Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Democrats Attack on Doctors

  1. #1

    Default Democrats Attack on Doctors

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/ ... ing-obama/

    Two weeks ago the Mayo Clinic shocked the nation when it closed the doors of one of its Arizona clinics to patients on Medicare. Just this past June President Obama himself praised Mayo as a model of medical efficiency noting that Mayo gives “the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.” If Mayo feels compelled to walk away from this government-run program, others will surely follow. The nation must understand why.

    Doctors are leaving Medicare for two reasons: one obvious, the other more concealed.

    The first is simple—the math:

    1) For the past decade Medicare consistently paid physicians 20% less than traditional insurance companies for identical service.

    2) On January 1, 2010 Washington made hidden cuts to Medicare by altering its billing codes.

    3) Medicare will cut physician reimbursement by another 21% on March 1. The CBO said this cut must take place if the Senate healthcare bill was to “reduced the deficit.”

    4) Even more, Congress pledged to cut Medicare by yet another $500 billion. Again, the CBO said this additional cut must take place if the Senate healthcare bill was to “reduced the deficit.”
    Many physicians were operating at a loss even before this series of massive cuts. In 2008, Mayo Clinic posted an $840 million loss in caring for Medicare patients. No businesses can survive when patient care expenses exceed revenue.

    The second is more ominous—Washington’s increasingly abusive posture toward physicians.
    President Obama reflected this attitude last summer. On national television, he stated as fact a surgeon is paid between $30,000 and $50,000 for amputating a patient’s foot.

    In reality, a surgeon is paid between $740 and $1,140 to perform this unfortunate, but often life-saving procedure. This reimbursement must cover a pre-operative evaluation the day of surgery, the surgery, and follow-up for 90 days after surgery—not to mention malpractice insurance, salaries for clinic nurses, and clinic overhead. It is frightening to think our president is so wildly misinformed even as he stands on the cusp of overhauling American health care. But it gets worse.

    Given massive federal deficits, Washington now faces increasing pressure to cut Medicare spending. One way to do this is to intimidate physicians into under-billing. To do this Washington intends to spend tax payer dollars to ramp up physician audits using Recovery Audit Contractors (RAC audits) to randomly investigate private physician’s Medicare billing.

    A physician group at my hospital recently experienced an AdvanceMed audit, an earlier version of the RAC. For a year Medicare auditors made their practice a living hell, making them question if it was worth caring for Medicare patients at all.

    An independent reviewer (who was paid a percentage of the audit) reviewed 86 patient records and “found” the physicians had “fraudulently billed” Medicare for $351,820. After spending a year fighting the allegations, eventually, eventually all charges were dropped. The physician group was vindicated but only after spending almost $100,000 defending themselves. The independent reviewers were clearly after money, not justice.

    For example, one patient the auditor alleged the group had “fraudulently” billed for was a man undergoing a chemical stress test. The allegation was the patient should have undergone a cheaper traditional treadmill stress test. The difficulty with this accusation was this man was a double amputee—he had no legs. This made a traditional treadmill test impossible. The auditors clearly were not trained health care professionals—they were bounty hunters. (It is worth noting the investigators are given legal immunity from a countersuit for conducting a “fraudulent investigation.”)

    This story is not unique. To reduce Medicare’s budget shortfall physicians are being subjected to these abusive investigations nationwide. If medicine increasingly falls under government control, why should the best and the brightest of our youth give up 15 years of their life to go into medicine?

    The relationship between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the average working physician has become abusive. Mayo is but the first to make the leap to less government control by closing its doors to some patients on Medicare.

    Washington, slow down and listen; reconsider what you are about to do. Physicians cannot be bullied into bankruptcy. Our system needs reform, but this is not it. If you continue on your present course, sadly, it will be our seniors that pay the price.
    I'm wondering when Democrats will start pushing for requiring by law medicare to be taken. Or when they will start outlawing the concierge service that has become the new rage for doctors. People don't seem to understand that health care like any other good or service bows to economic pressures. If you gut doctor's pay you will get less doctors, its as simple as that.


  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    I don't know all the ins and outs of Medicare and I'm not inclined to change that since your health care insurance system is going to be changed anyway. But, no matter how it is done you can't deny that it's good for society if it controls the costs of health care and the US is spending much more than comparable nations without getting much better results. And the bottom line is; you people can't afford to spend even more on it in the future. As far as I am concerned health care falls in the same category as taxation; I don't want it but there's no way out.
    Congratulations America

  3. #3

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    It may also mean the Mayo model just didn't work in Arizona.

    Part of the reason Mayo has worked so well is their streamlined, coordinated community effort. It works well in MN because the clinics and hospitals have a working relationship with its universities and med schools; they read from the same page.

    Reform IS needed. Access/affordability shouldn't depend on which state you live in, young or old.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    Yeah, but you can't really ignore that the system generally considered the most efficient in the country isn't able to break even with Medicare payments, can you?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
    Yeah, but you can't really ignore that the system generally considered the most efficient in the country isn't able to break even with Medicare payments, can you?
    As far as I know, Mayo in MN isn't losing revenue by taking Medicare patients. Whether that's due to their demographics or their business model, I don't know.

    My guess is it's both: a regional system has to have both young and old, healthy and sick, inpatient and outpatient, clinic/office and hospital. Put too much weight on any component and the rest of the balance is out of whack.

    Places like Arizona and Florida have huge populations of elderly, their local economies aren't doing well, less young workers to carry the load, etc.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    The second is more ominous—Washington’s increasingly abusive posture toward physicians.
    President Obama reflected this attitude last summer. On national television, he stated as fact a surgeon is paid between $30,000 and $50,000 for amputating a patient’s foot.

    In reality, a surgeon is paid between $740 and $1,140 to perform this unfortunate, but often life-saving procedure. This reimbursement must cover a pre-operative evaluation the day of surgery, the surgery, and follow-up for 90 days after surgery—not to mention malpractice insurance, salaries for clinic nurses, and clinic overhead. It is frightening to think our president is so wildly misinformed even as he stands on the cusp of overhauling American health care. But it gets worse.
    Am I reading this right? Doesn't the patient, By the end of his hospital stay, still pay $30,000 or more? The surgeon makes ~$1,000, out of which he pays his expenses( malpractice ins, country club dues etc...)the rest goes to the clinic for it's costs. It's outrageous, but thats just me.
    The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless

  7. #7

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    Am I reading this right? Doesn't the patient, By the end of his hospital stay, still pay $30,000 or more? The surgeon makes ~$1,000, out of which he pays his expenses( malpractice ins, country club dues etc...)the rest goes to the clinic for it's costs. It's outrageous, but thats just me.
    That is right they patient (or their insurance) does pay that much. But the DOCTOR does not make that much. Why was Obama attempting to vilify the surgeon with that ridiculously wrong stat?

  8. #8

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski
    Am I reading this right? Doesn't the patient, By the end of his hospital stay, still pay $30,000 or more? The surgeon makes ~$1,000, out of which he pays his expenses( malpractice ins, country club dues etc...)the rest goes to the clinic for it's costs. It's outrageous, but thats just me.
    That is right they patient (or their insurance) does pay that much. But the DOCTOR does not make that much. Why was Obama attempting to vilify the surgeon with that ridiculously wrong stat?
    You're right, he should lambast the insurers who add an entire layer of bureaucratic red tape, for their own profit, at the patient's expense.

    That's not healthcare, that's shadow commerce.


    <ps this forum quotes both the last post and the one they quoted...without their name? Not that Lewk cares, but it's kinda confusing me.>

  9. #9

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    My confusion was with the OP saying that surgeons are responsible for nurses pay and other clinic expenditures out of his share.
    The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless

  10. #10

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    My confusion is the quoting of the quoting, guess it takes some getting used to.

    Not many patients actually receive or see their itemized bill. Especially if they have insurance that acts as price negotiator and billing warehouser.

    If everyone from legislators to consumers dealt with this, could see and track charges, reform would come a lot faster. That would be the start of competition and the ability of people to choose.

    Problems come with emergencies and crises. That's when we shouldn't HAVE to shop around, but we also shouldn't be dragged into a rigged system full of "extortion".

  11. #11

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    Can you imagine what this would lead to though. there you are in your hospital bed, when a stranger comes in and starts a sales pitch for a different nursing coop, or "are the janitors doing a good enough job, well ours are better". I may be taking to far, but not so far.
    The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless

  12. #12

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    Quote Originally Posted by rumrunner
    Can you imagine what this would lead to though. there you are in your hospital bed, when a stranger comes in and starts a sales pitch for a different nursing coop, or "are the janitors doing a good enough job, well ours are better". I may be taking to far, but not so far.
    Not too far, no.

    And I don't want to make this sound simple, or that medical care is a commodity (like buying a tv or automobile). Its complexity is compounded by the fact that health/illness is also tied to peoples' livelihoods and professions. We do need to pay providers well, to attract a certain degree of competency.

    I'd rather my surgeon have graduated from Penn State than some diploma mill in Sri Lanka. So yeah, some governmental standards and certifications are needed. Someone has to make those calls, and I'd rather it not be tied to profit motives.

    Insurers, by definition, are for-profit.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
    Yeah, but you can't really ignore that the system generally considered the most efficient in the country isn't able to break even with Medicare payments, can you?
    As far as I know, Mayo in MN isn't losing revenue by taking Medicare patients. Whether that's due to their demographics or their business model, I don't know.

    My guess is it's both: a regional system has to have both young and old, healthy and sick, inpatient and outpatient, clinic/office and hospital. Put too much weight on any component and the rest of the balance is out of whack.

    Places like Arizona and Florida have huge populations of elderly, their local economies aren't doing well, less young workers to carry the load, etc.
    Isn't it kinda problematic that the government reimbursement system seem as a model can't even pay for coverage for its target audience?

    It makes some sense if you're going to structure an insurance or benefits system like that. It doesn't make much sense at the hospital level that that they should be running at a loss for certain people, but not for others.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    Niether does it make sense that being on an already stretched budget should prevent you from recieving the care you need to maintain what little you have. I admit, there is no easy answer, and probably no answer that will appease everyone (rarely is), but a fix is needed sooner than later.
    The worst job in the world is better than being broke and homeless

  15. #15

    Default Re: Democrats Attack on Doctors

    Quote Originally Posted by rumrunner
    Niether does it make sense that being on an already stretched budget should prevent you from recieving the care you need to maintain what little you have. I admit, there is no easy answer, and probably no answer that will appease everyone (rarely is), but a fix is needed sooner than later.
    Yep. It's been enlightening to read the progress of opinions over time. Context matters.

    In the US we have to figure out competing elements: state vs nation, big vs small, employer vs employee, private vs public, union vs independent, young vs old, healthy vs sick, wealthy vs poor, group vs individual, lobbyists vs voters, corporation vs shareholder, chosen vs mandated, structure vs ideology, pragmatism vs extremism.

    Did I leave anyone out?

    The moderate middle is a subjective place, and fairly hard to find.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •