Good reads on how to run a practice

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

Perrotfish

Has an MD in Horribleness
15+ Year Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
7,527
Reaction score
4,515
Does anyone here have any books, articles or educational resources they'd recommend on how to best run an efficient practice? I don't mean the part that I do in the office, I mean how to best utilize, manage and train staff, how to manage a budget, etc. I'm curious both about dealing with a job (large hospital, locums, HMO) and an environment that you really own (solo practice, partner in a group).

Members don't see this ad.
 
Charles Koch - the science of success
Atlas shrugged
the tipping point
blink
the lean startup
the Art of possibility
the Icarus deception
contagious
outside in
how to win friends and influence people
the checklist manifesto
free: the future of a radical price
the power of habit
think and grow Rich
3 feet from gold
the speed of trust
great by choice
good to great
delivering happiness, zappos
good boss bad boss
blue ocean strategy
exceptional service for exceptional profit
the emyth– physician
the innovators prescription
the Starbucks experience
9 ½ things you'd do different if Disney ran your hospital

okay that's a pretty decent list :)
 
"Atlas Shrugged...?" I don't recall much in the way of practice management info in that tome. If you're gonna read it, save it for last (or else you may never get to the other books). ;)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
ha! well not every book for business needs a textbook. I'd stay start with it - so you have the frame of mind to understand the rest.
 
"Atlas Shrugged"? OUCH. I actually have read that book, and seeing it on a DPC-related list magnifies my concerns that DPC focused practices may be prone to ignore the most disadvantaged members of society... I'll go on working at my County Hospital taking care of (among other people) poor folks, thankyouverymuch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
"Atlas Shrugged"? OUCH. I actually have read that book, and seeing it on a DPC-related list magnifies my concerns that DPC focused practices may be prone to ignore the most disadvantaged members of society... I'll go on working at my County Hospital taking care of (among other people) poor folks, thankyouverymuch.
atlas provides unlimited private care for less than my cell phone bill...I'd argue that is quite a service for the working poor
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
"Atlas Shrugged"? OUCH. I actually have read that book, and seeing it on a DPC-related list magnifies my concerns that DPC focused practices may be prone to ignore the most disadvantaged members of society... I'll go on working at my County Hospital taking care of (among other people) poor folks, thankyouverymuch.
Don't be a jackass.

I'm seeing a patient tomorrow - no insurance, loads trucks for a trucking company so doesn't make much. She pays me $50 a month (the first two months, I've been seeing her every 2 weeks to get her BP under control and then discover and manage her CKD), and gets her monthly zestoretic and coreg for $4 combined and 3 BMPs so far while titrating meds and then to monitor CKD.

So let's see what this would cost her in usual practice... 4 visits at $120 each (easily 99214's) so $480, each med is $4 at wal mart for 12 months so $96 for the year, a cash BMP around here is about $50 so $150 so far with at least another 1 before the year is out. Total: $776

By the end of the year, she'll have paid me less than $400. These figures also don't take into account any sick visits/injuries, her yearly GYN visit, or other preventative stuff. The more she needs, the more money I will be saving her.

But you're right, I'm totally in this to make money and only see rich people.

Also, I'm attaching a link where the AtlasMD docs did something similar...
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-11-29/is-concierge-medicine-the-future-of-health-care
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Just to compare apples and apples, I offer self-pay fees, too. These are discounted from our regular fee schedule. I can't quote you prices down to the exact dollar amount (I don't have the price list here at home), but the charge for a 99213 (which is pretty much all I'll ever charge somebody who's self-pay) is around $50. A BMP for a self-pay patient is around $15 done through our group's central lab. You can usually get 90-day supplies of meds through Walmart for $10 (so, $40/year per drug). So, I'd have only cost her around $325 (4 visits, 3 BMPs, and 2 meds for a year).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Just to compare apples and apples, I offer self-pay fees, too. These are discounted from our regular fee schedule. I can't quote you prices down to the exact dollar amount (I don't have the price list here at home), but the charge for a 99213 (which is pretty much all I'll ever charge somebody who's self-pay) is around $50. A BMP for a self-pay patient is around $15 done through our group's central lab. You can usually get 90-day supplies of meds through Walmart for $10 (so, $40/year per drug). So, I'd have only cost her around $325 (4 visits, 3 BMPs, and 2 meds for a year).
Which is exactly why we need more private groups. Hospital employed clinics can't do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Don't be a jackass.

I'm seeing a patient tomorrow - no insurance, loads trucks for a trucking company so doesn't make much. She pays me $50 a month (the first two months, I've been seeing her every 2 weeks to get her BP under control and then discover and manage her CKD), and gets her monthly zestoretic and coreg for $4 combined and 3 BMPs so far while titrating meds and then to monitor CKD.

So let's see what this would cost her in usual practice... 4 visits at $120 each (easily 99214's) so $480, each med is $4 at wal mart for 12 months so $96 for the year, a cash BMP around here is about $50 so $150 so far with at least another 1 before the year is out. Total: $776

By the end of the year, she'll have paid me less than $400. These figures also don't take into account any sick visits/injuries, her yearly GYN visit, or other preventative stuff. The more she needs, the more money I will be saving her.

But you're right, I'm totally in this to make money and only see rich people.

Also, I'm attaching a link where the AtlasMD docs did something similar...
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2012-11-29/is-concierge-medicine-the-future-of-health-care

Really? You're taking this to the level of name calling? Interesting choice.

It's particularly interesting because (1) MANY people across the country have concerns about the impact of DPC and concierge practices on poorer communities and individual patients. Though I get that those are different models, and that you may fall on one side of the debate, but there is widespread discussion/concern about how these models will affect access to care for the most underserved patients. That's not just me. (2) Ayn Rand, while happy to take advantage of programs like Medicare in her later years, was famous for a certain degree of contempt for socioeconomically marginalized people. Given those two facts, I think it's totally legitimate to say that hearing a major DPC supporter list Ayn Rand in the #2 spot in a recommended book list triggers my hmm-maybe-DPC-proponents-really-aren't-looking-out-or-the-best-interests-of-poor-people-worries and red flags. I did not say all DPC folks are all in it for the money (I completely understand the joy of seeing fewer patients for more time each), nor did I say DPC people were jerks, in fact I didn't choose to do any name calling at all. I realize it is the internet, but I'm sure you're capable of extending the same courtesy.

I stand by my CONCERNS (which are not yet conclusions, but are legit concerns) about both DPC and concierge practices.
And I stand by my conclusions about Ayn Rand.
Put the two of them together and you get my comment.

The rest of your response would be stronger if it weren't prefaced by knee jerk attacks.
 
atlas provides unlimited private care for less than my cell phone bill...I'd argue that is quite a service for the working poor

I have a number of patients who can't afford cell phones.

And many of my patients are poor enough that their monthly premium is $0 on their insurance and their co-pay to see me or get lab work or meds is $0. For those patients $400 is unmanageable, as nice as it sounds for some of my other patients (say middle class folks or higher-income-lower class folks who would, prior to the ACA, prefer to just carry catastrophic coverage and instead pursue something like DPC for their routine care.)

In my limited experience, this seems to be a model that offers cost-savings and good care to a *selected* patient population, and seems like it would probably make for a relatively happy work life for doctors. But I'm not at all convinced that it's the best model for *all* the patients I take care of. Nor am I convinced that we've worked out all the issues involved if many/most/all current primary care docs cut their patient panel by up to 80% (which is not to say that is the problem of the individual provider who chooses DPC, but I am interested in exploring the societal impact if we suddenly need to start cranking out 4 to 5 times as many primary care docs vs hand over the rest of that care to NPs or PAs.)
 
I have a number of patients who can't afford cell phones.

And many of my patients are poor enough that their monthly premium is $0 on their insurance and their co-pay to see me or get lab work or meds is $0. For those patients $400 is unmanageable, as nice as it sounds for some of my other patients (say middle class folks or higher-income-lower class folks who would, prior to the ACA, prefer to just carry catastrophic coverage and instead pursue something like DPC for their routine care.)

In my limited experience, this seems to be a model that offers cost-savings and good care to a *selected* patient population, and seems like it would probably make for a relatively happy work life for doctors. But I'm not at all convinced that it's the best model for *all* the patients I take care of. Nor am I convinced that we've worked out all the issues involved if many/most/all current primary care docs cut their patient panel by up to 80% (which is not to say that is the problem of the individual provider who chooses DPC, but I am interested in exploring the societal impact if we suddenly need to start cranking out 4 to 5 times as many primary care docs vs hand over the rest of that care to NPs or PAs.)
If you want to have a philosophical discussion, that's fine. Are you implying there is some ethical question to the DPC model or simply that if we see a large shift in that direction the system will need to find a way to adjust?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
So, at least for the next 4 years, I'm working in an HMO style environment. I have a staff that I manage, but with a supervisior of my own and separate nursing/MA/physician chains of command for protocols and procedures. I have some responsibility for my staff's career development, but its not an academic program and I don't teach residents. I can lobby for changes of my clinic but can't demand them. So in the short term I'm really looking for info on how to make that job run as smoothly as possible for me, my staff, and my patients.

Any suggestions for that in particular? It looks like the second half of the reading list above is more geared towards what I'm going to be dealing with.
 
I have a number of patients who can't afford cell phones.

And many of my patients are poor enough that their monthly premium is $0 on their insurance and their co-pay to see me or get lab work or meds is $0. For those patients $400 is unmanageable, as nice as it sounds for some of my other patients (say middle class folks or higher-income-lower class folks who would, prior to the ACA, prefer to just carry catastrophic coverage and instead pursue something like DPC for their routine care.)

In my limited experience, this seems to be a model that offers cost-savings and good care to a *selected* patient population, and seems like it would probably make for a relatively happy work life for doctors. But I'm not at all convinced that it's the best model for *all* the patients I take care of. Nor am I convinced that we've worked out all the issues involved if many/most/all current primary care docs cut their patient panel by up to 80% (which is not to say that is the problem of the individual provider who chooses DPC, but I am interested in exploring the societal impact if we suddenly need to start cranking out 4 to 5 times as many primary care docs vs hand over the rest of that care to NPs or PAs.)

There's plenty of room in the market for direct primary care. I'd rather have a physician that's happy in their profession thoroughly treating me versus one who will spend no more than 10 minutes scanning notes, EMR, and pushing me out of the door after a quick read of my labs. What kind of care is that? The standard of care has been decreasing since 20 years ago. I believe DPC is reasonable way for practitioners to counteract that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Really? You're taking this to the level of name calling? Interesting choice.

It's particularly interesting because (1) MANY people across the country have concerns about the impact of DPC and concierge practices on poorer communities and individual patients. Though I get that those are different models, and that you may fall on one side of the debate, but there is widespread discussion/concern about how these models will affect access to care for the most underserved patients. That's not just me. (2) Ayn Rand, while happy to take advantage of programs like Medicare in her later years, was famous for a certain degree of contempt for socioeconomically marginalized people. Given those two facts, I think it's totally legitimate to say that hearing a major DPC supporter list Ayn Rand in the #2 spot in a recommended book list triggers my hmm-maybe-DPC-proponents-really-aren't-looking-out-or-the-best-interests-of-poor-people-worries and red flags. I did not say all DPC folks are all in it for the money (I completely understand the joy of seeing fewer patients for more time each), nor did I say DPC people were jerks, in fact I didn't choose to do any name calling at all. I realize it is the internet, but I'm sure you're capable of extending the same courtesy.

I stand by my CONCERNS (which are not yet conclusions, but are legit concerns) about both DPC and concierge practices.
And I stand by my conclusions about Ayn Rand.
Put the two of them together and you get my comment.

The rest of your response would be stronger if it weren't prefaced by knee jerk attacks.
You're right, I was a bit harsh. You have my apologies.

However, your initial post was a pretty good combination of condescension and holier-than-thou. You can't be surprised when you get a reaction to that.

You do realize that there are a large number of people between "so poor they get medicaid" and "can afford top of the line concierge care", right? Think about all the people who can buy insurance through the ACA (with the subsidies) but then can't afford actual care because of a 4k deductible? Or what about the working poor who are just above the level needed to get said subsidies? With the exception of clinics like Blue Dog's (which are becoming more and more rare), these patients would be stuck paying their insurance allowable for care which is going to be expensive - after all, very few people will hit multi-thousand dollar deductibles on care from their family doctor. That's where true DPC comes in. Generally speaking, we can do more for cheaper than just about anyone else. If you didn't already, check out the link I posted earlier. Has a great story about cost savings from a DPC clinic for a woman with no insurance.

Let's also not forget the group up in Washington State, Qliance I believe, that is partnering with the local medicaid population to provide DPC services to them. Last I heard, they were saving money AND had better outcomes (fewer ED visits, fewer hospitalizations, and fewer specialist referrals - after all, a good family doctor with enough time can handle quite a lot as we all know).

You also have to keep in mind that concierge and DPC are pretty different. Take MDVIP, the most commonly known concierge group. They charge around 2k/year to join the practice and then STILL bill insurance and collect deductibles. Heck the self-styled "founder" of conceirge medicine charges 25k/year to be in his practice and he is annoyed that there are people out there charging less. That sort of thing is concerning, no doubt about it. But the roughly $600/year that I and others like me charge? That's not something to worry about, especially when you consider both what you get for that and the other savings we offer. Heck, I have an Excel spreadsheet that compares the prices of buying drugs from me versus the local wal-mart and grocery store $4 lists - I beat them soundly on everything except women's health drugs and Silvadene cream.

Lastly, I think Ayn Rand's writing is what you make of it. It has some good points and some less than good points. The key is to look at what those of us who enjoy the writings actually do, not make assumptions about us based on what she wrote.
 
I have a number of patients who can't afford cell phones.

And many of my patients are poor enough that their monthly premium is $0 on their insurance and their co-pay to see me or get lab work or meds is $0. For those patients $400 is unmanageable, as nice as it sounds for some of my other patients (say middle class folks or higher-income-lower class folks who would, prior to the ACA, prefer to just carry catastrophic coverage and instead pursue something like DPC for their routine care.)

In my limited experience, this seems to be a model that offers cost-savings and good care to a *selected* patient population, and seems like it would probably make for a relatively happy work life for doctors. But I'm not at all convinced that it's the best model for *all* the patients I take care of. Nor am I convinced that we've worked out all the issues involved if many/most/all current primary care docs cut their patient panel by up to 80% (which is not to say that is the problem of the individual provider who chooses DPC, but I am interested in exploring the societal impact if we suddenly need to start cranking out 4 to 5 times as many primary care docs vs hand over the rest of that care to NPs or PAs.)
Yeah, we will always need an option for people who are truly very very poor. That's been true since the dawn of FFS. Existing clinics don't take medicaid or what-have-you, so at worst DPC is neutral compared to the current status quo for private offices.

The social impact of a widespread DPC change is certainly an interesting one. I don't think it would be quite as bad as some predict for a few reasons. First, increased DPC would decrease the need for urgent cares. If I'm willing to come into the office on Saturday to sew up your laceration, you won't need to go to the urgent care. Urgent care doctors, if they still want to earn a living, would likely end up back in the clinic world. Second, let's be honest with ourselves - Americans overuse their family doctors. No one just gets colds anymore, they all get sinus infections that require antibiotics. My experience has been that DPC is much less likely to indulge that which would decrease the demand substantially. An office I rotated in during med school started the day with like 10 scheduled appointments (physicals and chronic management mainly) and ended the day having seen 30 people from folks who woke up with a sore throat or the sniffles and just "knew" they needed an antibiotic. Get rid of that, and you suddenly need lots fewer doctors.
 
If you want to have a philosophical discussion, that's fine. Are you implying there is some ethical question to the DPC model or simply that if we see a large shift in that direction the system will need to find a way to adjust?

The latter. Thanks for the good question, sorry I didn't clarify initially.

And to be fair, I think doctors seeing fewer patients and being happier is (meaning, should be) an important goal for the whole system, regardless of whether it works on a mixed model including DPC or on a single payer or any other kind of model. DPC won't work across the board for the whole country; wouldn't work for all of my patients even though I think it could work well for many many patients, but it could be a component of a system, even though personally I generally favor a single payer system. A single payer system in and of itself doesn't address the short visit / unhappy doctor problem directly (and has the potential to exacerbate it, though conversely you could argue that that depending on the direction that the cost savings were sent; if they went to docs who then got to see fewer pts in a day bc they didn't have so much staff overhead and stockbrokers skimming off the top, then it might be able to directly increase length of visits and doc satisfaction and reduce pt panel numbers per doc). In either case, I think we need more doctors period, mostly in primary care and actual doctors (not just NPs or PAs), just to continue along at our current pace and current patient volume/speed/unhappy doctors with increased access to care from the ACA, growing population, etc. To actually get happy docs and non-rushed time with patients, we'd need to train even more docs. That's a systems issue obviously. It's possible that even just the widespread interest in DPC will push the national conversation in that direction with long term benefits for happy docs and patients even in people not working in a DPC model. In the meantime, though, yes, I have concerns about the potential implications for my poorest patients if there were a large shift in that direction.

I hadn't heard about the Washington State group, and will be interested to read more of that when I catch a break.
 
Last edited:
The latter. Thanks for the good question, sorry I didn't clarify initially.

And to be fair, I think doctors seeing fewer patients and being happier is (meaning, should be) an important goal for the whole system, regardless of whether it works on a mixed model including DPC or on a single payer or any other kind of model. DPC won't work across the board for the whole country; wouldn't work for all of my patients even though I think it could work well for many many patients, but it could be a component of a system, even though personally I generally favor a single payer system. A single payer system in and of itself doesn't address the short visit / unhappy doctor problem directly (and has the potential to exacerbate it, though conversely you could argue that that depending on the direction that the cost savings were sent; if they went to docs who then got to see fewer pts in a day bc they didn't have so much staff overhead and stockbrokers skimming off the top, then it might be able to directly increase length of visits and doc satisfaction and reduce pt panel numbers per doc). In either case, I think we need more doctors period, mostly in primary care and actual doctors (not just NPs or PAs), just to continue along at our current pace and current patient volume/speed/unhappy doctors with increased access to care from the ACA, growing population, etc. To actually get happy docs and non-rushed time with patients, we'd need to train even more docs. That's a systems issue obviously. It's possible that even just the widespread interest in DPC will push the national conversation in that direction with long term benefits for happy docs and patients even in people not working in a DPC model. In the meantime, though, yes, I have concerns about the potential implications for my poorest patients if there were a large shift in that direction.

I hadn't heard about the Washington State group, and will be interested to read more of that when I catch a break.
I understand being concerned about the implications, the status quo is being challenged. But the status quo should be challenged because it isn't very good. I would propose the dpc docs are happier and their patients are happier. Given those things, shy of the intellectual exercise of imagining the ripple effect it isn't anyone's business. If we see a large shift to less docs per patient we can train more, life adjusts albeit slowly sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I understand being concerned about the implications, the status quo is being challenged. But the status quo should be challenged because it isn't very good. I would propose the dpc docs are happier and their patients are happier. Given those things, shy of the intellectual exercise of imagining the ripple effect it isn't anyone's business. If we see a large shift to less docs per patient we can train more, life adjusts albeit slowly sometimes.
I want to like this part several times. I don't think there any many physicians that truly think things are going well in medicine overall. I suspect we're heading towards single-payer, but if our European and Canadian brethren are any indication then that won't fix physicians being unhappy or high patient volumes. The nice thing about DPC is that its a very fluid system. Qliance is making it work with the Medicaid population. Its ready made for the working poor - I just signed up an uninsured construction worker and a full-time nanny. With the subsidies they could afford insurance; however, with the high deductible they can't actually afford care.

There is a surgery center out in Oklahoma that went cash only, and many of their procedures are priced below the deductibles of the bronze and silver plans in my area. For example, placing bilateral ear tubes there costs $1700 - that's facility, surgeon, and anesthesia fees. The x-ray tech at my moonlighting job had to get those done for her son, but she had to hit the $2500 deductible first, then a little more towards the $5000 out of pocket - I think she ended up paying a total of around $3200.
 
The Surgery Center of Oklahoma also triggered a city wide price drop for those procedures throughout Oklahoma City, too after patients started calling the big hospitals asking for prices to comparison shop.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...bidding-war-by-posting-surgery-prices-online/

Capitalism - 1
Socialized State Controlled Commutariat Medicine - 92

At least we are trending in the right direction. I like how it is cheaper and easier for Canadians to fly into the USA heartland than do their surgery in their own country.
 
I'm also a big fan of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, although to be fair, they don't have an emergency room and therefore aren't subject to EMTALA.

At least we are trending in the right direction. I like how it is cheaper and easier for Canadians to fly into the USA heartland than do their surgery in their own country.
Is this anecdotal or do you have numbers? That would be interesting to see. I know a lot of U.S. citizens fly to other countries for cosmetic or other costly procedures, but I don't know the exact amount.

"Atlas Shrugged"? OUCH. I actually have read that book, and seeing it on a DPC-related list magnifies my concerns that DPC focused practices may be prone to ignore the most disadvantaged members of society... I'll go on working at my County Hospital taking care of (among other people) poor folks, thankyouverymuch.
A professor made us read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich this Summer as part of a vulnerable populations class. It is the antithesis of Atlas Shrugged. Every chapter, the author pleads with low wage employees to ban together and form a union in order to fight the demoniac managers who represent their corporate overlord, aka Satan himself. The bottom line is this: what helps the patients? The DPC system has the potential to be corrupted into a get-rich-quick medical scheme, or it can be used as a tool to help those who are falling through the ACA's cracks (low premiums, super-high deductible). On the other hand, the single payer system provides care to all members of society, but it's not complete. Waiting lists for procedures are extremely long, despite the Canadian Supreme Court's decision in 2009 that waiting lists are not health care. The problem is a scarcity of resources compared to the need. I got onto the British Columbian government website to look up waiting times for surgeries, and what I found instead were testimonies from Canadian citizens about the waiting times for their province. I'm posting them here, along with the sources.

THE FORMATTING SUCKS. I COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT. SORRY. Read it starting from the third source link at page 25 (page 29 on the PDF) if you can't take it.

An introduction to waiting lists in BC: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/h.../surgical-wait-times/understanding-wait-times

Online search tool for surgery waiting times: https://swt.hlth.gov.bc.ca/

And here is a publication containing some frustrating testimonies by Canadian citizens: http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/library...on_health/PartII/PartII_WaitListsandTimes.pdf


Long wait-lists lead to further health
issues, chronic problems and result in a
poorer quality of life. He
re are some concerns from
British Columbians on this
issue:
a.
I had to wait on a four month wait-l
ist for my eye surg
ery which would have
helped or slowed down early
onset macular degeneration.
b.
I was on
a three year wait-list for a
20 minute operation. This led to losing
my job, a lack of mobility and extra costs to the system.
c.
A long wait-list to see a
psychiatrist was very stressful
for th
e entire family.
d.
By the time people find out what really
is wron
g, they ha
ve had cancer for
five to six years without knowing it;
e.
Patients wh
o are waiting for care be
come progressively sicker and care
becomes more difficult, long
er and more expensive.
Part II: Summary of Input on the Conversation on Health
Page 25
f.
Extended wait-times (over six months) for diagnosis and treatment
increases the complexity of
the health problem an
d reduces the possibility
for resolution.
g.
There is a lack of organs availab
le, which causes very long wait-times an
d
high medical costs as a patient’s ac
uity escalates, some even dying.
h.
Peripheral c
osts to being on a wait-li
st include waiting in pain, poor mental
health, stress on work and family li
fe, and damage to other body parts.
i.
Delays to surgery cause patients to
make
more visits to their doctor to ask
for more prescriptions. Wait-lists en
courage doctors to prescribe more.
j.
Waiting in the emergency department
for long periods of time for simple
procedures takes a toll on patients an
d can so
metimes cause shortened life
spans.
k.
I had to pay privately for Magnetic
Resonance I
maging (MRI) because I was
not willing to wait another four mont
hs for one to determine whether or
not I had a brain tumour.
I found out that I have M
ultiple Sclerosis and now
I face long wait-lists for contin
uing care by my neurologist.
l.
It is cruel to make people wait many
months an
d in many cases years, when
they are in pain. Whatever the pers
on is suffering from may well be
incurable or inoperable by the time th
ey are seen by a specialist and/or
operated on.
m.
One should not have to wait th
ree month
s for day surgery. The long wait is
causing deterioration in my husband's health.
n.
My 58 year old sister's k
nee replacement is
nowhere in sight, neither is her
knee cap, as it is somewhere on the s
ide of her leg. Waiting for her knee
replacement is becoming extremely diffi
cult as she sometimes falls due to
her swollen damaged knee. Do you
recommend welfare and pain killers
when she can no longer work.
o.
Long waitin
g lists for high profile proc
edures such as cataract surgery and
hip and knee replacements have caught
the attention of the media, public
and governments. People can wait ma
ny months, in some cases more than
a year, for surgery that could have an
enormous affect on their quality of
life. Replacement of a painful knee
can improve or reinst
ate basic mobility,
reduce or even eliminate constant pain
, and can allow patients to return to
long abandoned activities. Removal
of a cataract can have similarly
dramatic effects, allowing people to
retain (or regain) their independence.
Part II: Summary of Input on the Conversation on Health
Page 26
p.
It will take me four months to see a gy
necologist. Although my condition is
not life threatening I am suffering
from symptoms and cannot understand
why there would be a four month waiting list.
q.
I have recently been diagno
sed with Arterial Fi
brillation and my cardiologist
suggested a procedure called Pulmonary
Vein Ablation. The cardiologist
placed my name on the list in Au
gust 2006 and I may get a consultation
with him in the fall 2007. The proc
edure itself will be approximately one
year after that. By that time I will be
67 years old. The bonus is that the
longer I wait, the less likely the procedure will be successful and so I may be
disqualified as a candida
te for this procedure.
r.
My father has been waiting for a
heart operation sinc
e the fall 2006.
Although th
e surgeon is ready to operate he cannot due to hospital
cutbacks.
s.
It took me from February to October
to finally b
e scheduled for a much
needed surgery to drain a cyst that
was attached to my pancreas from
another ailment. This operation should
have been done in three or four
months, but I waited nine months.
t.
I had the un
fortunate experience of
witnessing my 94-year old patient's
frustration of having to wait for hip
surgery. The patient could not eat for
two days (protocol for undergoing sur
gery) and was tran
sferred to and
from his bed to a stretcher for endl
ess hip x-rays, making him scream in
pain. It is simply ridiculous.
u.
I am currently waiting fo
r total knee
replacements and have been waiting
for over two years.
v.
Afte
r waiting four years for an orthopae
dic surgery, I am going to Ottawa to
have it done.
w.
I know an active health
y senior who re
quires knee surgery. He has been
waiting for two years and his surgeon sa
id he should not expect the surgery
anytime soon because there is such limi
ted operating time available and he
has to prioritise patients.
x.
It took almost two years fo
r me to see a surgeon. The two year waiting list
that the British Columbia Government th
inks is okay has destroyed my life.
y.
I have just waited five month
s for a mammogram appointment even
though I have in fact had breast canc
er and h
ave been advised to have a
mammogram every year.
z.
I must wait one year before I can
see an
ear, nose and throat specialist. This
delay may result in the loss of my othe
r ear drum and I will become deaf.
Part II: Summary of Input on the Conversation on Health
Page 27
aa.
It took 18 months to get to an appointm
ent in a chronic pain management
centre in Kelowna. It also took 12
months to get an appointment with a
sleep disorder specialist where sleep
apnea was suspected, which is life
threatening.
bb.
I was in
excellent physical health but ha
d an injury. I was disabled for nine
months due to long wait-lists in th
e medical treatment system. Thank
goodness I had the option to pay for the
procedure privately even though I
had to pay for it on my credit card.
cc.
My mother was diagno
sed with canc
er, but by the time she sees an
oncologist it will have been six weeks
since diagnosis without any action
taken to arrest or treat her condition.
dd.
Our son had a bad shoulder injury,
but because we did not have knowledge
and the doc
tor did not give it due attent
ion and he is now disabled (after
three operations). The fact that he ha
d to wait nine months for surgery was
wrong.
ee.
My husband had an electrocardiog
ram, blood test and
stress test this
summer, all of which indicated an urgent
cardiac disease. He was then put
on a five and one half month wait
-list for a diagnostic angiogram in
Kelowna. We ended up going to Se
attle for the angiogram, which only had
a one week wait. Good th
ing we did as he had to
undergo emergency life
saving open heart surgery the next
day. Now our wonderful British
Columbia medical system will not pay any
part of it, as they say that
acceptable and appropriate care was
available in British Columbia. He
would have died if we had not gone outside the Province.
ff.
My wife and
I just paid over $2,000 fo
r her to have her knee operated on
because she could not wait another
year for the medical
system to get
around to her; and
gg.
My surgeon has an elective waiting time of over five years. Patients with tumours and so on are fast-tracked for surgery, but patients with benign diseases have long waits to access the public system, even though these diseases greatly affect their quality of life.
hh.
I suffered much stress waiting for tests,
treatment and cancer surgery formost of 2005.
Part II: Summary of Input on the Conversation on Health
Page 28
Ideas and Suggestions
•Provide care to patients before their health affliction or concern becomes disabling or causes other damage.
•Pay for in-home care for patients on wait-lists for surgery.
•Reinstate family and support services for patients on wait-
 
Again, I apologize for the length of the previous post. Yes, there are other systems of healthcare that are single payer besides the Canadian system, but they all suffer from the same issue of chronic wait lists for anything surgical. Anyone who needs to get it done fast will have to pay out of pocket to prevent wasting their time. The other issue with single payer is that if it's a government 'fix' such as this, there is not going to be any going back. Just like the ACA is never going to be repealed, if we give up our semblance of a free market economy, there will never be a return to it.
 
Wow, talk about kicking over a fireant anthill --- I recall a discussion with a mentor who opened his practice in 1982 -- back when FM consisted of a 1 year internship and you were good to go --- he stated he used to charge $25.00 a visit and get all of it, no insurance companies and people got good care, he made a decent living and life was good ---

I was one of those working poor in the transition from one career that died in 2002 into medicine -- I had no health insurance, sucked it up when I got sick, but kept my kids on BC/BS for around $320 a month (now $460) and my wife had healthcare through her job --- speaking from that perspective, when you have to choose between keeping the lights on, feeding your family or going to the doctor, the doctor goes last on the list unless you just can't function -- the $40 a month would have been a Godsend at that time, especially if the meds were low cost. Every school year was rough with clothing costs, school supplies, lunches -- when you have your 5 year old look you in the eyes and ask,"Daddy, why are we poor" after you just went from $80K/year to $7.50 an hour really sucks ---
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Again, I apologize for the length of the previous post. Yes, there are other systems of healthcare that are single payer besides the Canadian system, but they all suffer from the same issue of chronic wait lists for anything surgical. Anyone who needs to get it done fast will have to pay out of pocket to prevent wasting their time. The other issue with single payer is that if it's a government 'fix' such as this, there is not going to be any going back. Just like the ACA is never going to be repealed, if we give up our semblance of a free market economy, there will never be a return to it.

I'm Canadian. Two years ago I tore my meniscus. Went to the doctor in April, had the MRI and had the meniscus repair surgery in June.

Five years ago my father was diagnosed with cancer. He went to the local academic hospital and then contacted,Sloan Kettering in New York because he had bought into the idea that our system was inferior. After a review from Sloan Kettering they advised they would give the exact same treatment he was getting in Canada on the same schedule.

I know my n=2 and for some things we do send patients to the U.S. But our system is not sick.

And most physicians are paid fee for service. Employment arrangements are more common in remote areas and pay well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I know my n=2 and for some things we do send patients to the U.S. But our system is not sick.

And most physicians are paid fee for service. Employment arrangements are more common in remote areas and pay well.
I appreciate hearing an/the other side to the argument. I think it's a very complex problem because what we're ultimately getting at here is that there are too few resources to ensure that everyone is always able to go see a doctor whenever they want, so there has to be some sort of filter unless the doctors simply work 24/7 for free. In the past, that filter was money, pure and simple. You had it, you got care, otherwise you got charity. Now the filter is insurance, but insurance costs money, so we're really still filtering by money. The Canadians simply filter more by time rather than money. Per their website, cancer treatments and other serious conditions are treated quickly relative to something non-emergent, so the complaints above (except example "gg") are for patients who had something non-emergent and/or less time sensitive.

I don't believe your system is sick, but I wanted to check the argument given above that an Ayn Rand approach to medicine is inherently detrimental to the socioeconomically disadvantaged and that the only possible moral high ground in such a conversation is to see county patients for free. In response to a previous post, some hypocrisy needs to be pointed out. Is it morally superior to make a person wait the majority of a year (294 days) for a knee replacement surgery because it is a non-emergent condition? To prioritize the immediate medical necessities is important, but to put other conditions so low on the ladder as to be inaccessible is also an institutional cruelty.
 
I appreciate hearing an/the other side to the argument. I think it's a very complex problem because what we're ultimately getting at here is that there are too few resources to ensure that everyone is always able to go see a doctor whenever they want, so there has to be some sort of filter unless the doctors simply work 24/7 for free. In the past, that filter was money, pure and simple. You had it, you got care, otherwise you got charity. Now the filter is insurance, but insurance costs money, so we're really still filtering by money. The Canadians simply filter more by time rather than money. Per their website, cancer treatments and other serious conditions are treated quickly relative to something non-emergent, so the complaints above (except example "gg") are for patients who had something non-emergent and/or less time sensitive.

I don't believe your system is sick, but I wanted to check the argument given above that an Ayn Rand approach to medicine is inherently detrimental to the socioeconomically disadvantaged and that the only possible moral high ground in such a conversation is to see county patients for free. In response to a previous post, some hypocrisy needs to be pointed out. Is it morally superior to make a person wait the majority of a year (294 days) for a knee replacement surgery because it is a non-emergent condition? To prioritize the immediate medical necessities is important, but to put other conditions so low on the ladder as to be inaccessible is also an institutional cruelty.

Agreed that there is not an infinite pot of healthcare anything: not infinite dollars, not infinite doctors, not infinite mri machines, livers to be transplanted, etc etc. Because there is a limited amount, there are systems of rationing to distribute it. The question is what is the best basis for that rationing? There are systems that are more and less logical and more or less just. Distributing based on someone's income level is certainly one way to do it, and it's how we've most commonly done it here, and is the most Ayn Rand style system. You could also distribute based on a certain number of health care dollars for every citizen independent of their medical need. Or you could distribute it based on who got in line first for a particularly health care benefit (doc visit, mri, surgery). Or you could base it on who has the greatest medical need, and try to rationally allocate healthcare resources as various types of national health care systems do. ... And if sharing something like healthcare is scary because you don't think you'll get enough, you can always argue for making the pot bigger (say, by eliminating the huge percent that insurance companies skim off the top) and then there is more (not infinitely more, but more) for everyone, including you.

The "Ayn Rand system" as you say, does seem quite definitely detrimental to the socioeconomically disadvantaged in as much as it means poor patients might wait 294,000 days, i.e. never, for a knee surgery, whereas other rich people can get it done in 2.94 days. Ditto cancer treatment or other essential medical services. And that social ill is more important to me than a 'dystopian future' where anyone whose knee isn't that bad might have to wait months to get it fixed. Or where we as a society decide that no one should wait 9 months for knee surgery, so we fund more orthopedists and reduce everyone's wait time to 3 months. Your mileage, and your priorities, may vary.
 
Really? You're taking this to the level of name calling? Interesting choice.

It's particularly interesting because (1) MANY people across the country have concerns about the impact of DPC and concierge practices on poorer communities and individual patients. Though I get that those are different models, and that you may fall on one side of the debate, but there is widespread discussion/concern about how these models will affect access to care for the most underserved patients. That's not just me. (2) Ayn Rand, while happy to take advantage of programs like Medicare in her later years, was famous for a certain degree of contempt for socioeconomically marginalized people. Given those two facts, I think it's totally legitimate to say that hearing a major DPC supporter list Ayn Rand in the #2 spot in a recommended book list triggers my hmm-maybe-DPC-proponents-really-aren't-looking-out-or-the-best-interests-of-poor-people-worries and red flags. I did not say all DPC folks are all in it for the money (I completely understand the joy of seeing fewer patients for more time each), nor did I say DPC people were jerks, in fact I didn't choose to do any name calling at all. I realize it is the internet, but I'm sure you're capable of extending the same courtesy.

I stand by my CONCERNS (which are not yet conclusions, but are legit concerns) about both DPC and concierge practices.
And I stand by my conclusions about Ayn Rand.
Put the two of them together and you get my comment.

The rest of your response would be stronger if it weren't prefaced by knee jerk attacks.


The fact that a major DPC supporter whose practice name is ATLAS MD lists Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as a reading source should not be surprising at all. In fact, when I first heard of Atlas MD shortly after learning about the DPC model... I smacked my forehead and said, "Why didn't I think of that name?!?!"

Most financial analyses I've seen shows DPC practices provide care that is much more cost effective, and cheaper per patient/visit, than government based programs.

The "conventional wisdom" that the best way for poor people to get medical care is to have the government pay for it is what needs to be questioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
"Atlas Shrugged...?" I don't recall much in the way of practice management info in that tome. If you're gonna read it, save it for last (or else you may never get to the other books). ;)
Not much about practice management in "How to win friends and influence people" either...
 
Not much about practice management in "How to win friends and influence people" either...
Well that's easy - very few of us have had to actually learn to market ourselves or our practices before. That book is a great start and doing just that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
In the meantime, though, yes, I have concerns about the potential implications for my poorest patients if there were a large shift in that direction.
you are welcome to charge patients as little as you want in DPC, unlike medicare/insurance which require you to charge the copays
 
Top