Famiy Medicine is a dying field

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
It's not that it isn't HOT, it is that the idea, especially with ACA, is to increase access to care. What does this mean? It means schooling and using more NPs and PAs. The current administration is all for this, b/c it is cheaper, and apparently a lot of physicians are too.

See my comment here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=14191792#post14191792


If the NP's are pushing for equal compensation then it's going to cease to be cheaper if that happens. Quite a few doctors claim NPs utilize consults and specialists more which will also increase costs.

Members don't see this ad.
 
It's not that it isn't HOT, it is that the idea, especially with ACA, is to increase access to care. What does this mean? It means schooling and using more NPs and PAs.

I guess you missed post #5 in this thread.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I guess you missed post #5 in this thread.



I am sure that you are very well informed Blue Dog. I'd be crazy to think that. Nonetheless, this fellow's two cents in Forbes is just nonsense too? I don't think so. It makes perfect sense.


"...Because ObamaCare will never bend the health care cost curve down—as the president repeatedly promised it would—something will have to give. And doctors’ reimbursements will be on the amputation table."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...uture-bright-for-nurses-stinks-for-doctors/2/

Regardless of the ultimate climate, it still looks problemat9c
 
I guess you missed post #5 in this thread.



I am sure that you are very well informed Blue Dog. I'd be crazy to think that you were not. Nonetheless, this fellow's two cents in Forbes is just nonsense too??? I don't think so. It makes perfect sense.


"...Because ObamaCare will never bend the health care cost curve down—as the president repeatedly promised it would—something will have to give. And doctors' reimbursements will be on the amputation table."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...uture-bright-for-nurses-stinks-for-doctors/2/

Regardless of the ultimate climate, it still looks problematic for would be physicians in terms of the excruciating cost of medical school education. So many questions abound about the ultimate amputations to primary care physicians. How will it become financially viable for potential primary care physicians? Students that entertained the idea of primary care really have to take a couple steps back and think things through, especially given the current climate and landscape. It's only reasonable that a number of those that entertained primary care will end up avoiding it. And why in the world should a physician make only $70,000 or so more than a NP or PA? How is that a sound financial investment for would-be primary care docs?
 
I am sure that you are very well informed Blue Dog. I'd be crazy to think that you were not. Nonetheless, this fellow's two cents in Forbes is just nonsense too??? I don't think so. It makes perfect sense.

I'm not sure how it "makes perfect sense."

Physicians and mid-levels are reimbursed exactly the same* by CMS as well as third-party payers. You can't screw physicians without screwing mid-levels, as well.

The current procedure-centered reimbursement model encourages mid-levels, as well as physicians, to enter more lucrative specialties. This needs to change.

As for the idea that cutting physician reimbursement is somehow the key to controlling healthcare costs, I refer you to another recent Forbes article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/03/whos-to-blame-for-our-rising-healthcare-costs/

Some critics have suggested that physicians' incomes and the fact that physicians direct most healthcare spending (80 percent is a frequently used number) are the real culprits in soaring healthcare costs. Yet despite this, physicians are not necessarily the principal beneficiaries of healthcare spending. The bulk of medical procedure payments go to hospitals and device manufactures. For example, in California, Medicare pays on average $18,000 for a total hip replacement – $16,336 to the hospital and $1,446 to the surgeon. This reimbursement disparity is certainly not limited to California, and is representative of a broader trend on a national level.

Moreover, doctors' net take-home pay amounts to only about 10 percent of overall healthcare spending. Which if cut by 10 percent would save about $24 billion – a considerably modest savings when compared to the $360 billion spent annually for administrative costs as estimated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the fact that 85 percent of excess administrative overhead can be attributed to the insurance system.

* In most cases. I won't get into the details of "incident-to" billing, as it's somewhat off-topic. The NP lobby is working hard to change that, as well. They want 100% pay parity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure how it "makes perfect sense."

Physicians and mid-levels are reimbursed exactly the same* by CMS as well as third-party payers. You can't screw physicians without screwing mid-levels, as well.

The current procedure-centered reimbursement model encourages mid-levels, as well as physicians, to enter more lucrative specialties. This needs to change.

As for the idea that cutting physician reimbursement is somehow the key to controlling healthcare costs, I refer you to another recent Forbes article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/03/whos-to-blame-for-our-rising-healthcare-costs/



* In most cases. I won't get into the details of "incident-to" billing, as it's somewhat off-topic. The NP lobby is working hard to change that, as well. They want 100% pay parity.

In know way am I saying I agree with the line of thinking, but there it is, regardless:


http://health.usnews.com/health-new...ant-to-expand-nurse-practitioners-role-survey

I only have mixed feelings about the whole thing as it pertains to those people that find healthcare access quite difficult. Whether you are looking at that issue from a nursing POV, a physician POV, or a citizen POV, it's a serious problem. No, not as serious here in the US as what we see in the mess of a country called Haiti or say in S.S Africa regions, but it's an issue.

And it is by this concern that nurse organizations have been able to change things in terms of practicing independently. Personally, I like knowing there is backup in place for pts that are more complex.
 
It's not that it isn't HOT, it is that the idea, especially with ACA, is to increase access to care. What does this mean? It means schooling and using more NPs and PAs. The current administration is all for this, b/c it is cheaper, and apparently a lot of physicians are too.

See my comment here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=14191792#post14191792

I'm sure you have sound evidence to back this up... evidence that does not conflate "price" with "cost".
 
And it is by this concern that nurse organizations have been able to change things in terms of practicing independently.

That may pose a danger to patients, but it poses no danger to physicians.
 
That may pose a danger to patients, but it poses no danger to physicians.

I hope you are right. I read this one article on my IPad last night about how a family practice physician said that she was jealous that NPs could take on this role of independent practice, whilst she had to go through the more painful rigors of medical school and graduate medical education--and there was commentary about the punitive nature of medicine. To that I say, umm, I have seen tons of punitive attitudes and pettiness in nursing--but that's another story.

She seemed to think that is the basis for anti-midlevel sentiment. It is troubling for me to see the potential of things missed, given that there are so many people with complex health issues and comorbidities. The research that NPs throw out to support their safety and efficacy doesn't really address these people. A wise person, regardless of their education, knows their limits. I had an excellent OBGYN, who knew when to say, OK, this getting far out of field for me. I am sending you to a specialist. He worked together with the specialists, and the outcomes were very successful for me ultimately. I'm sure there are NPs that are wise enough to do this; but then what percentage will not or will drag their feet thinking they can address something out of their element? A little education can be a dangerous thing.
And then, we all know things can be missed, even my the most well-educated physicians.

I don't know. All I can tell you is that it makes me very nervous. I want to see everyone get care, but it makes me nervous--and I do wonder how this may ultimately impact physicians. OTOH, I had a NPs tell me that the oversight needs to be cut out because patients are losing out, and it's silly to have to pay a physician to audit her charts.

Like I said. I don't know. I speak with NO authority here. . .only concern.
 
If I were to share my full thoughts about the whole midlevel issue, I would surely be banned with just one post. I will keep things to a civil summary: I have been in private practice for 12 years and worked with many ARNPs and PA-Cs. There is no comparison between an MD and a midlevel in the ability to care for patients. Why a human would subject themselves to an inferior level of care with the same cost to them is an issue I can not quite get around. I have yet to find a single midlevel that I consider to practice at an acceptable level. Not one. I will disclaim that about 20% of the physicians I have worked with are not up to par in my book either. It is an issue I have been collecting data on for years with great interest. I do not feel threatened as I seem to always stay busier than I ever want to be. I am, however, actually quite pissed off that this situation even exists as I remember several college classmates that just did not quite have the right stuff to make it into medical school and had to choose other fields. Only about five percent of entering freshman with a declared premed major actually are accepted into medical school. We have plenty of candidates willing to invest the years of hard training so why are we allowing inferior practitioners to care for our loved ones?
 
If I were to share my full thoughts about the whole midlevel issue, I would surely be banned with just one post. I will keep things to a civil summary: I have been in private practice for 12 years and worked with many ARNPs and PA-Cs. There is no comparison between an MD and a midlevel in the ability to care for patients. Why a human would subject themselves to an inferior level of care with the same cost to them is an issue I can not quite get around. I have yet to find a single midlevel that I consider to practice at an acceptable level. Not one. I will disclaim that about 20% of the physicians I have worked with are not up to par in my book either. It is an issue I have been collecting data on for years with great interest. I do not feel threatened as I seem to always stay busier than I ever want to be. I am, however, actually quite pissed off that this situation even exists as I remember several college classmates that just did not quite have the right stuff to make it into medical school and had to choose other fields. Only about five percent of entering freshman with a declared premed major actually are accepted into medical school. We have plenty of candidates willing to invest the years of hard training so why are we allowing inferior practitioners to care for our loved ones?



I agree. As I have shared before, my mother is a complex patient, and while she and I both have a great rheumatologist, we can't see him foe everything. First of all, the man is so busy, I doubt he ever gets decent sleep. You have to make an appointment with him, usually, 6 mos in advance. So, even though people may need specialists, they still need sound primary care physicians. No offense to my fellow nurses in advanced practice, but they aren't seeing my mom. I'd the pcp doesn't seem sharp or caring enough, my mom is not going to keep seeing him or her. We both have SLE. Moms worse than me. My biggest problem, from my perspective anyway, had been carrying pregnancies to full-term. My OB and I worked to figure things out, and he was smart enough to send me to an excellent specialist...finally with some Asa and heparin, I was able to carry to term. It literally took years to figure out what was going on with my body. Same thing with mom. Even the sharpests docs could have missed things with us. The primary thing, however, was that each of our sharp docs were also good listeners...they didn't blow off what they pt understood about her own body. Nps might say they are more holistic in this way, but if they don't have the education and insight to analyze things more deeply, or realize they are out of their element, the patients suffer. My mom can't afford to have someone fool around with her. It's that simple. And though as a RN I had insights into my body, I still needed someone with more education and insight to help me figure things out. IMHO, most NPs probably would have blown things off, and I would not have had the privilege od safely having children. After losing so many pregnancies, I was dead serious about finding out what was going on with me. I see people everyday that were not perfectly "typical" patients. I think this is the main advantage of a good medical education. Sure you may be taught not to jump to zebras, but that doesn't me you don't learn about variations that are atypical. I don't see most NPs getting this education and experience...especially when you have RN s heading straight for np programs directly have completing their undergrad and passing their NCLEX boards.

Back to the issue of the thread, I wonder if FP will have to step up its field by making it somehow more highly specialized...whatever that might mean. People need to respect it as its own area of specialization beyond taking care of sniffles. Like it or not, that's how enough of a percentage of people may view it. As such, a fair enough number of people are OK with visiting a NP. Those with more underlying issues, which make up a good percentage of the population will lose out in many cases. Until this is demonstrated with evidence, however, people will want immediate appointments with local NPs. That's a big issue for folks...having to wait to get in to see a doc. So, they take the NP. In fact, many PCphysicians are too quick to use the NPs. Fine for straight forward cases, but their office personnel don't have the education and insight to try to work these kind of pts in with the physician. I have seen this too many times. They need to have insightful and highly experienced RNs with strong acute care experience working these people in with the physician, rather than having some receptionist or 6 mo.s trained MA slotting them for the NP or PA. Pay for some sound office case mgt RNs rather than med assistants with this. Problem is, MAs and receptionists are cheaper than the kind of experienced RNs To which I am referring, but the difference is often only $400 to $500 more per week. If you gets some strongly experienced RNs, to me it would be worth it. That's just my humble opinion.
 
Not to be a stickler, but acceleration is the change in velocity per unit time^2

Other than that, the pricing for bread and butter office stuff -- for all specialties -- will be undercut by the proliferation of these half trainees. That's the simple, cold, hard reality of the mess we find ourselves in. Gresham's law does not apply merely to money -- it holds for anything of value.

fixed that for ya.
 
I agree, My mother has complicated medical issues and I make sure she see's a physician for primary care. I'm ok with midlevels working in specialized areas like diabetes clinic, CHF clinic, etc; areas that are mostly algorithmic.
 
Top