88305 TC cut 52%

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
B

BamaAlum

Full Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2001
Messages
526
Reaction score
25
CMS' assault on independent laboratories continues.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Devastating to any lab that processes biopsies including hospital based pathologists with any outpatient business.

Im stunned and horribly depressed.

Ive never been one to wish my life away, but damn I wish I was close to retirement.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
pathstudent said:
Devastating to any lab that processes biopsies including hospital based pathologists with any outpatient business.

Im stunned and horribly depressed.

Ive never been one to wish my life away, but damn I wish I was close to retirement.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. Not sure how pathology practices that do TC are going to remain solvent. They cut all of the surgical pathology TC codes. I haven't been able to figure out how much 88307 and 88309 have been cut yet, but I would imagine that it will be similar. With the grandfather TC sunset and this, pathologist-owned labs are effectively dead.
 
BamaAlum said:
CMS' assault on independent laboratories continues.
Click to expand...

That is huge. If this is true, I wonder what will happen to in office labs? The smaller labs will close? I wonder if the larger in office labs will ask for more of the PC from pathologists? What does this mean for the job market. From what Ive been reading here and from the presentation by Mr Cornell, the job market will deteriorate.
 
Last edited:
That's truly devastating !

Well job market will be worse in the immediate run but it will improve a little bit in next 1-2 years, as it will be practically impossible now for small to medium sized in-office labs to survive, there will be more specimens for independent specialty labs and private groups which ironically means more jobs in the long run but with lower salaries.
 
Dont anyone celebrate the possible closure of in office labs. There are many good guy pathologists that will be severely harmed by this drastic cut. And even academics and emploupyed pathologists will effected as your department/corporation will have less revenue to spread around.
 
pathstudent said:
Dont anyone celebrate the possible closure of in office labs. There are many good guy pathologists that will be severely harmed by this drastic cut. And even academics and emploupyed pathologists will effected as your department/corporation will have less revenue to spread around.
Click to expand...

Good guy pathologists that signout cases for 50% PC?
 
Dont anyone celebrate the possible closure of in office labs. There are many good guy pathologists that will be severely harmed by this drastic cut. And even academics and emploupyed pathologists will effected as your department/corporation will have less revenue to spread around.

And reading the cap announcement their intent is that pathologists recieve a 6-7% cut in salary. How is this acceptable? The chicago teachers were offered a 16% raise aver four years and they went on strike. Why is it acceptable for mds to receive constant pay cuts.

Now i am for sure voting againt obama. The last thing i need is nigher taxes on top of a pay cut.
 
pathstudent said:
Dont anyone celebrate the possible closure of in office labs. There are many good guy pathologists that will be severely harmed by this drastic cut. And even academics and emploupyed pathologists will effected as your department/corporation will have less revenue to spread around.

And reading the cap announcement their intent is that pathologists recieve a 6-7% cut in salary. How is this acceptable? The chicago teachers were offered a 16% raise aver four years and they went on strike. Why is it acceptable for mds to receive constant pay cuts.

Now i am for sure voting againt obama. The last thing i need is nigher taxes on top of a pay cut.
Click to expand...

How about we all go on strike? :smuggrin::smuggrin::smuggrin:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Um ... as a fellow who's going to be job-hunting very soon, am I overreacting in fearing that my ability to pay off my student loans and provide for my family just got obliterated?
 
pathstudent said:
Dont anyone celebrate the possible closure of in office labs. There are many good guy pathologists that will be severely harmed by this drastic cut. And even academics and emploupyed pathologists will effected as your department/corporation will have less revenue to spread around.

And reading the cap announcement their intent is that pathologists recieve a 6-7% cut in salary. How is this acceptable? The chicago teachers were offered a 16% raise aver four years and they went on strike. Why is it acceptable for mds to receive constant pay cuts.

Now i am for sure voting againt obama. The last thing i need is nigher taxes on top of a pay cut.
Click to expand...
Wrong. This is great news. I celebrate this drastic 52% cut in the 88305 TC (and ALL TCs) effective January 1, 2012. This overvalued code has been manipulated in myriad unethical mays in the past decade. In-office self-referral labs are a slap in the face of all pathologists. This will push many in-office self-referral labs off a cliff and many pathologists who reluctantly agreed to participate in these TC/PC splits with greedy docs will suddenly be asked to do their work for much less. As a hospital-based pathologist, our practice includes clinical path, inpatient, and outpatient AP specimens. We had the chance to participate in the in-office labs, but we declined because we thought it was a loser's game. Big TC cut will hurt all global pathology billing, but "good guy" pathologists with diverse practices will receive a glancing blow. GI, derm, and urology self-referral labs are absolutely and completely dependent on the 88305 TC for revenue generation. This huge cut will punch them in the gut. Sketchy client billing arrangements will be stretched to a breaking point with this slashing of the TC and the 33% drop in the global bill for the 88305. Corporate labs and other bulls... labs that provide discounted pathology services so that greedy clinicians can pocket the difference as a de facto kickback will be forced to discount these services even more. I have a hard time seeing Quest and LabCorp agree to even lower prices for discounted AP client billing given their focus on increasing quarterly profits for their shareholders. Sit back and watch the blood bath. I imagine a big GI group that globally bills for pathology and pays their local schmuck pathologist $10 per case will go to the pathologist and say -- can you read this for $5 per case?
 
No No this sucks for everyone pal .... Yes you too Dr Door.

Even if you receive zero money from TC it could stll hurt.
Now your histolab just became unprofitible. How much staff will be cut when they can't cover costs?

New equipment or staff forget about it. Do you get part A from the Hospital ? There are going to more apt to elimate it.

I hate insourcing too, but this is akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. No something to be happy about.

Many labs and groups will see big changes. It just killed the job market for residents.

If your at an university pracice you may see cuts to all levels of staff including pathologists. At the least a freeze on new hires.

Well, AP indepentant labs . Get a shovel time to dig your grave.
 
I found this PDF via MedPage Today:

http://www.ofr.gov/(X(1)S(sq3rdvvzj1yh5mygmsdbnjwv))/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-26900_PI.pdf

I'm no good at reading these long bureaucratic documents, and I may well be missing something, but in the chart on page 1277, it reads more like the (overall? TC? PC?) cut to 88305 is 25%; I don't see the figure 52% anywhere. (I know the CAP says the overall cut to 88305 will be 33%, but where are all these numbers coming from?)

Can anyone point to an official document discussing a 52% cut? None of the links in that CAP Statline article seemed to work. I assume the CAP has the correct info; I'd just like to see official documentation.
 
Last edited:
We don't fee split with anyone and we bill global on half of our cases (I.e. non-in patient cases). This is far more than a glancing blow.

And yes schmuck pathologist will take $5 per case from their urologists as what else can they do.
Doormat said:
Wrong. This is great news. I celebrate this drastic 52% cut in the 88305 TC (and ALL TCs) effective January 1, 2012. This overvalued code has been manipulated in myriad unethical mays in the past decade. In-office self-referral labs are a slap in the face of all pathologists. This will push many in-office self-referral labs off a cliff and many pathologists who reluctantly agreed to participate in these TC/PC splits with greedy docs will suddenly be asked to do their work for much less. As a hospital-based pathologist, our practice includes clinical path, inpatient, and outpatient AP specimens. We had the chance to participate in the in-office labs, but we declined because we thought it was a loser's game. Big TC cut will hurt all global pathology billing, but "good guy" pathologists with diverse practices will receive a glancing blow. GI, derm, and urology self-referral labs are absolutely and completely dependent on the 88305 TC for revenue generation. This huge cut will punch them in the gut. Sketchy client billing arrangements will be stretched to a breaking point with this slashing of the TC and the 33% drop in the global bill for the 88305. Corporate labs and other bulls... labs that provide discounted pathology services so that greedy clinicians can pocket the difference as a de facto kickback will be forced to discount these services even more. I have a hard time seeing Quest and LabCorp agree to even lower prices for discounted AP client billing given their focus on increasing quarterly profits for their shareholders. Sit back and watch the blood bath. I imagine a big GI group that globally bills for pathology and pays their local schmuck pathologist $10 per case will go to the pathologist and say -- can you read this for $5 per case?
Click to expand...
 
Rbrav said:
Um ... as a fellow who's going to be job-hunting very soon, am I overreacting in fearing that my ability to pay off my student loans and provide for my family just got obliterated?
Click to expand...

You'll still be able to put food on the table and pay off your loan. But self funding your retirement, travel with your family, a new minivan, a nice home etc...should all be reevaluated.
 
Rbrav said:
I found this PDF via MedPage Today:

http://www.ofr.gov/(X(1)S(sq3rdvvzj1yh5mygmsdbnjwv))/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-26900_PI.pdf

I'm no good at reading these long bureaucratic documents, and I may well be missing something, but in the chart on page 1277, it reads more like the (overall? TC? PC?) cut to 88305 is 25%; I don't see the figure 52% anywhere. (I know the CAP says the overall cut to 88305 will be 33%, but where are all these numbers coming from?)

Can anyone point to an official document discussing a 52% cut? None of the links in that CAP Statline article seemed to work. I assume the CAP has the correct info; I'd just like to see official documentation.
Click to expand...


Page 1277 shows only 26 mod
Which is the PC component.

I am not sure. How they got to 52 percent?
 
Doormat said:
Wrong. This is great news. I celebrate this drastic 52% cut in the 88305 TC (and ALL TCs) effective January 1, 2012. This overvalued code has been manipulated in myriad unethical mays in the past decade. In-office self-referral labs are a slap in the face of all pathologists. This will push many in-office self-referral labs off a cliff and many pathologists who reluctantly agreed to participate in these TC/PC splits with greedy docs will suddenly be asked to do their work for much less. As a hospital-based pathologist, our practice includes clinical path, inpatient, and outpatient AP specimens. We had the chance to participate in the in-office labs, but we declined because we thought it was a loser's game. Big TC cut will hurt all global pathology billing, but "good guy" pathologists with diverse practices will receive a glancing blow. GI, derm, and urology self-referral labs are absolutely and completely dependent on the 88305 TC for revenue generation. This huge cut will punch them in the gut. Sketchy client billing arrangements will be stretched to a breaking point with this slashing of the TC and the 33% drop in the global bill for the 88305. Corporate labs and other bulls... labs that provide discounted pathology services so that greedy clinicians can pocket the difference as a de facto kickback will be forced to discount these services even more. I have a hard time seeing Quest and LabCorp agree to even lower prices for discounted AP client billing given their focus on increasing quarterly profits for their shareholders. Sit back and watch the blood bath. I imagine a big GI group that globally bills for pathology and pays their local schmuck pathologist $10 per case will go to the pathologist and say -- can you read this for $5 per case?
Click to expand...

Congratulations, but as a partner in a practice that owns and operates an independent lab serving predominantly rural hospitals without histo labs and participating in zero PC/TC arrangements, it is a death blow. Anyone who looks at this gutting of the 88305 code as a good thing hasn't been paying attention. Guess you're stoked that they increased the PC by 2%?
 
Get ready for even more reckless sweatshops. Only labs with massive scale are gonna survive now. I am shocked that the cut was that deep. "Experts" were saying 7 to 16 percent. Glad I been preparing to leave this field for a long time. The pathologist market is gonna be even more brutal unless they close many programs NOW.

I dont see how labs will be able to client bill anymore. The medicare is the pull through business for many. I guess labcorp and quest type places will still be able to do it because of their scale.

Anyone know how Joe Plandowski took the news? I hope he is ok.
 
It's hard to fix a broken system, unfortunately. As screwed up as payment/reimbursement has been, it looks like folks are throwing out hand grenades to "address" overall budgetary problems and will perhaps deal with the aftermath later (rather, when/if it becomes enough of an issue around next election time). Someone gets to say "we saved X billion in health care spending (on paper)!" and meanwhile it's everyone else's problem.

It will most definitely change the game, assuming it sticks. How, exactly, remains to be seen. One poor scenario is that the cuts all get passed on to accepting pathologists who feel they have no choice. As long as TC/PC are nothing more than words and have little to no bearing on what the technical & professional employees actually get paid, that seems a reasonable outcome. But it might well not stick long term, if the problem compounds/dominoes and starts affecting larger and larger institutions across the country. Or maybe we'll just all get replaced by PA's, PhD's, (cyto/SP)techs, nurse-pathologists, automated readers...
 
Well since my practice is PC only, it doesn't really touch us for now. And yes, you can still make a good living on PC only, if you negotiate good rates and have a good payor mix. But yeah, if you have significant TC component billing, this is a major blow.

And the job market just got tighter, in a major way..
 
All excellent points. I agree that the 88305 cut will hurt everyone, including myself. However, I am personally willing to take a very large pay cut to see the fallout from this. As a pathologist who refused to participate in sleazy billing arrangements and subsequently lost outpatient business to self-referral labs and labs that offer large client billing discounts (aka kickbacks), this is still some consolation for me.

The 88342 code for IHC is next on the chopping block. I know an independent dermatology lab that does S-100 IHC on every basal cell carcinoma to rule-out perineural invasion.
 
WEBB PINKERTON said:
Get ready for even more reckless sweatshops. Only labs with massive scale are gonna survive now. I am shocked that the cut was that deep. "Experts" were saying 7 to 16 percent. Glad I been preparing to leave this field for a long time. The pathologist market is gonna be even more brutal unless they close many programs NOW.

I dont see how labs will be able to client bill anymore. The medicare is the pull through business for many. I guess labcorp and quest type places will still be able to do it because of their scale.

Anyone know how Joe Plandowski took the news? I hope he is ok.
Click to expand...

Of course programs will still remain open churning out more and more graduates every year. Cheap labor bro.

Hey, I also read that CRNAs can get paiddd for interventional pain now in the anesth forum.
 
I work for a rual independant laboratory that serves three small hospitals. Our payor mix is 80 percent goverment since most of the younger patients are military-Tricare. We could be out of business
Two of hospital are critical access and the third doesnt have deep pockets. Who is going to produce our slides?
 
WEBB PINKERTON said:
The pathologist market is gonna be even more brutal unless they close many programs NOW.
Click to expand...

I think closing programs simply to tighten up the pathology market is very unlikely. I get the impression that many places are only now surviving due to their "free" resident workforce.

Of course, depending on how the upcoming upheaval of pathology goes, they may economically have to cut training programs anyway.
 
See ya independent pathology....hello big lab/hospital employee.

I see a lot of people losing jobs....its going to be an all out fight for a big lab/hospital employed job.

If you didn't think the pathology job market could get worse, it just did.

A very scary time for young pathologists. People need to listen....STAY AWAY FROM PATHOLOGY!!!!
 
AZpath said:
I work for a rual independant laboratory that serves three small hospitals. Our payor mix is 80 percent goverment since most of the younger patients are military-Tricare. We could be out of business
Two of hospital are critical access and the third doesnt have deep pockets. Who is going to produce our slides?
Click to expand...


48% percent of the current TC is enough to make the H&E slides, easily. This just cuts most of the profit out of it.
 
It's very weird, that I can't find anything about this 52% cut except CAP website

this is the whole document (1361 pages)
http://www.ofr.gov/(X(1)S(sq3rdvvzj1yh5mygmsdbnjwv))/OFRUpload/OFRData/2012-26900_PI.pdf

this is the fact sheet
http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/press...ge=&showAll=&pYear=&year=&desc=&cboOrder=date

the only thing referring to 88305 TC is this paragraph :
(i) Pathology and Laboratory: Surgical Pathology (CPT Codes 88300,
88302, 88304, 88305,
88307, 88309)
For surgical pathology CPT codes 88300, 88302, 88304, 88305, 88307,
88309 (Surgical Pathology, Levels I through VI), the AMA RUC recommended creating
several new supply and equipment items in direct PE input database that we will not
incorporate for CY 2013 in addition to several new direct PE inputs that we are adopting on an interim
basis. The new supply items that we will not incorporate were called “specimen, solvent, and
formalin disposal cost,” and “courier transportation costs.” We do not believe that specimen and
supply disposal or courier costs for transporting specimens are appropriately considered as
disposable medical supplies.
Instead, we believe the costs described by these recommendations are
incorporated into the PE RVUs for these services through the indirect PE allocation. We note
that the current direct PE inputs for these and similar services across the PFS do not include
these kinds of costs as disposable supplies.
In addition to the recommendation to include these new supply items,
the AMA RUC 574 recommended that we create new equipment items called “equipment
maintenance cost,” “Copath System with maintenance contract,” and “Copath software” as
direct PE inputs for these codes. Our standard equipment cost per minute calculation includes a
maintenance factor to incorporate costs related to maintenance in amortizing the cost of the
equipment itself. Therefore, we will not incorporate separate maintenance costs for
particular items. Regarding the “Copath” system and software equipment, the AMA RUC forwarded
materials from a manufacturer that included a description of a computer system that is
used to interface with other data systems to provide inbound demographic information and export
laboratory results and billing information. Based on the way those functionalities were
presented in this information, we believe that this computer system and associated software reflects
an indirect practice expense since the clerical and other administrative functionality seem
central to its purpose. We note that no similar equipment is currently included as a direct PE
input for these services. All direct PE inputs for these services are interim for CY 2013 and open
to comment. We would consider additional information regarding whether this computer system
and associated software might be considered a direct cost as medical equipment associated with
furnishing the technical component of these surgical pathology services for CY 2014 rulemaking.
We are especially interested in understanding the clinical functionality of the
equipment in relation to the services being furnished.
In addition to this information, we are also seeking additional
public comment regarding the appropriate assumptions regarding the direct PE inputs for these
services. We note that the AMA RUC recommendations for these potentially misvalued codes were
developed based on an underlying assumption regarding the typical number of blocks used each
time a service is reported. The number of blocks assumed to be used has significant
impact on the quantity of other supplies and the number of clinical labor and equipment minutes
assigned as direct PE 575 inputs to each code. After conducting an initial clinical review of
these direct PE inputs, we are concerned that the number of blocks assumed for each code may be
inaccurate. For 88300, no blocks are assumed. For 88302, one block is assumed. For 88304 and
88305, the assumed number of blocks typically used is 2. For 88307, the assumed number
of blocks is 12 and for 88309, the typical number of blocks is assumed to be 18. We are
accepting the AMA RUC’s recommended direct PE inputs that derive from these assumptions on an
interim basis for CY 2013, but we are seeking independent evidence regarding the
appropriate number of blocks to assume as typical for each of these services. We are requesting
public comment regarding the appropriate number of blocks and urge the AMA RUC and interested
medical specialty societies to provide corroborating, independent evidence that the number of
blocks assumed in the current direct PE input recommendations is typical prior to finalizing the
direct PE inputs for these services.
Click to expand...
 
This is the biggest game changer in Pathology in the last 10 years. On par with the 90%+ reduction in Flow interpretation...

HUGE.

this is huge. I can stress this enough, the entire landscape will begin to change very dramatically.
 
LADoc00 said:
This is the biggest game changer in Pathology in the last 10 years. On par with the 90%+ reduction in Flow interpretation...

HUGE.

this is huge. I can stress this enough, the entire landscape will begin to change very dramatically.
Click to expand...

The impact is huger. I keep checking back hoping to hear this devastating cut isnt true.
 
Anyone know how fields that can make 1M a year do in terms of cuts? Derm, ortho, etc.???
 
Derm and ortho deserve more reimbursements... they work so hard to get into residency
 
Agree with several previous posts as to the enormity of this CMS decision. This is not something that will only affect some people. Yes, some will be affected more than others but this is a tremendous earthquake. My personal opinion is that this drastic cut to the TC should have been offset by a healthy boost to the PC.
 
2% increase in PC is hardly an offset :(

Tissue issue said:
Agree with several previous posts as to the enormity of this CMS decision. This is not something that will only affect some people. Yes, some will be affected more than others but this is a tremendous earthquake. My personal opinion is that this drastic cut to the TC should have been offset by a healthy boost to the PC.
Click to expand...
 
Anyone know if other medical specialties are getting screwed? Or are pathologists getting screwed the most?
 
Tissue issue said:
Agree with several previous posts as to the enormity of this CMS decision. This is not something that will only affect some people. Yes, some will be affected more than others but this is a tremendous earthquake. My personal opinion is that this drastic cut to the TC should have been offset by a healthy boost to the PC.
Click to expand...

My colleague said in the late 80s 88305-26 paid about $80. Now that is down to $35.
 
is how much do they get paid to take the actual biopsy, because if there technical component is more than ours...we should be throwing **** fits
 
Well, it's my personal opinion but I think in the long run it will improve the job market for pathologists. Right now, the bulk of 88305's (derm, GI, GU, GYN) are absorbed by corporate labs, Labcorp (Dianon), Quest, Aurora and Miraca. For the past 5 years, in-house labs were the second increasingly dominant group. Now, the profit margin for in-house labs and corporate entities is gone. There is no way, a TC only in-house lab can survive now, at the same time, in my opinion the current cut throat competition from coporate labs will decrease as the return on investors money will diminish and the investor owned corporate labs will no longer remain as attractive as in past. This is all good news for efficiently run mid sized groups which can now grab the lost market share from in-house and corporate labs which means more jobs in the long run.
 
mario2010 said:
Well, it's my personal opinion but I think in the long run it will improve the job market for pathologists. Right now, the bulk of 88305's (derm, GI, GU, GYN) are absorbed by corporate labs, Labcorp (Dianon), Quest, Aurora and Miraca. For the past 5 years, in-house labs were the second increasingly dominant group. Now, the profit margin for in-house labs and corporate entities is gone. There is no way, a TC only in-house lab can survive now, at the same time, in my opinion the current cut throat competition from coporate labs will decrease as the return on investors money will diminish and the investor owned corporate labs will no longer remain as attractive as in past. This is all good news for efficiently run mid sized groups which can now grab the lost market share from in-house and corporate labs which means more jobs in the long run.
Click to expand...

I suppose that is a possible outcome, but I'm not optimistic. If the giant corporate labs aren't going to be making enough profit to bother cranking through massive amounts of specimens, how are mid-level operations going to do any better? From what I know the giant labs are about as efficient as you can get; that's their entire point.
 
mario2010 said:
Well, it's my personal opinion but I think in the long run it will improve the job market for pathologists. Right now, the bulk of 88305's (derm, GI, GU, GYN) are absorbed by corporate labs, Labcorp (Dianon), Quest, Aurora and Miraca. For the past 5 years, in-house labs were the second increasingly dominant group. Now, the profit margin for in-house labs and corporate entities is gone. There is no way, a TC only in-house lab can survive now, at the same time, in my opinion the current cut throat competition from coporate labs will decrease as the return on investors money will diminish and the investor owned corporate labs will no longer remain as attractive as in past. This is all good news for efficiently run mid sized groups which can now grab the lost market share from in-house and corporate labs which means more jobs in the long run.
Click to expand...

Thats a good way to think of it. I think in office labs will come to an end. I dont know the business side of these labs or corp labs but I would think these corp labs will stay in existence because of the sheer volume of specimens they have.

If in office labs go away, the local path groups and the large corp labs will have to duke it out for specimens. I would think these giant labs will win because they are able to play dirty (EMRs, etc).
 
mario2010 said:
Well, it's my personal opinion but I think in the long run it will improve the job market for pathologists. Right now, the bulk of 88305's (derm, GI, GU, GYN) are absorbed by corporate labs, Labcorp (Dianon), Quest, Aurora and Miraca. For the past 5 years, in-house labs were the second increasingly dominant group. Now, the profit margin for in-house labs and corporate entities is gone. There is no way, a TC only in-house lab can survive now, at the same time, in my opinion the current cut throat competition from coporate labs will decrease as the return on investors money will diminish and the investor owned corporate labs will no longer remain as attractive as in past. This is all good news for efficiently run mid sized groups which can now grab the lost market share from in-house and corporate labs which means more jobs in the long run.
Click to expand...


Look at it this way. The global on the 88305 has been cut 33%. 88305 is by far the most common anatomic CPT code. Should private insurers enforce this cut too (which they will most certainly try) It is safe to say that 15-20% of pathology revenue has disappeared overnight. There is no way that is a good thing for anybody. There are just as many mouths to feed but a lot less food now.
 
If one payor arbitrarily sets the reimbursement, and all others follow suit, this is effectively a single payor system. Only difference being insurance companies being allowed to operate in parallel and make money.
 
mario2010 said:
Well, it's my personal opinion but I think in the long run it will improve the job market for pathologists. Right now, the bulk of 88305's (derm, GI, GU, GYN) are absorbed by corporate labs, Labcorp (Dianon), Quest, Aurora and Miraca. For the past 5 years, in-house labs were the second increasingly dominant group. Now, the profit margin for in-house labs and corporate entities is gone. There is no way, a TC only in-house lab can survive now, at the same time, in my opinion the current cut throat competition from coporate labs will decrease as the return on investors money will diminish and the investor owned corporate labs will no longer remain as attractive as in past. This is all good news for efficiently run mid sized groups which can now grab the lost market share from in-house and corporate labs which means more jobs in the long run.
Click to expand...

It would be better for pathologists and patients if things unfolded as such. Problem is the corporate labs got way too big- they're not going away without a huge fight. If you're a corporate lab MBA where are you gonna look to make up for the sudden big hit to TC revenue?
 
"Government interference in the market leads only to rising costs, rationing, and needless suffering and death. Unless policy changes are made, American health care and health insurance will not remain in their currently dysfunctional conditions; they will necessarily get worse (recall that health care costs are rising far more rapidly than the rate of inflation). We can continue to recycle the failed ideas of the past, continue to violate individual rights, and impose more government control on medicine and health insurance in a futile attempt to salvage a fundamentally flawed system by extending and building on its flaws. Or we can stand on moral principle, respect individual rights, begin dismantling the broken system, and start working toward a free and therefore thriving market in medicine and health insurance."

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

coroner
Reimbursement cuts - what other physicians are saying
Replies
19
Views
2K
anonperson
A
2
Real Reimbursement For Professional Component of 88305 Drops More Than 71% Over 30 Years
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
octopusprime
octopusprime
LADoc00
TC histology simply hot garbage now?
Replies
12
Views
2K
y2k_free_radical
y2k_free_radical
A
2021 PFS , Path PC cut 4%
Replies
11
Views
3K
WEBB PINKERTON
WEBB PINKERTON
P
Pathology: Real 88305 reimbursement down 66% in past 27 years
Replies
7
Views
2K
Thr0mbus
T
Top