Insurance Companies Say PRP Is Experimental…We Sigh
/Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections first presented in the orthopedic medical literature in 2004, nearly 20 years ago. Now, new PRP studies hit the orthopedic journals monthly. The overwhelming majority of the evidence suggests that PRP injections are safe, beneficial and have positive effects on soft tissue and joints. Somehow though, insurance companies continue to classify these as “experimental” and will not pay for PRP injections. Thus, these remain cash-pay procedures. PRP injections are not alone, as some of the best procedures now in medicine are not covered by insurance.
PRP is not just used in orthopedics, but also in dentistry, ENT, neurosurgery, ophthalmology, urology, wound healing, cosmetic, hair restoration, cardiothoracic, and maxillofacial surgery. Could all of these specialties be wrong about PRP? I really doubt it.
So, we ask the question: what does it take for something to no longer be classified as experimental? In my opinion, as a physician of 25 years, treatments should no longer be considered experimental if they meet the following basic criteria:
1) They have been used consistently in medicine for 10 years or longer by a reasonably high percentage of specialists in a particular field.
2) Quality studies published in the reputable medical journals demonstrate a clinically significant benefit.
3) Use of a particular treatment steadily grows because of positive results with a low likelihood of adverse events.
If you evaluate PRP with this criteria, then it’s a no-brainer…it is no longer an experimental treatment.
Insurance companies do serve a valuable role in our medical system. Without them, health care would be unaffordable for many Americans. However, the criteria they sometimes use to classify whether a particular treatment or test is covered or not is often very flawed and/or “behind the times.” Here’s a classic example: we could choose to give 10 steroid/cortisone injections into a patient’s knee in just one year, and almost all insurance companies would pay us for each injection. This could be very damaging to the joint, but it would be a “covered” procedure. In contrast, PRP injections, which have been shown to be superior to steroid injections for knee osteoarthritis in dozens of studies, would not be covered by insurance.
So, as a patient, you have to be discerning and partner with a physician who understands what treatment options are best for you. Basing these decisions on what insurance covers can be a short-sighted approach.
In conclusion, both physicians and insurance companies play vital roles in the care of the patient, but these roles are different. I say, “let doctors doctor and administrators administer.” For now, don’t count on a PRP injection to covered by insurance companies any time soon, but that should not deter you from choosing these valuable treatments. Want even more info? Check out one of our recent blogs on the topic:
As always, let us know if we can be of assistance to you.