I have mixed feelings on this subject. Kaiser is one of the best medical institutions in the US that provides both excellent health care and low cost which is what we need in the US today.
My insurance company (Tricare) wouldn't pay for robotic surgery, but would pay for laprascopic. so if I chose that option I would have to pay the difference. I didn't have a problem with that because of the many other benefits that Tricare offers.
IMRT has similar cure rates to Proton, but proton "may" have fewer side affects, so is it worth paying thousands of dollars more? I think any insurance company has the right to not pay for a more expensive treatment unless it shows substantial benefit over a less expensive treatment; proton doesn't fall into this catagory.
If it were your own money would you spend $50,000 more for Proton treatment? I surely wouldn't, but you always have that option available to you.
64 years old.
PSA rising for 10 years to 40, free psa 10-15. Had 5 urologists, 12 biopsies and MRIS all neg. Doctors DX BPH and continue to get biopsies yearly. Positive Biopsy in 10-08, 2 cores of 25, G6 less than 5%. Scheduled Surgery as recommended.
2nd Opinion from Dr Sholtz, an Oncologist said DX wrong, path shows indolant cancer, but psa history indicates large cancer or metastasis. Futher tests and Color Doppler confirmed large transition zone tumor that 13 biopsies and MRIS missed. G 4+3 approx 2.5cm diameter.
Combidex MRI in Holland eliminated lymphnode mets. Casodex and Proscar reduced psa to 0.6 and prostate from 60mm to 32mm. Changed diet, no meat and dairy.
Seed implants on 5-19-09, 3 hours door to door, no pain, minor side affects are frequency and burining urination. Daily activities resumed day after implants.
Scheduled for 5 weeks IMRT in July