Comments on: Is money that important to doctors?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:21:00 +0000

Is money that important to anyone?

Of course.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 19:50:00 +0000

Is this a serious question? Is money that important to doctors?

Of course.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:32:00 +0000

"If it is then you are not being fair to your patients or giving them their money's worth."

You could argue you are not being fair, but you are giving them their money's worth.

I predict that practitioners who plan to see fewer than 50 patients per day will go the way of the dinosaur.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:54:00 +0000

No one is seeing 100 patients a day. Period! That averages out to about 12.5 patients per hour for an 8 hr. day. 9 hour day including lunch. That means you would only have about 4.5-5 minutes to review records and any new test results, see, listen to, diagnose, communicate with, write scripts, and document each patient encounter. it ain’t happening. If it is then you are not being fair to your patients or giving them their money’s worth.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:19:00 +0000

Living in fantasyland? I practice medicine every single day, full time and make a living by that. And no, I don't see 100 patients per day, nor do I ever want to.

I see a third of that and could, with some improvement in my staffing, raise that to 40-50. But there would not be any possibility of seeing more, and I think, were I to increase my numbers to 50 per day, I would just have to stop seeing certain kinds of problems for which I have a somewhat rare expertise. I am not sure I would want that.

I know all about the insurer problems. Believe me, you won't be schooling me there.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:06:00 +0000

You are living in fantasyland. 50 to 100 patient encounters per full time physician equivalent is the new norm demanded by payors and their reimbursement schemes. If you can develop a concierge practice, see less, and thrive both economically and in a personal sense, more power to you. I do not personally enjoy this style of practice, but trust me if you practice in a group that does, you will looked upon as a slacker who does not pull your weight and will not garner any respect. Your partners will constantly complain about all the overhead they are covering relative to your contribution.

FYI one of my partners who sees about 100 patients per day just was voted a “Top Doctor” in this major metropolitan market. Go figure.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:30:00 +0000

I knew of a couple of ophthalmology practices where the daily count reached 100 patient visits. One was an academic practice supported by a fellow and a phalanx of technicians. Of course it was still crazy busy (the fellow punched out in less than six months). The other was in a rural area of a northeastern state with a depressed economy and few local providers, but again it required a large support staff. And personally, I think that when you see that number of patients, you will miss things you would otherwise catch if you weren’t so rushed.

A practice that has that number of patients needing to be seen really needs more doctors, as in yesterday. Not seeking to add to the number of providers is the failure of the physician, either by failure to offer an attractive incentive to a new doctor or by failure of character, that it isn’t just about how wonderful you are to be able to attract so many patients, but that those patients deserve more time and attention than you would have to give, and that they deserve a doctor who doesn’t have to see one hundred patients in a day’s time.

By: KoKo

KoKo — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:09:00 +0000

But you keep on coming back for more and more and more…Don’t you?

In a psychological sense, perhaps you need your patients more than they need you…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 01:58:00 +0000

…in my specialty, try after your 100th patient of the day…