Karen
Well-known member
Last month my husband learned on the 28th of the month that his job would be eliminated effective the 30th. He was given one month's severance pay and health benefits through July. Therefore, I bumped up my annual echo and visit with my cardio that would have happened in October. I just met with him today and got the results of the echo done 2 weeks ago.
First of all, I know echo measurements of valve openings are not exact. But if I had 2 consecutive echo measurements with an aortic valve opening of 1.6 mc2 followed by a heart cath that also showed a 1.6 cm2 measurement (last October), would I believe the latest measurement of 1.9 cm2? Does the valve opening ever increase in size?
Other things of note on the echo report -- different from the one done in September:
"thickened" bicuspid aortic valve
"mild left ventricular hypertrophy"
"borderline elevated right atrial pressure by inferior vena cava
Other "impressions" that have been included in other echo reports are:
"mild increase in left atrium size"
"mild tricuspid regurgitation with velocity suggests mild pulmonary hypertension"
"mild mitral regurgitation"
"trace aortic insufficiency"
The ejection fraction was 54%.
My cardio feels that surgery is still years away. (And he said that just yesterday he returned from Brazil where he talked with cardiologists who had done the percutaneous valve replacement procedure. He speculates that it might be "commonplace" in the US in 3-5 years. He's definitely staying abreast of that future option. But he also speculated that it would not be used in replacing valves that have already been replaced -- at least not initially).
So do I let my medical insurance lapse, do the cobra thing, or take out a catastrophic medical plan? The catastrophic coverage costs almost half as much as what our cobra payment would be, but we would have a $5,000 deductible and a limit of $150,000. Isn't it much more difficult to get insurance if you have an "interruption of coverage?" Do catastrophic insurance plans count as NOT having interruption of coverage?
I should be reassured by what I was told today. But I remember stories of forum members who were told that surgery was 10 years away only to find themselves undergoing surgery 6 months to a year later...
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. We need to make a decision regarding our insurance in the next few days. Thanks...
Karen
First of all, I know echo measurements of valve openings are not exact. But if I had 2 consecutive echo measurements with an aortic valve opening of 1.6 mc2 followed by a heart cath that also showed a 1.6 cm2 measurement (last October), would I believe the latest measurement of 1.9 cm2? Does the valve opening ever increase in size?
Other things of note on the echo report -- different from the one done in September:
"thickened" bicuspid aortic valve
"mild left ventricular hypertrophy"
"borderline elevated right atrial pressure by inferior vena cava
Other "impressions" that have been included in other echo reports are:
"mild increase in left atrium size"
"mild tricuspid regurgitation with velocity suggests mild pulmonary hypertension"
"mild mitral regurgitation"
"trace aortic insufficiency"
The ejection fraction was 54%.
My cardio feels that surgery is still years away. (And he said that just yesterday he returned from Brazil where he talked with cardiologists who had done the percutaneous valve replacement procedure. He speculates that it might be "commonplace" in the US in 3-5 years. He's definitely staying abreast of that future option. But he also speculated that it would not be used in replacing valves that have already been replaced -- at least not initially).
So do I let my medical insurance lapse, do the cobra thing, or take out a catastrophic medical plan? The catastrophic coverage costs almost half as much as what our cobra payment would be, but we would have a $5,000 deductible and a limit of $150,000. Isn't it much more difficult to get insurance if you have an "interruption of coverage?" Do catastrophic insurance plans count as NOT having interruption of coverage?
I should be reassured by what I was told today. But I remember stories of forum members who were told that surgery was 10 years away only to find themselves undergoing surgery 6 months to a year later...
Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. We need to make a decision regarding our insurance in the next few days. Thanks...
Karen