Don’t blame physicians for what’s about to happen:
Some expect to see more Medicare patients to make up for cuts with higher volume. Dr. Shane Avery, a solo practitioner in Scottsburg, Ind., will ask patients to come to the office for everything, no matter how small. Medicare doesn’t pay enough to cover his overhead for the range of services he provides outside of an office visit, such as phone consultations . . .. . . A family doctor in rural California named Deborah Sutcliffe stopped taking new Medicare patients two years ago. Now she’s thinking about requiring her remaining Medicare patients to pay her directly rather than taking her fee via Medicare. If she goes this route, she’s allowed to charge a slightly higher price. Medicare sends partial reimbursement for the office visit to the patient, and the patient pays the difference. This approach usually results in more overhead for a practice, but the total collections for the same sorts of visits can be 15% higher.
Elizabeth Pector, a family practitioner in Naperville, Ill., worries most about the effect a Medicare cut could have on other insurers. Many tie their reimbursement to Medicare. If the private sector rates drop 10%, too, her practice could be in big trouble. She worries about the health and options for our seniors, but finds herself worrying more urgently about the health of her practice.
Related posts:
- Medicare cuts: A 6-month stay of execution
- Charging patients for Medicare cuts
- Medicare cuts: This politician gets it
- When you switch to Medicare
- Medicare cuts: Let the games begin
- Cuts in physician payment = patients lose
- The Medicare cuts
{ 5 comments }
So physicians take government money to the tune of 6 figures or more to finance their eduction and residencies and now these same physicians can refuse to treat medicare/medicaid patients? Nice.
Physicians don’t take anything, they get paid on contract to work 80 hours per week (or more, if you know what I mean)when they are residents, caring for inpatient and outpatient Medicare patients and others. They might earn $40K before taxes so you figure the hourly rate. Oh, there isn’t any additional billing for the resident, so the government gets a huge bargain for its outlay. There is no downstream deal. The government has no right to expect any more work than that for their money.
So yes, the government pays for residents in training. For the government, it is a steal. And no, they aren’t entitled to anything more than their labor at that time.
As for financing their education, I don’t see doctors taking anything more than anyone else who might take student loans. And I don’t see the public squealing about their entitlement to others’ work after graduation for having had loans on government terms.
So much for “do no harm.”
“Do no harm” means just that, not some right to have others work for free. Only immoral parasites try to twist that to mean a right to take what they won’t pay for.
Just wanted to let everyone know that whoever wrote this article NEVER spoke a word to atleast one of the three doctors listed on here. I know this because I so happened to be related to one of the doctors listed and I personally know that they run and have ran their business completely different from what the writter is quoting
Comments on this entry are closed.