Transparency in physician salaries

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

drusso

Full Member
Moderator Emeritus
Lifetime Donor
Joined
Nov 21, 1998
Messages
12,563
Reaction score
6,951
Targeting physician salaries: I speak for the ten-percenters
ROCKY BILHARTZ, MD | POLICY | MARCH 14, 2015

shutterstock_256646092.jpg


I’m a cardiologist. But if you believe the news, you will assume my entire medical specialty is shady and full of morally suspect physicians. Let me tell you why.

Recently, two articles surfaced in the lay press, one published by the New York Times and the other by U.S. News & World Report. Like the majority of medical news that I’ve seen originate from these sources over the last few years, the articles provide no meaningful contribution to advancing quality standards in medicine or improving patient care. They are written by medical outsiders and fraught with errors. But, to their defense, the authors have been tasked with the impracticable job of interpreting a data dump of poorly understood numbers released to the general public by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

In case you haven’t been intently following this ordeal (in which case I commend you for not wasting your time), CMS started publicizing physician payments and utilization of Medicare services last year. As you know, I have absolutely no problem with transparency. But predictably, CMS has failed to provide the general public with the road map necessary to make this information meaningful.

Here’s CMS’s idea in a nutshell. Throw up a bunch of dollar signs on a billboard. Explain none of the variables. Mention nothing about physician overhead or the frequent redistribution of physician collections in certain specialties back to device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. Then, call this transparency, and further propagate the public perception that the person actually providing your health care is the greedy enemy. And, in the process, this will reduce your medical bills while somehow improving the quality of your care.

You want me to tell you why this makes absolutely no sense?


Physician salaries account for less than 10 percent of all health care spending in this country. Kind of makes you wonder who is making out with the other 90 percent of your medical dollars, doesn’t it? I’ll let you think some more about whether you want a rich doctor or a poor doctor doing procedures on your heart, but ultimately, that doesn’t even matter. If doctors worked for free, we’d still have a health care spending crisis.

CMS just doesn’t get it. You have problems with access to care. You have physician and nursing shortages in many areas of the country. Folks can’t get appointments quick enough. So, you decide to hassle the ten-percenters with fraud audits, siphon more money to those administering the currently absurd medical bureaucracy, and target labor costs? It’s like trying to get better gas mileage by polishing your wheels when the gas-guzzling engine should be replaced.

But, CMS has everything mixed up. They remain laser focused on the wheels, which is why you are going to continue to see more nonsense news publications like the ones above.


The first article is best summed up by its opening sentence: “At a time of increasing scrutiny of procedures to open blocked heart arteries, cardiologists are turning to — and reaping huge payments from — controversial techniques that relieve blockages in the arms and legs.” Basically, cardiologists are no longer just inappropriately putting stents in your heart. Instead, they are now doing it in the arteries of your legs! The second article suggests that high-volume operators, essentially those cardiologists performing the most cases, are “exposing heart patients to unnecessary cardiac procedures.” In fact, those words are in the actual title of the article. Unbelievable.

If all this inappropriate stuff is being done by cardiologists across the country, why don’t these same news agencies answer the following questions:

Why is cardiovascular mortality continuing to decrease in this country at a record pace?


Why are more folks living longer rather than dying earlier from heart and vascular disease?

Why are outcomes of cardiovascular procedures getting better and not worse?

Why has the rate of leg amputations, an extremely debilitating thing to have happen to you, plummeted by 45 percent in the last decade and a half, as procedures like stenting have became more readily available for restoring blow flow to the extremities?

Why does anyone think that leg artery procedures are controversial — like they are some ongoing experiment in medicine — when multiple medical societies in this country have been publishing guideline statements related to these therapies since 2005?

Why isn’t it viewed as a success story that therapies are increasing for peripheral vascular disease (the diagnosis where you have blockages in the arteries of your extremities)? More than 200 million people worldwide have this diagnosis, and this condition is associated with a five-fold increased risk of dying from stroke or heart attack.

Why is their understanding of the facts so misconstrued that nearly 60 percent of the procedures mentioned in their article discussing “blockages” in the extremities, seem to not even deal with procedures that actually treat “blockages” in the extremities? Say what? Indeed, from the data presented, it appears that the greatest increase in extremity procedures over the 10-year period was in venous laser procedures, which most commonly occlude (not stent) varicose veins. For the record, I don’t even perform any of these procedures. This mistake is literally the equivalent of me writing an article about various foods purchased at McDonald’s without knowing that hamburgers and french fries are two different items on the menu.

Why am I wasting my time countering this nonsense? Because with the passing of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, CMS has seemingly accelerated its quest to consolidate medicine. By strong-arming physicians through complex administrative policies and other regulatory means, they’ve reduced the number of unique groups and individual providers in medicine to achieve more absolute control of health care. The problem is that CMS continues to demonstrate that they understand very little about quality in medicine or how best to control waste in health care.

Unless something changes soon, we are headed toward a two-tiered medical system is this country, and its our wiser generation — those who have contributed the greatest amount of tax funds into the system — who will be most disappointed by the quality of their Medicare dollars. The solution is not more regulation, it’s less. If you give everyone a health savings account in a system with more physician-ownership and transparent medical pricing, the market will resurrect this failing industry. Sure, the ACA has managed to provided government subsidies to previously uninsured people, but the reality is that these individuals continue to have poor access to the best medical care, and their subsidies are still being used to pay the same exorbitant prices that comprise 90 cents out of every dollar in American healthcare.

You can debate the above all you want, but I speak for the ten-percenters. We represent the wheels on the gas-guzzling machine. In fact, if the wheels fall off, maybe that will actually be a good thing. The patients and I can then hitch a ride together. And, I guarantee you that I’ll be going somewhere where there is less red tape.

Rocky Bilhartz is a cardiologist and the author of Finding Truth in Transparency: Our Broken Healthcare System and How We Can Heal It. He can be reached at BilhartzMD.com.

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
I am anticipating 2-tiered healthcare in the next decade and am positioning myself to be on the top tier.
 
I am anticipating 2-tiered healthcare in the next decade and am positioning myself to be on the top tier.
Exactly. I'd rather be an independent physician providing a high level of care and an exceptional healthcare experience, and not accepting government controlled insurance, rather than someone's bitch forced to see ever increasing numbers of patients per day, with poor care due to the 6 minutes I can spend with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
this article is just as misleading as the NYT article.

gimme a break with the health savings accounts. as if that will solve the problem.

the guy is an interventional cardiologist, then he says he "Doesnt perform THESE procedures". it looks like he is referring to the venous procedures, but the article is mainly about arterial procedures. purposely ambiguous. there is a reason that certain things get published in the NYT and others get published god-knows-where.

interventional cards is out for blood, and i can understand why. but if you want transparency, at least present a balanced argument and dont throw your personal political 2 cents in.
 
The only scammers of health care today are two main sources: administrators/CEOs of hospitals (whose salaries have sky rocketed well above that of physicians, yet no one dares to mention this) and insurance companies who are out for pure profit for their shareholders and their own executives. But since these entities have the strongest lobbies in Washington, physicians will continue to take the blame for our healthcare problems....


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
 
Perhaps some contributory means for excessive healthcare costs in this country?


20150429_growthinadministratorsopt.jpg

administrative burden and the 1/3 chunk that private insurance takes pretty much vanishes with single payer.
 
The only scammers of health care today are two main sources: administrators/CEOs of hospitals (whose salaries have sky rocketed well above that of physicians, yet no one dares to mention this) and insurance companies who are out for pure profit for their shareholders and their own executives. But since these entities have the strongest lobbies in Washington, physicians will continue to take the blame for our healthcare problems....


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

dont let big pharma or device manufacturers of the hook. they are the biggest crooks of all
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
this article is just as misleading as the NYT article.

gimme a break with the health savings accounts. as if that will solve the problem.

the guy is an interventional cardiologist, then he says he "Doesnt perform THESE procedures". it looks like he is referring to the venous procedures, but the article is mainly about arterial procedures. purposely ambiguous. there is a reason that certain things get published in the NYT and others get published god-knows-where.

interventional cards is out for blood, and i can understand why. but if you want transparency, at least present a balanced argument and dont throw your personal political 2 cents in.
Right before that he says venous procedures accounted for 60% of the procedures that were included in article's analysis and then says he doesn't even perform them. How is that misleading? Most vein procedures are done by guys who got out of their primary specialty to do more boutique type, cosmetic medicine - far from what cardiologists do. The NY Times article was very misleading
 
Agreed!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
 
Right before that he says venous procedures accounted for 60% of the procedures that were included in article's analysis and then says he doesn't even perform them. How is that misleading? Most vein procedures are done by guys who got out of their primary specialty to do more boutique type, cosmetic medicine - far from what cardiologists do. The NY Times article was very misleading

i read it as "these" procedures, meaning all types of interventional procedures, vein and artery. he makes it look like he doesnt have a dog in the fight, when he clearly does
 
this article is just as misleading as the NYT article.

gimme a break with the health savings accounts. as if that will solve the problem.

the guy is an interventional cardiologist, then he says he "Doesnt perform THESE procedures". it looks like he is referring to the venous procedures, but the article is mainly about arterial procedures. purposely ambiguous. there is a reason that certain things get published in the NYT and others get published god-knows-where.

interventional cards is out for blood, and i can understand why. but if you want transparency, at least present a balanced argument and dont throw your personal political 2 cents in.
If HSA accounts could be used at cash rates and still apply to deductibles, they absolutely could make a huge difference. A cash MRI at the imaging place down the hall from me is $500. And insurance MRI (even if you pay out of pocket with a high deductible) is closer to $2000. Why you can't pay the cash rate and then submit that to insurance to apply to your deductible is a mystery to me, but could go a long way towards cutting health care costs.
 
administrative burden and the 1/3 chunk that private insurance takes pretty much vanishes with single payer.

LOL....if the federal government is in charge, do you truly believe that the administrative burden will vanish?

Currently administrating HHS there are approximately 77,583 FTE for FY 16 and almost 80,000 on tap for FY 17. No doubt that this would balloon exponentially with a single payor system federally administrated. http://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2017/budget-in-brief/

Conversely, if one believes that a private insurer could do any better, sorry again. They are one of the most influential groups in determining governmental policy. In fact, so much so that the Democratic led Congress and President allowed for BILLIONS of $ of subsidiaries to them with the passage of Obamacare. Even Michael Moore doesn't like it: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/opinion/moore-the-obamacare-we-deserve.html?_r=1&
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
LOL....if the federal government is in charge, do you truly believe that the administrative burden will vanish?

Currently administrating HHS there are approximately 77,583 FTE for FY 16 and almost 80,000 on tap for FY 17. No doubt that this would balloon exponentially with a single payor system federally administrated. http://www.hhs.gov/about/budget/fy2017/budget-in-brief/

Conversely, if one believes that a private insurer could do any better, sorry again. They are one of the most influential groups in determining governmental policy. In fact, so much so that the Democratic led Congress and President allowed for BILLIONS of $ of subsidiaries to them with the passage of Obamacare. Even Michael Moore doesn't like it: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/opinion/moore-the-obamacare-we-deserve.html?_r=1&

right, so there are really no great options.

in an ideal world, healthcare would be administered fairly and relatively cheaply, with good outcomes. there are too many competing financial interests for this to actually happen here in america.

i dont think that the government can do it, but i know that the private sector cant either.

the best solution is a bare-bones, crappy public option/medicare for all. this will serve everyone, be relatively inexpensive, but will not cover anything expensive. then, there will be a secondary market where if you have the means, you can get an MRI the next day, you dont have to wait a year for a hip replacement, and you can get the brand name drugs. this is not what we have now b/c private insurers, big pharma, and hospitals are sucking all of the money out of the system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
right, so there are really no great options.

in an ideal world, healthcare would be administered fairly and relatively cheaply, with good outcomes. there are too many competing financial interests for this to actually happen here in america.

i dont think that the government can do it, but i know that the private sector cant either.

the best solution is a bare-bones, crappy public option/medicare for all. this will serve everyone, be relatively inexpensive, but will not cover anything expensive. then, there will be a secondary market where if you have the means, you can get an MRI the next day, you dont have to wait a year for a hip replacement, and you can get the brand name drugs. this is not what we have now b/c private insurers, big pharma, and hospitals are sucking all of the money out of the system.

Isn't that the Canadian system?

If you look at physician salaries in Canada -- not too shabby. I have a buddy in Vancouver doing FP doing way better then me in Pain.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
right, so there are really no great options.

in an ideal world, healthcare would be administered fairly and relatively cheaply, with good outcomes. there are too many competing financial interests for this to actually happen here in america.

i dont think that the government can do it, but i know that the private sector cant either.

the best solution is a bare-bones, crappy public option/medicare for all. this will serve everyone, be relatively inexpensive, but will not cover anything expensive. then, there will be a secondary market where if you have the means, you can get an MRI the next day, you dont have to wait a year for a hip replacement, and you can get the brand name drugs. this is not what we have now b/c private insurers, big pharma, and hospitals are sucking all of the money out of the system.
That's why the solution is to remove third-party influence as much as we possibly can. Very little in the outpatient world is so expensive that it really needs it anyway.
 
can i still talk to you rich guys on this forum?

cause ive always imagined that i would be helping those with greatest need, those who need direction towards a healthier higher quality life (and maybe prevent the proletariat from overthrowing the decadent bourgeoisie and upper class!)
 
Isn't that the Canadian system?

If you look at physician salaries in Canada -- not too shabby. I have a buddy in Vancouver doing FP doing way better then me in Pain.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
No way
 
I wish it wasn't so. But the information is public and I looked him up myself. Wouldn't believe it without having seen it.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
I believe the posted salaries for most Canadian Doctors exclude their overhead
 
can i still talk to you rich guys on this forum?

cause ive always imagined that i would be helping those with greatest need, those who need direction towards a healthier higher quality life (and maybe prevent the proletariat from overthrowing the decadent bourgeoisie and upper class!)


No, but if I need my car washed I can give you a call.
 
I'm now a resident in NYC area, but I grew up in Canada and went to medical school in the UK.

My father is doctor in Canada. So I'm well versed in all 3 countries. My dad is a Psychiatrist in the Toronto Area, average income is 300-350k. Here in NYC, average Psych income is around 200k.

Canadian doctors earn >>> USA Doctors. End of story.

An example is my friend, who just finished radiology in Toronto (PGY5). He wanted to move to the U.S, so he went on a job hunt here. He really wanted to move to New York. Cornell NYC offered him 240k, the best he could find was a community hospital in Queen's, 280K. The best he could get in the U.S was somewhere in Kansas, 380k.

He signed a contract in the Toronto area few months ago: 420K.

Remember, in Canada, its fee for service, and single payer insurance. So you bill for a lot, but you just have to bill 1 insurance company: The government. The amount of paperwork doctors spend here is ridiculous, as well as the amount of time you waste with insurance companies on the phone, etc, getting approval, etc. In Canada you just have to show your healthcard, and thats it. And no, its not "Communism". Doctors still earn extremely well, healthcare is relatively quick. Sure, elective hip replacement will take longer in Canada (3-4 months longer), but for urgent issues like needing a Lap Choley or a Whipple, the care in Canada is just as good.

I mean, if I (god forbid) had pancreatic cancer next month, I'm flying straight back to Canada and getting world class care at Princess Margaret Hospital/Toronto General Hospital for FREE. I'm not going to battle insurance companies, Deductibles, Co-payments, etc. to try to get into Sloan Kettering.

The downside to Canada is that there is ONLY public healthcare, no private. So the upside to England is that NHS/Private, 2 tiered system. So while salaries for the average doctor are much lower than Canada in the UK, you can potentially make bank if you do a lot of private work in rich areas (e.g, around London).

And remember, malpractice in Canada is much lower than USA, and there is one fixed, flat rate, for each province. The highest is Neurosurgery/OBGYN, in Ontario they pay 76K. Here in the NYC area, OBGYN pays 120-140k.

I still believe USA is the best place to do residency training, and definitely the best place to subspecialize (I am hoping to do Pain Medicine), but honestly, I'm not sure the healthcare system is that hot for attendings/working. I think if you want to be the next Ben Carson or Atul Gawande, than USA is the best. But if you simply want to make $$$, head up north.

Of course, its more regulated in the UK/Canada, so you're not going to have (highly unlikely) cardiologists billing $18 million/year (I realize thats not his take home income, but still ridiculously high), but the average income in Canada is definitely higher overall.

And for the patient, studies have shown (just google it), that Canada/UK have better health outcomes. So you can't use the argument, "Well, at least in the U.S patients get better treatment".

Just my 2 cents,
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
$280K US = $361K Canadian correct?

Is charging cash for medical services rendered illegal in Canada?
 
Those are payments to providers. That's like saying my salary is what my collections are. In most cases, subtract 50% or more from all figures in that chart.

Overhead expenses are much lower without the hassle of prior auths, peer to peers, constant denials etc.

I texted my buddy in Canada for clarification. He reports that there are 4 people in total in his family practice group. They share monthly overhead expenses of ~22-24K monthly amongst the ENTIRE group.

His direct quote: "The nice thing here is I never have to worry about being paid. Ever."

I get it. N of 1. Just sharing an experience from a close friend of mine who is a family physician in BC.

And looking his figure on the website, even if you deducted 50% from that total, he still does better then most of us.
 
$280K US = $361K Canadian correct?

Is charging cash for medical services rendered illegal in Canada?

Yes, its illegal. 1983 Canada Health Act: All healthcare must be provided publically.

Well, the Canadian dollar is crap right now. 2 years ago CAD/USD was equal. So right now the conversion rate is not a good baseline.
 
Last edited:
Overhead expenses are much lower without the hassle of prior auths, peer to peers, constant denials etc.

I texted my buddy in Canada for clarification. He reports that there are 4 people in total in his family practice group. They share monthly overhead expenses of ~22-24K monthly amongst the ENTIRE group.

His direct quote: "The nice thing here is I never have to worry about being paid. Ever."

I get it. N of 1. Just sharing an experience from a close friend of mine who is a family physician in BC.

And looking his figure on the website, even if you deducted 50% from that total, he still does better then most of us.

Well I grew up in Canada, and all my family and friends are physicians from Vancouver to Winnipeg to Toronto to Halifax.

My best friend is a family doctor in Winnipeg (equivalent to leaving in a place like Kansas City). He works 9-4, 4 days a week. Family Doc. Made 270K last year. And I'm pretty sure he has a better chance of winning the lottery than being sued.

I got off the phone with a family friend couple days ago, he's a Urologist in Toronto area. He wanted to come to the U.S, but again, he's looked into it, and said no way, earnings much higher in Canada, much lower stress/paperwork.
 
How much are specialists typically taxed in Canada?

What in the regulations prevents a primary care doctor from hiring a bunch of midlevels and cranking volume?
 
How much are specialists typically taxed in Canada?

What in the regulations prevents a primary care doctor from hiring a bunch of midlevels and cranking volume?


Well here are Canada's tax rates: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

(Federal and provincial/state)

and if you do PP, you can turn your practice into a corporate and get the lower tax rates:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/crprtns/rts-eng.html

E.g. In Ontario, it would be only 12% total.

There's no regulations. You can hire a bunch of midlevels if you want. The problem is in Canada, NPs/PAs aren't as common as in the U.S. So unless you're in Vancouver or Toronto, I think it might be hard to hire a "bunch of midlevels".

And yes, taxes might be a bit higher in Canada, but remember, FREE healthcare, and cost of education is much lower (Univ. of Toronto medical school, the most expensive in Canada, is 20k/year tuition). And its a Top 15 in the world medical school.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Seems like a good system up north. They do economically benefit from the absolute lack of a "sunshine tax" in regards to physician compensation.

Supposedly pmr is much more selective in canada as well again attesting to our neighbors common sense.

I would be curious to see the difference between average and absolute compensation between the countries.

I still believe the usa can be the best place to be a doctor in the world depending on the individual.
 
Interesting... So the govt defines what healthcare is, what's covered, etc? If the govt says ESIs are not covered, a doc can provide it or it's still illegal?
Why would ESIs not be covered?

Basically everything is compared apart from some esoteric, super expensive therapies (like maybe those new hepatitis C drugs that coat 20k/month or whatever)

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
Why would ESIs not be covered?

Basically everything is compared apart from some esoteric, super expensive therapies (like maybe those new hepatitis C drugs that coat 20k/month or whatever)

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
How about IDET/biacuplasty? Pulsed RF? Regenerative medicine? If these are not covered, can they be legally offered privately?
 
How about IDET/biacuplasty? Pulsed RF? Regenerative medicine? If these are not covered, can they be legally offered privately?
I don't know. I'm just a resident so I am learning myself.

You can check Health Canada website, equivalent to FDA. They approve everything that the Canadian govt will reimburse physicians.

But there is 0 private medicine. You can't do anything on your own.

This is why a lot of Americans think Canadian healthcare is "communist". If your goal is to bill $18 million/make trump money, than stay in US.

But the average Joe physician in Canada definitely earns more than the average Joe physician in U.S

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
the reason that canadian doctors make a lot of money is the same as why docs in south dakota and nowhere, arkansas make a lot of money. canadian economy is an offshoot of US. if there were desirable communities, then american docs would practice there, and drive the salaries way down, just like they do in NYC, LA, and chicago here. supply/demand. lets call a a spade a spade. not too many of us want to practice in Winnipeg, eh?
 
How about IDET/biacuplasty? Pulsed RF? Regenerative medicine? If these are not covered, can they be legally offered privately?

Please god don't let this worthless crap metastasize to Canada. They're too nice for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
What none of you are mentioning is that it is virtually impossible to practice medicine in Canada unless you did your residency and/or fellowship training in Canada. The problem is passing the canadian board exams. Basically, they make it impossible unless you are spoon fed canadian board exam scenarios and answers for written and oral boards. The canadians keep tight control of the supply and demand of physicians. We should do the same, frankly.

But instead, what do we do? Let in anybody with a medical degree. THEN let in anybody WITHOUT a medical degree such as nurse practitioners and naturopaths and other noctors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
What none of you are mentioning is that it is virtually impossible to practice medicine in Canada unless you did your residency and/or fellowship training in Canada. The problem is passing the canadian board exams. Basically, they make it impossible unless you are spoon fed canadian board exam scenarios and answers for written and oral boards. The canadians keep tight control of the supply and demand of physicians. We should do the same, frankly.

But instead, what do we do? Let in anybody with a medical degree. THEN let in anybody WITHOUT a medical degree such as nurse practitioners and naturopaths and other noctors.

I don't think you have to pass any Canadian Boards if you have trained and have been licensed by US medical boards, I do think they assign some sort of Mentor to follow you for a year though
 
This article is spot on...
Why are we pontificating about the Canadian HC system. If you really want to know, post on the "Canada" forum and find out. I know my medical school colleagues from Macgill loved it here and don't go back to practice ... Must be a reason.
 
What none of you are mentioning is that it is virtually impossible to practice medicine in Canada unless you did your residency and/or fellowship training in Canada. The problem is passing the canadian board exams. Basically, they make it impossible unless you are spoon fed canadian board exam scenarios and answers for written and oral boards. The canadians keep tight control of the supply and demand of physicians. We should do the same, frankly.

But instead, what do we do? Let in anybody with a medical degree. THEN let in anybody WITHOUT a medical degree such as nurse practitioners and naturopaths and other noctors.


I know lots of Canadians that did residency in USA, passed the Canadian board exams and moved back to Canada to practice. I personally will be doing the Canadian boards, same summer as when I do my American boards, to keep my options open.

Canadians keep tight control of IMGs matching into residency....its not that tough if you are US MD coming from ACGME residency, and want to work as an Attending in the North.
 
Last edited:
Please god don't let this worthless crap metastasize to Canada. They're too nice for that.

Exactly. This is why Health care costs are skyrocketing in the U.S. Because big pharma agents are spending on interventions that prolly do not. In Canada, Health Canada more tightly regulates what gets approved...

I by no means am an expert on "IDET/biacuplasty? Pulsed RF? Regenerative medicine?", but I suspect they reimburse very well for the physician, but doubt it changes much for the patient? I could be wrong though.
 
Last edited:
the reason that canadian doctors make a lot of money is the same as why docs in south dakota and nowhere, arkansas make a lot of money. canadian economy is an offshoot of US. if there were desirable communities, then american docs would practice there, and drive the salaries way down, just like they do in NYC, LA, and chicago here. supply/demand. lets call a a spade a spade. not too many of us want to practice in Winnipeg, eh?

I gave an example of my friend that got offered 420k in Toronto, 250-280k in NYC (Radiology).

Physicians in Toronto/Vancouver are reimbursed much better than physicians in NYC/LA. Toronto/Vancouver are just as "desirable" as NYC/LA, if not moreso. Google Top 10 cities in the world. I believe the highest "desirable" city in the U.S is SF and Boston, only cracking Top 30 in the world.

Just like physicians in Manitoba are reimbursed much better than physicians in North Dakota. There are Family Doctors in Rural Manitoba making 500-600k. But yes, nobody wants to live there.

And while Winnipeg is no NYC/LA, it has 750 000 pop, NHL team. I would much rather live in Winnipeg than Bismark, ND.

Again, just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I gave an example of my friend that got offered 420k in Toronto, 250-280k in NYC (Radiology).

Physicians in Toronto/Vancouver are reimbursed much better than physicians in NYC/LA. Toronto/Vancouver are just as "desirable" as NYC/LA, if not moreso. Google Top 10 cities in the world. I believe the highest "desirable" city in the U.S is SF and Boston, only cracking Top 30 in the world.

Just like physicians in Manitoba are reimbursed much better than physicians in North Dakota. There are Family Doctors in Rural Manitoba making 500-600k. But yes, nobody wants to live there.

And while Winnipeg is no NYC/LA, it has 750 000 pop, NHL team. I would much rather live in Winnipeg than Bismark, ND.

Again, just my opinion.
From what several of my patients have told me, Canadian physicians don't care about pain management. These patients return to me for interventions. Not a rare occurrence. It seems the governmental control of "active" physicians allows docs to become comfortable and passive. My question is why the population accepts limited access to physicians and benefits. In Britain there is more of a backlash lately on euro TV. In the USA , a patient wants a spine treatment for a golfing trip yesterday...
 
@Ligament see's a lot of Canadians in his practice and would probably be the most reliable reporter of fact on this forum. @Ligament are Canadians seeking you out because they're bored, frivolous with their money, or under-served?

They are seeking me out because:
  1. It takes 6 months to get an SIJ or ESI injection in BC
  2. It takes 12 months to get a consult with a Pain Medicine subspecialist in BC
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
They are seeking me out because:
  1. It takes 6 months to get an SIJ or ESI injection in BC
  2. It takes 12 months to get a consult with a Pain Medicine subspecialist in BC

And then the magic happens?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top