Thinking about dropping out of medical school now....

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Kevin Baker said:
I wouldn't worry. We're getting 30 mln + new paying customers, are facing an aging population with a lot of docs retiring, and students have an average debt load close to $200k. I only see physician salaries going up.
Click to expand...

You're more optimistic than I am. I only see nurses and PAs doing more primary care for less $.
Members don't see this ad.
 
KinasePro said:
This is debatable, though. The policy wonks say it won't lead to significant savings but this guy and a handful of EM physicians I've spoken with estimate that >50% of the tests they order are defensive medicine. The truth is probably somewhere in-between, but I'd bet that the wonks are underestimating.
Click to expand...

You can just look at states that DO have tort reform - in those places fewer tests are NOT ordered - the wonks have already been proven right.

Again you should argue that tort reform is good because it is fair while the current system is unfair. You won't get tort reform passed through legislatures on promises of it saving substantial amount of money because there will be experts testifying against you with actual hard data who will disprove your claims.

Showing cases of unfairness and proposing a more just system is a much better idea, in my opinion anyway.
 
Lokhtar said:
You can just look at states that DO have tort reform - in those places fewer tests are NOT ordered - the wonks have already been proven right.
Click to expand...

What states have true tort reform? If you talking about states like MD, where "tort reform" caps plaintiff payout to $30 mil, it's no wonder medicine hasn't become less defensive in those states.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
KinasePro said:
What states have true tort reform? If you talking about states like MD, where "tort reform" caps plaintiff payout to $30 mil, it's no wonder medicine hasn't become less defensive in those states.
Click to expand...

Texas has implemented several measures in the area of tort reform, like requiring the losing party to pay the opposing party's court costs and capping non-economic damages, to name just two. Because of this, I think Texas has become arguably the most physician-friendly state in the country. How this impacts the practice of defensive medicine, I'm not exactly sure, although most studies I've seen seem to indicate it has failed in reducing health care costs in the state.
 
Last edited:
JABWS said:
Texas has implement several measures in the area of tort reform, like requiring the losing party to pay the opposing party's court costs and capping non-economic damages, to name just two. Because of this, I think Texas has become arguably the most physician-friendly state in the country. How this impacts the practice of defensive medicine, I'm not exactly sure, although most studies I've seen seem to indicate it failed in reducing health care costs in the state.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I didn't know this. Although the question remains: how much reform is enough to actually prevent defensive medicine? While there's clear legal benefits to practicing in texas based on this reform, perhaps it's not enough to change physician behavior.
 
auburnO5 said:
I won't be happy with anything less than $200k, MAYBE I could settle for $150k.

And the way I see it, by the time I'm through with residency, regardless of what field I go into (not interested in surgery) that I will be making less than $150k thanks to our glorious presidente. I'm over halfway done but at this point I think it makes the most sense for me to go ahead and quit.
Click to expand...

Me too.
 
Kevin Baker said:
I wouldn't worry. We're getting 30 mln + new paying customers, are facing an aging population with a lot of docs retiring, and students have an average debt load close to $200k. I only see physician salaries going up.
Click to expand...

Three words prove you wrong: Medicaid Fee Schedule.
 
So you guys are excited about being able to see more Medicaid patients? Got it.
 
If you want to make over 200k a year, play QB for Auburn.
 
Dave89 said:
You're more optimistic than I am. I only see nurses and PAs doing more primary care for less $.
Click to expand...

They see themselves doing it too - and they're lobbying for it. No one can predict the future but I wouldn't go into primary care right now even with the promise of incomes increasing. Increased reimbursements only work if patients are seeing you instead of the APN.
 
KinasePro said:
Interesting, I didn't know this. Although the question remains: how much reform is enough to actually prevent defensive medicine? While there's clear legal benefits to practicing in texas based on this reform, perhaps it's not enough to change physician behavior.
Click to expand...

Well, there is zero chance whatsoever that there's going to be any tort reform that's stronger than what Texas has now. Non-economic cap of $250k, etc etc. It's an extremely strong law for physicians. So if that's not good enough, then it's not an argument you can make because no law will be better for physicians unless you make it that patients can't sue at all.

As I said, the best (and IMO, the true) argument for malpractice reform is that it's immoral and unfair. Other legislatures have seen what happens in the malpractice reform states - the cost of malpractice insurance may go down, but the cost of healthcare doesn't. So for most states taking the issue under advisement, they're not going to believe the people claiming that costs will go down - because they will have hard data against unsubstantiated claims. Not that I am naive enough to believe legislation is based on hard data, but you have hard data plus a powerful lobby group like the trial lawyers association and....good luck fighting that.
 
Lokhtar said:
Well, there is zero chance whatsoever that there's going to be any tort reform that's stronger than what Texas has now. Non-economic cap of $250k, etc etc. It's an extremely strong law for physicians. So if that's not good enough, then it's not an argument you can make because no law will be better for physicians unless you make it that patients can't sue at all.

As I said, the best (and IMO, the true) argument for malpractice reform is that it's immoral and unfair. Other legislatures have seen what happens in the malpractice reform states - the cost of malpractice insurance may go down, but the cost of healthcare doesn't. So for most states taking the issue under advisement, they're not going to believe the people claiming that costs will go down - because they will have hard data against unsubstantiated claims. Not that I am naive enough to believe legislation is based on hard data, but you have hard data plus a powerful lobby group like the trial lawyers association and....good luck fighting that.
Click to expand...

I know I'm probably in the minority on this one, but regardless of my ambivalence towards tort reform (I would hate to be on the wrong side of a suit), the idea of suppressing civil liberties in an attempt to insulate health care professionals from liability is one that makes me very uneasy. Not only has malpractice reform proven to be ineffective in curbing healthcare costs, but tort cases in general have been grossly misrepresented by the media and party leaders seeking political gain. I'm probably barking up the wrong tree with this one, as it seems that everyone knows someone who has been negatively affected by this kind of litigation, but there are real victims on the other side of the coin too. And politicians do these people a major injustice by characterizing the majority of malpractice suits as frivolous and increasingly onerous for physicians.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I am not advocating that physicians be impossible to sue - the problem is that the cases are too complex to sufficiently explain to juries and sometimes that means physicians get off easy and other times, it means there are awards that are way over-sized compared to the issue at hand. I think we can come up with a fairer system that allows patients to bring complaints and be compensated while not allowing the crazy unfair verdicts. The vast majority of cases get settled anyway, but it's the ridiculously large payouts that drive the cost of insurance up. We could surely come up with panels of educated citizens, composed of both healthcare professionals and non-healthcare people, that would decide the case on the merits and not be swayed by emotion and/or be confused by complexity of the case. Is that the best way to do it? Probably not, I'm sure other people can come up with other ideas. I just think that the current system isn't fair.
 
Good luck trying to make 200k reliably in any non-medicine field. Not going to happen.
 
If you like medicine then stick with it. Medicine is a fairly broad field and it's very difficult to not find a field you have interest in (if you initially had some interest in medicine). Regardless of what happens with compensation, you will live comfortably. We may not be happy with what's happening, but we don't have much control or say. If you are not interested in medicine and solely in the salary, then you likely will not be happy in medicine. The money is not worth it if you have no love for what you're doing. There are one or two people I work with who absolutely hate their job lol. Crazy how someone can go through 4 years undergrad, 4 years med school, and 7 years residency for a job that they know they hate just for the money. It's not worth it.
 
2324tigers said:
I'm guessing you're not an Alabama fan then, either.
Click to expand...

Even though your next national championship is probably another 60 years away, I'm sure you'll be fine waiting - plenty to do in auburn :D
 
loveoforganic said:
Even though your next national championship is probably another 60 years away, I'm sure you'll be fine waiting - plenty to do in auburn :D
Click to expand...

Right, because Tuscaloosa is a booming metropolis.
 
We have electricity and running water at least! Small steps :)
 
auburnO5 said:
So you guys are excited about being able to see more Medicaid patients? Got it.
Click to expand...

You don't have to take them and those people were effectively zero'ed out under the old system, so it's no net gain/loss for a physician who doesn't take Medicaid. The big draw is that a ton of insurance shenanigans have been curtailed (eg recission, lifetime caps, preexisting condition exclusion), so these insurers will have to compensate provider services vs in today's system when insurance companies can basically say "nope, don't want to."
 
notbobtrustme said:
You don't have to take them and those people were effectively zero'ed out under the old system, so it's no net gain/loss for a physician who doesn't take Medicaid. The big draw is that a ton of insurance shenanigans have been curtailed (eg recission, lifetime caps, preexisting condition exclusion), so these insurers will have to compensate provider services vs in today's system when insurance companies can basically say "nope, don't want to."
Click to expand...
Yeah, I keep telling people that one of the main problems in today's system is that so many hospitals end up losing money by not being able to collect on patients who don't have insurance. At least this will help curtail some of that.
 
notbobtrustme said:
You don't have to take them and those people were effectively zero'ed out under the old system, so it's no net gain/loss for a physician who doesn't take Medicaid. The big draw is that a ton of insurance shenanigans have been curtailed (eg recission, lifetime caps, preexisting condition exclusion), so these insurers will have to compensate provider services vs in today's system when insurance companies can basically say "nope, don't want to."
Click to expand...

You won't "have" to take them, kind of like states don't "have" to comply with certain federal mandates...but lose highway/transportation funding by doing so.
 
SoulinNeed said:
Yeah, I keep telling people that one of the main problems in today's system is that so many hospitals end up losing money by not being able to collect on patients who don't have insurance. At least this will help curtail some of that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they'll just take it from you. But hey, medicine isn't about giving the best care to individual patients anymore; it's about giving care to the largest number of people.
 
2324tigers said:
You won't "have" to take them, kind of like states don't "have" to comply with certain federal mandates...but lose highway/transportation funding by doing so.
Click to expand...

No, that's not how it works. Unless legislation changes, physicians can choose to see patients with medicaid/medicare. Here in IL, something like 60% of all physicians do not accept Medicaid as a form of payment.
 
For all of you saying physician salaries will rise, take a look at any country that has socialized its healthcare.
 
bocanutz said:
For all of you saying physician salaries will rise, take a look at any country that has socialized its healthcare.
Click to expand...

The ACA is about as far from socialized medicine as you can get. Plus, those countries also heavily subsidize medical education. Finally, many of those countries also cap the number of hours you can work. So, in short, almost nothing from those countries actually translates over to the United States.
 
notbobtrustme said:
The ACA is about as far from socialized medicine as you can get. Plus, those countries also heavily subsidize medical education. Finally, many of those countries also cap the number of hours you can work. So, in short, almost nothing from those countries actually translates over to the United States.
Click to expand...

More legislation will be coming on the heels of this. If the government takes control of what is essentially 20% of our GDP, don't you think it will inevitably empower the government to engulf a progressively larger portion?

Why stop here? There's no good reason for the government to stop expanding with the ACA.
 
JackShephard MD said:
Sure. Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Click to expand...

That's one opinion..... and you're perfectly welcome to abide by it. However it is missing a certain "universal truthiness" if you ask me

On a very basic level there is no better reason for your doctor to provide his services for free than there is for the guy who rotates your tires.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
That's one opinion..... and you're perfectly welcome to abide by it. However it is missing a certain "universal truthiness" if you ask me

On a very basic level there is no better reason for your doctor to provide his services for free than there is for the guy who rotates your tires.
Click to expand...

That's aside from the fact that if there is a certain number of patients you are able to treat, you might as well treat those who can pay you. Is a Medicaid patient's life or well-being worth any more than a cash-paying one?
 
SpecterGT260 said:
aside from policy... do you have a legitimate reason not to? hypothetically speaking....
Click to expand...

Healing the sick is a fundamental tenet of our profession, not healing the sick*. All those rights and all the status and prestige we enjoy? Yeah, that doesn't come free.

*Pending approved credit

I am mindful of my bottom line, but I accept that a certain percentage of the cases I read will go uncompensated. You can liken that to auto service, but frankly I don't care if the 27 year old women in the ED with possible acute leukemia has insurance or not. That person needs help, and I can help her. For me that's pretty much the end of the story.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
That's one opinion..... and you're perfectly welcome to abide by it. However it is missing a certain "universal truthiness" if you ask me

On a very basic level there is no better reason for your doctor to provide his services for free than there is for the guy who rotates your tires.
Click to expand...

It's one opinion and I think it's the best. As was said above, I see our profession differently than a profitable service enterprise. Taking care of for "free" and being paid *less* are two different things, first off. If your brother or mother was on medicaid and needed serious medical attention in a different state, how would you feel if every doctor denied them service? If you had a daughter and then you died, leaving her to grow up alone and on medicaid, would you want her to get care?

Well, I don't want to get paid less $ like many others on this thread. But I'm going to operate based upon the principle I mentioned above even if it costs 20% of my income. I believe you would want others to care for your family members instead of showing them the door.

Gut Shot said:
Healing the sick is a fundamental tenet of our profession, not healing the sick*. All those rights and all the status and prestige we enjoy? Yeah, that doesn't come free.

*Pending approved credit

I am mindful of my bottom line, but I accept that a certain percentage of the cases I read will go uncompensated. You can liken that to auto service, but frankly I don't care if the 27 year old women in the ED with possible acute leukemia has insurance or not. That person needs help, and I can help her. For me that's pretty much the end of the story.
Click to expand...

:thumbup:
 
JackShephard MD said:
It's one opinion and I think it's the best. As was said above, I see our profession differently than a profitable service enterprise. Taking care of for "free" and being paid *less* are two different things, first off. If your brother or mother was on medicaid and needed serious medical attention in a different state, how would you feel if every doctor denied them service? If you had a daughter and then you died, leaving her to grow up alone and on medicaid, would you want her to get care?

Well, I don't want to get paid less $ like many others on this thread. But I'm going to operate based upon the principle I mentioned above even if it costs 20% of my income. I believe you would want others to care for your family members instead of showing them the door.



:thumbup:
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing with you. I was only pointing out that issues of morals are not the same for everyone so while you can apply your morals as you see fit this in no way means you have the "right answer". You're employing subjective reasoning to get there. I'm not saying you're wrong. But not being wrong doesn't equal being right.
What I want for my family is irrelevant. I also want free tire service. Does that mean I should also get that. Health (or death) is a very recognizable line at which we can say "well its different" but it is important to remember that the line is arbitrary.


I also take issue with quantifying or establishing value with personal relation. What I want for my family and what they deserve are two different things.
 
Last edited:
Gut Shot said:
Healing the sick is a fundamental tenet of our profession, not healing the sick*. All those rights and all the status and prestige we enjoy? Yeah, that doesn't come free.

*Pending approved credit

I am mindful of my bottom line, but I accept that a certain percentage of the cases I read will go uncompensated. You can liken that to auto service, but frankly I don't care if the 27 year old women in the ED with possible acute leukemia has insurance or not. That person needs help, and I can help her. For me that's pretty much the end of the story.
Click to expand...

That's fine. I am only trying to point out this is nothing beyond personal opinion. Lets pretend that tomorrow we were plunged into some Road Warrior style apocalypse (wanted to use Fallout but saw that you're an attending and figured Mad Max may be more time appropriate :smuggrin: ) would you dole your skills out for those in need while your family starved or would you hold.out until you could receive compensation? My only point is that healthcare isn't a right and that we tend to the poor now because we can afford to. I would also like to note that nothing I've said here actually betrays my own opinion on the matter.
 
2324tigers said:
More legislation will be coming on the heels of this. If the government takes control of what is essentially 20% of our GDP, don't you think it will inevitably empower the government to engulf a progressively larger portion?

Why stop here? There's no good reason for the government to stop expanding with the ACA.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of ifs with no backup. Congress might outlaw medicine altogether and go back to leeches and powdered tiger penis. You can't bank on what ifs and maybes. For now, physician salaries look to be intact with the ACA. As others have said, they may actually rise with universal coverage and an increased workload.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
I'm not arguing with you. I was only pointing out that issues of morals are not the same for everyone so while you can apply your morals as you see fit this in no way means you have the "right answer". You're employing subjective reasoning to get there. I'm not saying you're wrong. But not being wrong doesn't equal being right.
What I want for my family is irrelevant. I also want free tire service. Does that mean I should also get that. Health (or death) is a very recognizable line at which we can say "well its different" but it is important to remember that the line is arbitrary.


I also take issue with quantifying or establishing value with personal relation. What I want for my family and what they deserve are two different things.
Click to expand...

So should we only give to those who deserve? Who should we be generous to?

Btw, all these arguments are subjective. Please re-read anything I've said, I never claimed to "be right" as opposed to being subjective.
 
2324tigers said:
More legislation will be coming on the heels of this. If the government takes control of what is essentially 20% of our GDP, don't you think it will inevitably empower the government to engulf a progressively larger portion?

Why stop here? There's no good reason for the government to stop expanding with the ACA.
Click to expand...

LOL I wish they had completely taken over 20% of our GDP, but they didn't. Unfortunately.
 
jayceee said:
My old family doc billed $454,809.82 His practice is in downtown Vancouver.
Click to expand...

OK we get it. You don't have to repeat this anecdotal evidence three times.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
That's fine. I am only trying to point out this is nothing beyond personal opinion.
Click to expand...

And when you get hundreds of thousands of physicians working under a similar ideal it's called a profession. Let's try not to willfully F it up.

SpecterGT260 said:
Lets pretend that tomorrow we were plunged into some Road Warrior style apocalypse (wanted to use Fallout but saw that you're an attending and figured Mad Max may be more time appropriate :smuggrin: ) would you dole your skills out for those in need while your family starved or would you hold.out until you could receive compensation?
Click to expand...

A false choice wrapped in a poor analogy reductio ad absurdum. Nice job. :thumbup:

SpecterGT260 said:
My only point is that healthcare isn't a right and that we tend to the poor now because we can afford to.
Click to expand...

Physicians tend to the poor now in countries with far less means than we have, and by and large they aren't doing it for money (because there isn't any). I know where you're going with this, I just don't find it a very useful line of argument.
 
jayceee said:
Found the 2011 British Columbia billings: http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/legislation/pdf/bluebook2011.pdf

search the names here to find out which specialties they go with: https://www.cpsbc.ca/node/264

My old family doc billed $454,809.82 His practice is in downtown Vancouver.

I chose some doctors that I know from the list. All work at the same Vancouver hospital.

Cardiac Anesthesiologist at my old hospital: $561,692.79

OB who delivered my best friend's baby: $634,236.47

Cardiologist (electrophysiology specialist): $703,938.32

Cardiologist (heart failure specialist): $690,000.54

Cardiac Surgeon: $550,852.16

I asked an anesthesiologist how much he pays in malpractice insurance a year once. His answer. $1000.

Universal health care sounds terrible.
Click to expand...

What was their overhead? And do billings = collections in Canada?
 
jayceee said:
Found the 2011 British Columbia billings: http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/legislation/pdf/bluebook2011.pdf

search the names here to find out which specialties they go with: https://www.cpsbc.ca/node/264

My old family doc billed $454,809.82 His practice is in downtown Vancouver.

I chose some doctors that I know from the list. All work at the same Vancouver hospital.

Cardiac Anesthesiologist at my old hospital: $561,692.79

OB who delivered my best friend's baby: $634,236.47

Cardiologist (electrophysiology specialist): $703,938.32

Cardiologist (heart failure specialist): $690,000.54

Cardiac Surgeon: $550,852.16

I asked an anesthesiologist how much he pays in malpractice insurance a year once. His answer. $1000.

Universal health care sounds terrible.
Click to expand...

But the downside is you have to live in Canada...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
New M3 thinking of dropping out for CAA school
2
Replies
50
Views
6K
chilly_md
chilly_md
THEERITH
I was thinking about medschool
Replies
1
Views
799
Lost in Translation
Lost in Translation
J
Thinking about leaving medical school for good. Need some advice (serious)
Replies
38
Views
6K
mrk123
M
L
How to minimize “damage” caused by dropping MSTP?
Replies
7
Views
1K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
K
  • Locked
Considering dropping out
2
Replies
53
Views
8K
Dave1980
D
Top