Dartmouth has long advocated that there are too many physicians. Perhaps some clarification is in order. There are too many proceduralists, not enough generalists. If primary care is appropriately incentivised and its numbers increased, the cost problem will be solved right there.
Related posts:
- My take: Selling preventive care, surgeons’ hours, part-time doctors
- Rewarding the most needed doctors the least
- Primary care
- How much time do doctors spend on paperwork?
- Older primary care doctors can’t retire
- Colonoscopy by primary care doctors, is it time to start joining the proceduralists?
- The RUC conspiracy
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 5 comments }
Just a quick note of clarification — what type of physicians qualify as non-specialists? OB-GYNs? General Surgeons? ED physicians? Those specialties, and I’m sure a few others, provide care that is in many respects “primary care.”
“Too many doctors?”
Sure, that’s why our practice is turning away patients. Our waiting list for a routine appointment is 6-8 weeks. We won’t take on any new Medicare or Medicaid patients, except for emergencies and even with that, we have cut down our call availability by 50%. Gotta love the pundits…
There are far too FEW specialists, who are the “do-er’s” who may intervene and accomplish something. Primary care is largely triage medicine/preventive care. If I have diabetes, I want to see an endocrinologist. If I have chest pain, a cardiologist. Screening for colon cancer? I’ll see a gastroenterologist. You get the point.
You had an article just yesterday about how EDs can’t get any specialty coverage. If there was the glut you say there is wouldn’t the specialists be fighting to take call. Contradictory statements on successive days.
anon 11:01:
There is a glut of specialists, but they’re doing everything they can to stay in their offices and make money, rather than cover the ER and lose money seeing uninsured patients.
Nobody fights to take call.
Comments on this entry are closed.