I found a few things on the interernet that indicate that BC/BS has denied coverage of ADR because of a poor track record of success with the Charite product. This is some cause for concern since until now I was under the impression that the lack of case data and overall costs were deterents in coverage of this procedure.
One article I read said that removal of a faulty artificial disc was difficult and life threatening. Some studies showed that persistant pain was still an issue with many ADR patients.
Since informing my doctor about the meeting in California regarding ADR they are hoping there will be a turnover in the decision and that having the disc replacement may still be an option for me. I did read another article where BC/BS of Oklahoma was adding ADR to their patients coverage. Here is a link to that information:
http://mcgs.bcbsfl.com/index.cfm?fus...tebral%20Discs
Here is another site which is of the lawsuit variety but still has a somewhat negative view of the Charite ADR procedure:
http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com...e-victims.html
Here I have been fighting for BC/BS approval and now I am finding these negative views on the surgery I was so sure was preferred over the fusion surgery. I understand that there are multiple motivations for people to be for or against this, depending on whether you are a surgeon, a patient or an insurance provider. It's a lot of information and opion to sift through and the rest of my life depends on the decision I inevitably make.