Healthcare Reform Question

Started by Dr.CCM
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Dr.CCM

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Will those surgical specialities that have higher amounts of positive outcomes be more safe ( or hit less) from the declining reimbursements for specialists that will inevitably result from the new law. For example, will ortho see a more favorable rate of decline than say neurosurgery or general?

My question stems from the fact that the new law mentions that positive physician intervention ( those that actually improve the patient's status) will be reimbursed more...I'm not really sure how this will fit with surgery and it seems like it may harm some of the specialists that consistently see chronically ill patients. Anyway just wanted to hear your thoughts.
 
I doubt it. I would imagine that more lucrative specialties are a bigger target (say, ortho) for budget cuts. I'm not sure how you see that general surgery doesn't have a pretty high amount of positive outcomes. Hernias, gall bladders, appendectomies, hemicolectomies, breast cancer - most of these types of cases have very good outcomes.
 
...positive outcomes be more safe...

...the new law mentions that positive physician intervention ...will be reimbursed more...
The phrasing harkens back to the political sell about how primary care is supposed to be financially a better a better investment. It may be... in theory if your patients are compliant. However, piling on meds for the fat diabetic that smokes is not really a "positive intervention". Non-compliant patients in primary care often die over decades... or they reach a surgeon as a last ditch effort for a Hail Mary to squeeze a little more time out of life....

That terminology is really a matter of politics and not healthcare. The phrasing was developed predominantly to sell to politicians and public.

Would you penalize primary care for obese non-compliant patients? What is the positive outcome and positive intervention? how about a surgeon that performs an appendectomy?

The issue is really a matter of US society not wanting to make a choice and limit expenditures.... thus fears about death panels and rationing. We want to show longer survival, etc... with primary care. It just starts down the path of children being worth more because they have more life to live... so, can we spend the money on an 80yr old for a AAA repair or colectomy for cancer or CABG, etc.... I don't want to really get into those questions so much, but IMHO that terminology of positive outcomes and positive interventions is just garbage and a politically correct way of avoiding those issues.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Yes, I understand it's plotical jargon. But, it's also an effective way to convince people into allowing the rationing of physician reimbursements, which is what will be targeted.
 
Yes, I understand it's plotical jargon. But, it's also an effective way to convince people into allowing the rationing of physician reimbursements, which is what will be targeted.

I would not bet on that, believe me. The less the government pays, the fewer physicians will take its plans, the more people will have to wait to see a doc. This leads to docs having cash practices for patients who don't want to wait a long time for an appointment. That's exactly what happens in countries where the government has a big role in health care.
 
Reimbursements will undoubtedly change, but surgeons will always be well reimbursed compared with primary care docs.

primary care docs may see a few extra bucks, but they arent gonna be driving ferrarris with obama in the passenger seat
 
Your question essentially boils down to what specialties will make lots of money in 20 years. I say just spit out your actual question.

If I had to make an educated guess, I would predict that the specialties most vulnerable to reimbursement cuts are specialties which have substantial income and a limited number of bread and butter procedures. Cardiac surgery is the poster child for this point. Heart surgeons made millions in the 80s doing CABGs but when reimbursement was slashed for that one operation, (and volume dropped because of stenting) their reimbursement plummeted, and they couldn't compensate with valves etc.

I think a variety of specialties within orthopedics fit this prototype. Joint replacement surgeons, scope jockies (sports), and spine surgeons rely on a very narrow range or procedures and could easily be knocked down a peg. I think within ortho, general orthopedics and hand/ foot and ankle surgeons probably have a larger buffer zone.

General surgery is obviously well buffered, as is vascular, which has endovascular arterial, vein procedures, open. Neurosurgery is exposed to potential income cuts for the same reason as spine surgeons are since most of their money is made doing spine; they obviously have intracranial procedures as well, but most private guys are 80-90% spine.

I think ENT, urology, optho all of which make a lot of money on a myriad of out-patient/clinic procedures are pretty safe.

This is all obviously complete stupid conjecture
 
Last edited:
General surgery is NOT well-buffered, unless you want to say that they are compensated so poorly that you'd have to force them to operate with cattle prods if you paid any less. But if that's what you mean, you have a good point.
 
General surgery is NOT well-buffered, unless you want to say that they are compensated so poorly that you'd have to force them to operate with cattle prods if you paid any less. But if that's what you mean, you have a good point.

lol! point taken. Although what I was getting at was that I predict that general surgery is buffered from further cuts because of the variety of cases they perform. General surgeons have a diverse case portfolio if you will.

That said, as you note, their compensation is pretty pedestrian to begin with
 
Yes, but to counter the above, the government would mandate health providers to accept Medicaid/Medicare in order to both obtain and renew their medical liscense.

That may very well happen but they can't tell you how many patients with Medicaid/Medicare you must see. At least that would be much more difficult to mandate.

No specialty is buffered except by its sheer numbers. So ortho and neurosurgery may be better buffered simply because they are in more demand. I hate when people talk about training more general surgeons. I think a shortage will create a demand and therefore higher incomes. That's what the specialties have done. And we need people to realize that we're not a dime-a-dozen and pay accordingly for our expertise.
 
Wrongo. You just fell for the oldest trick in the book.

They need MORE general surgeons. WAY more. The problem with general surgery is we allow ourselves to get kicked around. Like, if someone has a problem during 9 AM to 5 PM, it's "OMG, CALL THE SUBSPECIALIST!!! THEY'RE AWESOME!!!" And the subspecialist marches in all self-importantly and is like "thanks, I'll take it from here." And then at 7 PM or 1 AM, mysteriously, no subspecialist can be found and it's like "that's OK, call General Surgery, they're qualified to take care of this, too!" Or even worse, it's like "hey, check this out since it's midnight, and once you tell me that everything's OK, I'll send this patient to see the subspecialist in the morning when he wakes up, OK?"

Or what about pay? They'll pay a trauma surgeon ridiculous amounts of money to take call. But guess what? The other people rotating in the trauma call are General Surgeons. And it'll be like "hey, can I get paid that, too?" "Ha ha, no, you're not fellowship trained, so you're not qualified." "Oh, OK. Well then, I guess I'm not qualified to take trauma call." "No, no, you are! You're totally qualified to take trauma call ...you're just not qualified to get paid what the trauma surgeon is paid." "Oh, I see." "Yeah, you see now."

That's also why General Surgeons are slowly being forced into rural areas. Subspecialists in the cities? "Why, only I can manage these special problems!" But in the countryside? "Oh, I don't need to go there ...General Surgery can cover it." "But you said it was a special prob --" "I SAID GENERAL SURGERY CAN COVER IT."

The mistake would be to be like Cardiothoracic, where we just huddle around some trash fire and "protect" our slowly diminishing turf by making sure there are fewer General Surgeons to divide it up. That would make us totally impotent. All you have to do is flex. They call you at night, tell them to call the subspecialist and wake him up. Don't get all needy and pathetic like "OH, THANKS FOR CONSULTING ME, ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME!!!"
 
General Surgery needs to change its name to Abdominal Surgery, then they can stop taking stupid calls for subspecialists.
 
Yes, but to counter the above, the government would mandate health providers to accept Medicaid/Medicare in order to both obtain and renew their medical liscense.

you can see 1 pt a day with medicare. Many offices already do that anyway.
I feel bad for the patients, but I want to decide for myself when to do charity.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
General Surgery needs to change its name to Abdominal Surgery, then they can stop taking stupid calls for subspecialists.

Either that or General Surgeons should be paid appropriately. Meaning, more than subspecialists. Note: I don't care that a subspecialist did *gasp* a year more of training in some cases, thereby conferring upon them the ability to shoot lightning bolts out of their butt. If I'm up at night and they aren't, they should get paid less. Subspecialty is a symptom of the ass-backward nature of medicine these days: you get paid MORE to work LESS and deal with fewer problems.
 
Either that or General Surgeons should be paid appropriately. Meaning, more than subspecialists. Note: I don't care that a subspecialist did *gasp* a year more of training in some cases, thereby conferring upon them the ability to shoot lightning bolts out of their butt. If I'm up at night and they aren't, they should get paid less. Subspecialty is a symptom of the ass-backward nature of medicine these days: you get paid MORE to work LESS and deal with fewer problems.

Entirely agree. Plus, the fact is that people just don't want to deal with general problems. Period. This is true in Internal Medicine, and I'm sure is true for General Surgery. All the talk about needing to pay subspecialists a ton more because no one would go into fellowships is a crock of s***. I'd be willing to bet that people would still go for fellowships even if they didn't make a dime more coming out - not only do you get to work less, but you get to call yourself a specialist and deal with more pertinent problems.
The pay scale in the hospital should be this.
Gen Surg > Surgical subspecialists > Gen Med = Medical subspecialists > Support specialties (path, rads, etc)
 
The pay scale in the hospital should be this.
Gen Surg > Surgical subspecialists > Gen Med = Medical subspecialists > Support specialties (path, rads, etc)

Agreed. 👍 But it'll never happen.

Bottom line is this: anything you can do from home shouldn't command top dollar. One guy I know, who didn't go into Radiology, has a parent who is a Radiologist and reads films from home. Now, sorry if this offends the radiologists on SDN, but if you can do your job while you're sitting at home naked, fine. But you shouldn't be getting paid more than a surgeon. For IM, Allergy/Immunology is the "dermatology" of medicine (as convoluted as that sounds). I know allergies are important stuff to people, but really? Really, you get paid a couple of hundred thousand dollars and work three days a week to determine someone has a peanut allergy and "treat" it? And I had a classmate of mine, predictably a woman, who said that she chose ENT because it would allow her to "work part time and still get paid up to $400K." Now, I'm sure she was sorely misinformed about the amount of money she would make working part-time, but I bet you she could work part-time and STILL make over $100K.

Medicine needs to be pay-for-play. Period.
 
General Surgery needs to change its name to Abdominal Surgery, then they can stop taking stupid calls for subspecialists.

Heh, split into Abdominal Surgery and Family Surgery for the community and rural practices.

What's the deal with neurosurgeons? They don't make a lot of money either for the hours they put in (unless they do spine)...
 
she chose ENT because it would allow her to "work part time and still get paid up to $400K." Now, I'm sure she was sorely misinformed about the amount of money she would make working part-time, but I bet you she could work part-time and STILL make over $100K.

Medicine needs to be pay-for-play. Period.

I'm not sure if you can work full time and make that much in ENT. The community guys I knew werent coming close to 400 and they saw ALOT of patients in the office- almost FP-style.
 
...the new law mentions...
latestspampropaganda said:
...letter to the nation’s new medical students

this week we were asked by department of health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius and national coordinator for health information technology david blumenthal, md to distribute the letter that follows to first year medical students. This letter is adapted from dr. Blumenthal’s commencement address to the university of florida college of medicine 2010 graduating class. I felt the content of the letter merited sharing it with our entire community.
an open letter to new medical students

congratulations on entering the profession of medicine. Many of you and your families have sacrificed enormously to get to this moment. We understand the tide of emotions you and your families are experiencing: Pride, relief, gratitude, anticipation – and perhaps a little anxiety. After all, most of you will now begin the rigors of medical school and residency, from which you will emerge as fully trained physicians, but only after another long and demanding next phase in your professional life.
You are entering one of the most admired and privileged professions known to man, and with that honor comes great responsibility. You will be the bearers of hope: The hope of every parent for the recovery of a sick child, of every spouse for the healing of a suffering partner, of every son and daughter for the longevity of an aging parent.
We are struck by the fact that you are the first class of medical students to start since congress passed and president obama signed into law the affordable care act of 2010, also known to some as the health reform law.
We believe deeply that the affordable care act will be good for you and for your patients, and for the health system overall. We hope each of you can and will play a vital role in ensuring the vision of reform becomes the reality of high-quality, high-value health care for your patients, your families, and your neighbors.
It starts with making sure each of you understands what is in the new law so you can communicate both what it means in terms of the health care coverage options your patients may be eligible for, and how it gives both patients and doctors more control over their health care decisions. The best place to start this education process is our new consumer web site – healthcare.gov. This new tool, which has been widely praised as being straightforward and easy to use, not only will help patients find health care coverage options, but will also give them detailed information about what will happen when, as well as some important tips for healthy living.
While the implementation of this major new law will unfold over years, many positive provisions are already taking effect. Many of you and your siblings are undoubtedly under the age of 26. Before the enactment of the affordable care act, health plans decided when dependent child coverage would end, and, in many cases, such coverage would end the moment you left college unless you went on to graduate school.
Without college coverage, your families or the families of your friends have had to find individual insurance plans in the private market – plans whose premiums are unaffordable to many americans – or pass up health insurance altogether, which many have unfortunately done. The result: 3 in 10 young adults are currently uninsured in the u.s. Under the affordable care act, you and your brothers or sisters will now be able to stay on your families’ insurance policies until you are 26. While this part of the law is scheduled to go into effect for plan years beginning on or after september 23, 2010, more than 65 insurance companies, including the nation’s largest, have already voluntarily extended coverage to age 26.
Of course, the problem of insurance companies denying coverage to patients who need it most goes beyond young people. Practitioners of adult medicine have routinely faced the same thing: Patients with heart disease, cancer, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, or lupus losing their coverage; or running up against annual and lifetime dollar limits; or getting frozen into a job because, if they changed where they work, they could no longer get insurance that covered their pre-existing conditions.
That led to tough choices for them and their doctors, too: How to space out or prune away appointments and tests and treatments to minimize costs – how to decide which necessary medicines were really most essential. Sometimes, these patients just disappeared from care without explanation, ashamed to admit they could no longer pay their bills.
As a result of the affordable care act, those of you treating adults will no longer face these tough, troubling choices during your careers. Starting in 2014, around the time when you begin your residencies, insurance companies will have to sell coverage to all americans, regardless of their health status.
That means absolutely no one can be turned away. Insurance companies won’t be able to place annual or lifetime limits on coverage, or take it away when patients get sick. Your patients’ lives will be better off as a result, and you will have a new level of clinical autonomy that preceding generations of physicians never enjoyed: The ability to do what is right and best for your sickest, most vulnerable patients who are not eligible for government programs like medicare and medicaid.
These are just a few of the affordable care act’s benefits that are already being realized. But we also want to tell you about some other critical reforms to our health care system that have taken effect recently, and where we especially need your help to get the message out. One really significant way that we can reform the way we practice medicine is through the adoption and meaningful use of electronic health records.
Every doctor knows that she is only as good as the information she has about her patients. Information is the lifeblood of medicine. Without clinical data – progress notes, laboratory data, images, microbiology reports – we’re reduced to guesswork.
Yet, the united states today lives with a health information system that relies on the same technology – pen and paper – that hippocrates used 2400 years ago. Every aspect of your lives is computerized, from laptops to cell phones to pagers. You’re connected 24/7. Yet, most doctors go to work and pick up a pen or pencil to record the most precious resource of their trade – data about their patients’ health problems.
Can you imagine caring for patients 20 years from now without computers, without electronic health records, without the ability to send patient information electronically from your office to the hospital, from one hospital to another, from the hospital to your office? It would be like practicing medicine with one hand tied behind your back.
The president and congress have authorized a huge amount of resources – literally billions of dollars – toward implementation of electronic health records for the entire nation through the hitech act. This is a new federal initiative dedicated to creating a modern, 21st-century electronic health information system for the nation’s clinicians and their patients.
The department of health and human services has been granted important new authorities to help create a private and secure nationwide interoperable electronic health information system. Our ability to make change pales in comparison with the power of your generation to transform medicine by insisting, by demanding, that wherever you end up practicing, you have a modern electronic health information system at your disposal to help you be the best physicians you can be. We in the federal government will do our best to support you.
When you finish medical school, send the hospitals and residencies that are recruiting you a clear message. It is past time for them to enter the electronic age. It is past time for them to give you the information tools you need to do your jobs. You will change the face of medicine forever and for the better.
Every generation should be better off than the last. Well, we think the stars are aligned for you now. As you start your careers, medicine retains its age-old ability to apply the balm of hope, while scientific progress continually increases your ability to turn that hope into the reality of disease avoided or cured, of life prolonged, of suffering relieved.
And you and your patients will benefit from a new era in which the compassionate impulses of the american public have been translated into a commitment that all your patients will have access to the best care this country has to offer. Now, as pioneers of a revolutionary transition in the delivery of care, you have the responsibility to ensure that your successors have the same advantages – and more – that you will have. Good luck with that challenge, and congratulations.
kathleen sebelius and david blumenthal, md​
​
 
I didn't have time to read that whole open letter, so I just skipped to the bottom and saw that it was written by Kathleen Sebelius and David Blumenthal and realized that it was worthless trash.
 
I didn't have time to read that whole open letter, so I just skipped to the bottom and saw that it was written by Kathleen Sebelius and David Blumenthal and realized that it was worthless trash.


executive summary: If you voluntarily give us your soul and your wallet, it will feel much less like a mugging and everybody will be happier. xoxoxo kathleen sebelius and david blumental
 
I like how they address this to medical students to pretend it isn't just propaganda for the public as a whole.
 
Which is the best part about the "open letter":

a) That if you summarize it, it literally breaks down to "hope and change" (not a joke; read it)?

b) That you are being exhorted to tell patients what health coverage options are available to them, like you're some worker for the State?

c) That they actually say that with the new expanded health care coverage, physicians will never have to make the "tough" and "troubling" decisions on how minimize the cost of tests or how to space out appointments because rather than see people once a year you'll be seeing them every other day?

d) That such stupid people are actually running our health care system?