This idea makes more sense:
The pharmaceutical companies urge you to see your doctor to see if a certain drug is right for you. Scare tactics pure and simple. The drug companies also send salespeople to doctor’s offices, urging doctors to prescribe their products. This is big business. Now, if a doctor prescribes a medication and it has a harmful effect, here come the lawyers urging you to sue the doctor and the drug maker. The doctors need to have ample malpractice insurance to cover any unexpected results from prescribing these drugs. The same for the drug makers. Who gets rich? The lawyers and insurance companies.Don’t expect the government to do anything about this; a majority of our lawmakers were lawyers before getting into public office.
(via This Makes Me Sick)
Related posts:
- Why price transparency won’t affect health care costs
- Containing health care costs
- Health care costs 101
- Why controlling health care costs is so difficult
- DTC advertising = money wasted?
- Rising health care costs and the tax preference for employer-based health insurance
- Pharmacists dispensing drugs without a prescription
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 5 comments }
“a majority of our lawmakers were lawyers before getting into public office.”
And? What a stupid statement. Can any of you name a single current Congressman who represented Plaintiffs in their private practice? How many represented businesses and insurers?
I do enjoy how you guys cry about how you’re not enjoying the benefits of the free market but then want to restrict advertising.
I do enjoy how you guys cry about how you’re not enjoying the benefits of the free market but then want to restrict advertising.
Ignorant. How about restricting all of the players, or none? Why put just the physicians (and not the other players: insurers, pharmacies, DME suppliers, employers, pharma, medical consultants, the members of the various congressional committes which set health care policy, plaintiffs attorneys, defense attorneys, supplement manufacturers) at a disadvanrage by restricting their access to a free market and not all of the others who profit from the health care system?
Here’s an idea –
Any business that has any involvement in government funded healthcare programs (medicare, etc) or are licensed by any government agency will have their revenues and expenses reviewed, and have the revenues systematically scaled back to their 1993 levels not accounting for inflation. Amounts charged to non-government agencies must be tied to amounts dictated that you charge to government agencies, and cannot exceed 110% of that amount, or you will be charged with fraud. After setting the target charges, they will then be reduced 5% yearly, with no adjustment for inflation, cost-of-living, or changes in expenses. Furthermore, the charge for procedure A, which previously included services x,y, and z, will now include u,v,w in addition to x,y, and z, and you will not be allowed to increase your charge for this service. If your charge for any additional supplies used exceed 95% of your costs, you will be charged with fraud, be forced to pay back the 5% (or more) difference with interest and penalties.
If you wish to not be subject to the above restrictions, you must enter into a binding contract with every client individually, at no cost to the client or the government, including the cost of legal review and preparation of contracts, to a predetermined fee schedule for services which may not change for a period of one year. Furthermore, you will not be allowed to engage with any clients who do not individually contract with you for service, nor bill any government agency. This change is irrevocable for two years, even if during that time you fail to contract with a single client, you may not engage clients not contracted until the two year time period has expired.
So drop out of the system if you despise it that much. No one is requiring you to enter into the third party payer system.
Join most other industries and be responsible for collecting from the public directly. When you started your practice, was there a gun held to your head to sign up for the program you describe? No, you took it because it guaranteed a very good standard of living right off the bat.
It’s a tradeoff, for while you might be able to charge more, you’ve not got a guarantee that you’re charging a solvent entity, or that they’ll pay you on time.
Whether or not to “participate” in medicare is not really a choice. Whether or ot to practice medicine in the US is the only real choice. Opting oput of medicare is next to impossible except for those practicing in highly affluent areas where paying cash for primary care is the norm, such as Manhattan. In most other places, opting is is choosing bankruptcy.
How would you know if you’ve never tried it? There are lots of blogs of people who have done it and while they still face challenges, they are satisfied with the trade off.
Again, it’s a choice. Don’t blame others because of a choice you made.
Comments on this entry are closed.