maybe, but a huge part of why they do that stuff is to protect the patient -- because protecting the patient also protects them from added costs. By making sure you do 3-6 months supervised weight loss with a dietician, it means they know you're not going to eat something stupid and make yourself horribly sick post op, thus costing them a lot more money to deal with your care. By making you see a psychiatrist, it means they're not sending someone with a major binge eating problem into the program, thus saving them from having to potentially pay for a revision. By checking your vitals, they're making sure you're not going to go into cardiac arrent or die on the operating table, thus hurting their numbers. By providing additional care after surgery, they're making sure that you're doing well, which might lead other people to their insurance to do the same surgery.

Just because it's not altruistic doesn't mean the end result isn't the same. It's better for you in the long run to put up with the "hassle".

On top of that, just because the insurance companies may be evil doesn't mean the people at lower levels are. The people who you can call up to ask questions and get information, the local doctors who are within network if something goes wrong, are resources that are only at your fingertips if you work within the system, and I personally think they're very, very much worth the extra couple of months to do things right.

Listen to your health care worker husband. He sounds like he's probably one of the good ones.

[Brandeis 401]

On 12/4/2017 at 6:55 AM, summerset said:

It's the responsibility of the treatment team to decide if a patient is eligible or not.

I don't know about the insurance system in the US but I doubt that insurance office workers in the US have the necessary knowledge to decide if a patients needs to be "protected" from their own decisions or not or if he/she is eligible for surgery or not.

What's next? An insurance office worker deciding if therapy option A for treating a cerebral aneurysm is a better choice for the patient than therapy option B?

By the by, it's not some office worker who makes these policies or determines whether or not you're a good candidate. It's rules that have been written out by experts, and included in your health care information. You have a right to this information, to read exactly what would be required by you before you even begin, and potentially to contest it if you have good reason. It's frankly not even that complicated; I'd say it took me less than an hour all total to figure out what my requirements were, before I entered into my program. Reducing it to "some office worker choosing your treatment" is extremely inaccurate and not particularly helpful.