- Joined
- Dec 21, 2012
- Messages
- 162
- Reaction score
- 34
I realize the answer to this may be in flux.
It'd be interesting to know the ratio of net collections per actual pay, per specialty. Of course, it'd be employment structure/practice specific, with overhead heavily influencing it.
Rads is changing. Their RVUs have dropped a lot.
Well, yeah.The hospital generates money mostly independent of what the professional fee is for the physician. E.g. Facility fees, medications, imaging and laboratory studies etc. So the reason a surgeon at a rural hospital might be the reason it stays afloat isn't because he/she bills a lot. It's because having a surgical practice at a hospital nets that hospital a good amount of money (assuming insured population).
The hospital generates money mostly independent of what the professional fee is for the physician. E.g. Facility fees, medications, imaging and laboratory studies etc. So the reason a surgeon at a rural hospital might be the reason it stays afloat isn't because he/she bills a lot. It's because having a surgical practice at a hospital nets that hospital a good amount of money (assuming insured population).
I get that there's a slew of ancillaries and facility fees to be billed, but hospitals still must make more from certain specialties when solely looking at provider RVU's / collections.
ICU's are the most revenue generating but also the most expensive to run. Quite literally feast or famine for them.Critical care.
ICU's are the most revenue generating but also the most expensive to run. Quite literally feast or famine for them.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, just talking out loud.That's the ICU itself - at baseline. The critical care specialist though drives the bulling in the ICU. So which non-surgical specialty makes the hospital a lot of money? Critical care.
Interventional cardiology. I recently watched a documentary on Netflix called "The Widowmaker". It's basically about how hospitals prefer PCI over other treatment/preventative methods because it generates a lot of money. The documentary claimed that 1/4 of Mayo Clinic's revenue comes from stenting
Because patients are super motivated to be healthy and prevent disease. It's the doctors and medical systems that force people to be unhealthy and develop diseases that require interventions. It's part of the "secrets that doctors don't want you to know" conspiracy.
No need to speculate. Actual numbers from 100+ CFOs show:
1. Ortho
2. Cards
3. FM
http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...n-salaries-vs-hospital-revenue-generated.html
But is it weighted for the number of people in that specialty? For example, there are many more family med docs...That's pretty eye opening if it's true...basically means hospitals are straight up lying to a lot of the lower paying specialties about the amount of revenue they bring in relative to their salaries. Considering this is coming from the CFOs themselves though, I wouldn't doubt it on the face of things. Intuitively it kind of makes sense as a lot of the primary care jobs refer tons of lab tests, imaging and medication filling within the system itself (as opposed to direct revenue generation from a surgery or cath), generating a lot of facility and ancillary fees for the hospital.
Agreed. When you can sell curing testicular cancer to Lance Armstrong... People come like crazyThen, I would say what the hospital may be known for. Like I know one that is known for Oncology, another for Ortho, and another for Cardio in my area.
So, like most things I think it depends.
But is it weighted for the number of people in that specialty? For example, there are many more family med docs...
EDIT: it seems like it is revenue per physician. So no.
Also, interesting to see that family med has such a high revenue to earnings ratio at almost 11/1. ENT on the other hand has the lowest at 2.
What's going on here? Family med also has such a nice job market. If I'm reading the article right, either somethings up with the article, or family med physicians are straight up being gyped with their 11/1 ratio.
One question...isn't this hospital based data, such that ENTs are hospital employees I thought.ENT is so low because so many of them are still in private practice, and they do lots of office-based work.
One reason FM gets paid at such a terrible ratio (compared to neurosurg, for example) is that the supply of FM docs is so much higher than certain specialties. If you are one of 50 FM docs in the hospital system, for example, you don't have much leverage.
ENT is so low because so many of them are still in private practice, and they do lots of office-based work.
One reason FM gets paid at such a terrible ratio (compared to neurosurg, for example) is that the supply of FM docs is so much higher than certain specialties. If you are one of 50 FM docs in the hospital system, for example, you don't have much leverage.