Hospital Executive and Physician Pay Gap Widens

Started by drusso
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.

drusso

Full Member
Moderator Emeritus
Lifetime Donor
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Wage gap between hospital executives and doctors is widening, study finds

"Adjusted for inflation, average compensation for CEOs at these medical centers increased from $1.6 million in 2005 to $3.1 million in 2015 -- a 93 percent increase. During the same period, compensation rose by 26 percent for orthopaedic surgeons and 15 percent for pediatricians, reflecting the higher versus lower end of doctor salaries. For registered nurses, wages increased by three percent."

"In 2005, hospital CEOs made three times more than orthopaedic surgeons; by 2015, they made five times more. There were even larger increases in the wage gap between CEOs and pediatricians, from 7:1 to 12:1; and CEOs and registered nurses, from 23:1 to 44:1."

Every hospital employed MD's hair should be on fire with this news. This is could light a hire under the behinds of medical staff members and result in calls for pay-cuts and accountability among Admin. No one has ever shown the hospital CEO pay is tied to value-based outcomes.

Physicians Rise

"The practice of medicine has been stolen. It's time for physicians to reclaim the responsibility for the patient-physician relationship. Third-party payors, government, hospitals, and non-physician staff disrupt the patient-physician relationship, once considered sacred. Productivity demands, shorter appointments, and a one-size-fits-all algorithms rob patients of physician time."
 
Last edited:
At what point will employed physicians finally unionize?!

“Fight..and you may die....run...and you may live...at least a while”.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
At what point will employed physicians finally unionize?!

“Fight..and you may die....run...and you may live...at least a while”.
It is illegal for professionals to unionize.
//Unless your situation can actually meet the anti-trust Guidelines that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have promulgated, you can’t wear a doctor union cap. These guidelines require that physicians hoping to engage in joint negotiations must “have sufficiently integrated their practices such that they are no longer viewed strictly as competitors for this purpose.” Assume that any attempt to band together with your colleagues to press for common interests is going to be subject to anti-trust regulations.//
Can Doctors Form a Union: Medical Justice Services, Inc.
 
Wage gap between hospital executives and doctors is widening, study finds

"Adjusted for inflation, average compensation for CEOs at these medical centers increased from $1.6 million in 2005 to $3.1 million in 2015 -- a 93 percent increase. During the same period, compensation rose by 26 percent for orthopaedic surgeons and 15 percent for pediatricians, reflecting the higher versus lower end of doctor salaries. For registered nurses, wages increased by three percent."

"In 2005, hospital CEOs made three times more than orthopaedic surgeons; by 2015, they made five times more. There were even larger increases in the wage gap between CEOs and pediatricians, from 7:1 to 12:1; and CEOs and registered nurses, from 23:1 to 44:1."

Every hospital employed MD's hair should be on fire with this news. This is could light a hire under the behinds of medical staff members and result in calls for pay-cuts and accountability among Admin. No one has ever shown the hospital CEO pay is tied to value-based outcomes.

Physicians Rise

"The practice of medicine has been stolen. It's time for physicians to reclaim the responsibility for the patient-physician relationship. Third-party payors, government, hospitals, and non-physician staff disrupt the patient-physician relationship, once considered sacred. Productivity demands, shorter appointments, and a one-size-fits-all algorithms rob patients of physician time."
IMHO the primary job of the medical center CEO is to control costs, thus the greater the disparity in CEO and physician salary, the better the job the CEO is doing. BTW docs who are guv workers can unionize.
 
It is illegal for professionals to unionize.
//Unless your situation can actually meet the anti-trust Guidelines that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have promulgated, you can’t wear a doctor union cap. These guidelines require that physicians hoping to engage in joint negotiations must “have sufficiently integrated their practices such that they are no longer viewed strictly as competitors for this purpose.” Assume that any attempt to band together with your colleagues to press for common interests is going to be subject to anti-trust regulations.//
Can Doctors Form a Union: Medical Justice Services, Inc.
Meh. I hear this referenced all the time and I am pretty sure it was intended to keep private practices/groups from unionizing. As more doctors become employees, there will come a day when this interpretation will be tested. I predict the day will come sooner than later.
 
Wage gap between hospital executives and doctors is widening, study finds

"Adjusted for inflation, average compensation for CEOs at these medical centers increased from $1.6 million in 2005 to $3.1 million in 2015 -- a 93 percent increase. During the same period, compensation rose by 26 percent for orthopaedic surgeons and 15 percent for pediatricians, reflecting the higher versus lower end of doctor salaries. For registered nurses, wages increased by three percent."

"In 2005, hospital CEOs made three times more than orthopaedic surgeons; by 2015, they made five times more. There were even larger increases in the wage gap between CEOs and pediatricians, from 7:1 to 12:1; and CEOs and registered nurses, from 23:1 to 44:1."

Every hospital employed MD's hair should be on fire with this news. This is could light a hire under the behinds of medical staff members and result in calls for pay-cuts and accountability among Admin. No one has ever shown the hospital CEO pay is tied to value-based outcomes.

Physicians Rise

"The practice of medicine has been stolen. It's time for physicians to reclaim the responsibility for the patient-physician relationship. Third-party payors, government, hospitals, and non-physician staff disrupt the patient-physician relationship, once considered sacred. Productivity demands, shorter appointments, and a one-size-fits-all algorithms rob patients of physician time."


maybe this will be the spark that will light the fire to burn down this hospital nonsense
 
Management cannot unionize but employed physician no longer control medicine, they are just employees and should be able to unionize. Residents and interns were allowed to unionize as they were not management and not in control.
 
In addition to the CEO salary is the growth in the sheer NUMBER of non-clinical personnel.

Elimination of the SoS differential will allow practices that don't have complex administrative structures to compete on a level playing field with those that do. Then we can demonstrate our apples to apples comparison of access, quality, and patient satisfaction. Then the fun begins...
 
Management cannot unionize but employed physician no longer control medicine, they are just employees and should be able to unionize. Residents and interns were allowed to unionize as they were not management and not in control.

many of the hospitalists and PCP docs around the country are immigrants. you are not going to get those who need a visa/green card to unionize or strike. ER docs generally get paid pretty well, and work 3 days/week. thats a tough sell also. the only way this is really going to happen is if hospital-employed docs start to get paid significantly less across the board. we are talking cardiothoracic surgeons, ob/gyn, rheum, etc. i dont think we are there yet. single payer and then a 25% pay cut immediately is a different story.
 
many of the hospitalists and PCP docs around the country are immigrants. you are not going to get those who need a visa/green card to unionize or strike. ER docs generally get paid pretty well, and work 3 days/week. thats a tough sell also. the only way this is really going to happen is if hospital-employed docs start to get paid significantly less across the board. we are talking cardiothoracic surgeons, ob/gyn, rheum, etc. i dont think we are there yet. single payer and then a 25% pay cut immediately is a different story.

Instead of "selfish" interests like compensation and work conditions, employed MD's should instead rally against corrupt hospital business practices--site of service pillaging, micromanagement of doctors to boost ancillary service income and reduce revenue leak, fat-cat CEO pay, the squeezing out of independent MD's from the marketplace and worst of all Tax Fraud that hospital perpetuate by masquerading as nonprofit charities. Rallying against hospital corruption is a powerful moral trigger for change. And, most Democrat Doctors are very sensitive to "corruption narratives" especially at this time.

Big Hospital = Trump. Light the fire.
 
Instead of "selfish" interests like compensation and work conditions, employed MD's should instead rally against corrupt hospital business practices--site of service pillaging, micromanagement of doctors to boost ancillary service income and reduce revenue leak, fat-cat CEO pay, the squeezing out of independent MD's from the marketplace and worst of all Tax Fraud that hospital perpetuate by masquerading as nonprofit charities. Rallying against hospital corruption is a powerful moral trigger for change. And, most Democrat Doctors are very sensitive to "corruption narratives" especially at this time.

Big Hospital = Trump. Light the fire.

why would the docs i mentioned above do that? they are getting paid, have a coosh lifestyle, or need the job for immigration purposes? your SOS differential war cry is not enough right now
 
I just spent 35 minutes trying to figure out what medications a non-English non-Spanish speaking person is on. I have 2 nepali, 1 Somali, and 3 Spanish speaking people today. I have like 2 people out of 24 today that have <2 comorbid medical problems.


I don't get SOS differential for E/M.


and you want someone like m to take up this bandwagon?
 
I just spent 35 minutes trying to figure out what medications a non-English non-Spanish speaking person is on. I have 2 nepali, 1 Somali, and 3 Spanish speaking people today. I have like 2 people out of 24 today that have <2 comorbid medical problems.


I don't get SOS differential for E/M.


and you want someone like m to take up this bandwagon?


what are you talking about? of course you get SOS differential for E/M. You may not see it but who ever is collecting your billing is. And of course that is your hospital employer
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
actually, I do see it. I have the billing and coding sheet.

for example: Fees for 99213, what is billed to Medicare/Medicaid:
Provider based charges: $50.
Hospital based charges: $0.
Total charges: $50.

99214:
Provider based: $77.
Hospital based: $0.00
Total charges: $77.

in contradistinction to 64483:
Provider based: $113
Hospital based charges: $638
Total charges: $751

these numbers are directly off the billing and coding sheet. I have all the major insurances and payors listed and the various charges to each separate insurance company.
 
actually, I do see it. I have the billing and coding sheet.

for example: Fees for 99213, what is billed to Medicare/Medicaid:
Provider based charges: $50.
Hospital based charges: $0.
Total charges: $50.

99214:
Provider based: $77.
Hospital based: $0.00
Total charges: $77.

in contradistinction to 64483:
Provider based: $113
Hospital based charges: $638
Total charges: $751

these numbers are directly off the billing and coding sheet. I have all the major insurances and payors listed and the various charges to each separate insurance company.
You're suggesting the hospital is getting HOPD pro fees, which are low, and then NOT billing their own fee? Why would they do that? The sheets you complete presumably go to your billing department, that adds on the facility charges before the claims are sent.

The example for the 64483 makes sense but does not mean they are not tacking on the fees for E/M that they are entitled to when the claims are sent out.
 
actually, I do see it. I have the billing and coding sheet.

for example: Fees for 99213, what is billed to Medicare/Medicaid:
Provider based charges: $50.
Hospital based charges: $0.
Total charges: $50.

99214:
Provider based: $77.
Hospital based: $0.00
Total charges: $77.

in contradistinction to 64483:
Provider based: $113
Hospital based charges: $638
Total charges: $751

these numbers are directly off the billing and coding sheet. I have all the major insurances and payors listed and the various charges to each separate insurance company.


Your hospital needs to change their charge sheet
 
no those are the entire charges. there is a column that specifically says ------ instead of a number.

and the reason is.... the clinic does not split bill E/M codes. it does everything else tho.

not all hospitals are big bad wolves, regardless of what drusso is telling you.
 
actually, I do see it. I have the billing and coding sheet.

for example: Fees for 99213, what is billed to Medicare/Medicaid:
Provider based charges: $50.
Hospital based charges: $0.
Total charges: $50.

99214:
Provider based: $77.
Hospital based: $0.00
Total charges: $77.

in contradistinction to 64483:
Provider based: $113
Hospital based charges: $638
Total charges: $751

these numbers are directly off the billing and coding sheet. I have all the major insurances and payors listed and the various charges to each separate insurance company.

this makes no sense .. You are "charging" only 77 dollars for 99214??? or is 77 dollars your medicare reimbursement

are your procedures done in your office or at the hospital OR....

also your procedures --- are these "charges" or your contracted rates.

what you have shown me does not prove much yet . You say this is from your billing and coding sheet. This is not an actual EOB is it?
 
no those are the entire charges. there is a column that specifically says ------ instead of a number.

and the reason is.... the clinic does not split bill E/M codes. it does everything else tho.

not all hospitals are big bad wolves, regardless of what drusso is telling you.

It appears the hospital is not billing the approximate $115 facility fee for your E&M visits. Not sure why.

You're right about one thing, the SOS differential on the procedures/surgeries is where it's at. Cut that down (as opposed to bringing office/ASC rates up to hospital rates) and we have less money spent, an increase in competition, and we're all good.

And not all hospitals are big bad wolves. Large integrated systems (that crush the small community hospitals, and then take them over) are.
 
Yes that is the entire charge and bill. The info I gave are what they send to Medicare.

We have protracted rates which th all the major local players. Those numbers are quite a bit higher.

ASC and HOPD SOS differential is not exclusive to being a hospital employed physician. I point this out as a clarification as some seem to equate hospital employed status directly with SOS differential...
 
Yes that is the entire charge and bill. The info I gave are what they send to Medicare.

We have protracted rates which th all the major local players. Those numbers are quite a bit higher.

ASC and HOPD SOS differential is not exclusive to being a hospital employed physician. I point this out as a clarification as some seem to equate hospital employed status directly with SOS differential...

As an independent physician, if I go over to the hospital and use their OR, my employer (me) only gets to bill the pro fee. However, if I were employed by the hospital, my employer would charge and keep both the pro fee and a facility fee on my behalf. Then, by virtue of SOS arbitrage, some of the $$ would be "kicked back" to me in salary and bonus. The quid pro quo is that I'm also using my employer's lab, radiology, rehab, etc. And, (nudge-nudge-wink-wink) for purpose of "continuity of care" I only refer my patients to other fellow employed MD's to minimize "revenue leak" from the system. The other employed MD's also use the hospital facilities and ancillary services. It all spirals up into a glorious funnel of SOS payments, etc that are used to cross-subsidize other services and providers that can't make it on their own merits or right into the pocket of C-Suite executives who buy lavish homes and luxury goods.

Those kind of business practices and "soft coercion" is evil and corrupts the MD-patient relationship.

#ThanksObama #Woke
 
Last edited:
As an independent physician, if I go over to the hospital and use their OR, my employer (me) only gets to bill the pro fee. However, if I were employed by the hospital, my employer would charge and keep both the pro fee and a facility fee on my behalf. Then, by virtue of SOS arbitrage, some of the $$ would be "kicked back" to me in salary and bonus. The quid pro quo is that I'm also using my employer's lab, radiology, rehab, etc. And, (nudge-nudge-wink-wink) for purpose of "continuity of care" I only refer my patients to other fellow employed MD's to minimize "revenue leak" from the system.

Those kind of business practices and "soft coercion" is evil and corrupts the MD-patient relationship.

#ThanksObama #Woke

Ya none of this was going on prior to Obama
 
Yes that is the entire charge and bill. The info I gave are what they send to Medicare.

We have protracted rates which th all the major local players. Those numbers are quite a bit higher.

ASC and HOPD SOS differential is not exclusive to being a hospital employed physician. I point this out as a clarification as some seem to equate hospital employed status directly with SOS differential...
If that's true, your hospital is not being "nice", it's being foolish. There's nothing evil about billing Medicare and insurance what they are owed. A consultant or a new CEO is going to correct that at some point. Even so, it demonstrates they have money coming out their ears from the rest of the SoS benefit.
 
A hospital employee in a big system can work at a non-hospital based facility for clinic visits and a hospital-based facility for procedure visits.

There must be something more than altruism though for that billing practices, but if you believe that, let me tell you about this ocean front property in Arizona I've got to sell...
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Obamacare gave hospitals the leverage they needed to make this stuff go viral.

Compare percentage of physicians in clinical practice who are hospital employed vs. independent, pre and post ACA.

Agree. Obama purposely crippled private practice physicians with Obamacare, skyrocketing co-pays and deductibles and premiums, forcing many to loose profit margins and sell out to hospital systems who with their criminally high SOS differential sucked them up like filter feeders. The entire goal of Obamacare was to destroy private practice and force socialized medicine as a result.

Things were much, much better prior to Obamacare for patients who paid for insurance and for physicians.
 
for all the high faluting attitude of private pain practice, there are multiple examples where a private practice doctor that does procedures at an OON facility, or multiple procedures at a facility that he/she owns and captures a portion of the fees that the ASC collects.

I previously told about a case of a patient who lived in AZ on this forum, saw a private pain doc, who then proceeded to do series of three FJI and TF, to the tune of $20000+. the man went through medical bankruptcy and had to move to NY because family was here.

long and short - either the crooks are some of the PP docs, or some of the hospitals. because money is involved.




fwiw, the rate of medical bankruptcy has gone down since the ACA.
How the Affordable Care Act Drove Down Personal Bankruptcy
How the Affordable Care Act Drove Down Personal Bankruptcy
Expanded health insurance helped cut the number of filings by half
By Allen St. John
May 02, 2017
642 SHARES
chart, below). Those years also represent the time frame when the ACA took effect. Although courts never ask people to declare why they’re filing, many bankruptcy and legal experts agree that medical bills had been a leading cause of personal bankruptcy before public healthcare coverage expanded under the ACA. Unlike other causes of debt, medical bills are often unexpected, involuntary, and large.

“If you’re uninsured or underinsured, you can run up a huge debt in a short period of time,” says Lois Lupica, a bankruptcy expert and Maine Law Foundation Professor of Law at the University of Maine School of Law.

So did the rise of the ACA—which helped some 20 million more Americans get health insurance—cause the decline in bankruptcies?

The many experts we interviewed also pointed to two other contributing factors: an improving economy and changes to bankruptcy laws in 2005 that made it more difficult and costly to file. However, they almost all agreed that expanded health coverage played a major role in the marked, recent decline.

pre-existing conditions and, on most covered benefits, an end to annual and lifetime coverage caps. Aspects of the law, including provisions for young people to be covered by a family policy until age 26, went into effect in 2010 and 2011, before the full rollout of the ACA in 2014.

“It’s absolutely remarkable,” says Jim Molleur, a Maine-based bankruptcy attorney with 20 years of experience. “We’re not getting people with big medical bills, chronically sick people who would hit those lifetime caps or be denied because of pre-existing conditions. They seemed to disappear almost overnight once ACA kicked in.”

The first attempt to repeal and replace the ACA, in March, failed to gain enough Congressional support and never came to a vote.

Then in April, details of a new replacement plan were released. Although President Donald Trump has said that this new version, like the first bill that was pulled from consideration, will cover pre-existing conditions, the revised law gives states broad latitude to allow insurance companies to increase rates for consumers with an existing illness.

CR-ACA-inline-Kathleen3-0417

Photo: Kathleen Weber
A Rare and Costly Diagnosis
Since the start of the year, more than 2,000 consumers have answered an online questionnaire from Consumer Reports’ advocacy and mobilization team, sharing their experiences with the ACA. Katie Weber of Seattle was one of them.

In 2011, she had just landed her first job out of college, as a teacher with AmeriCorps, she explains in a phone interview. That’s when the unusual numbness in her hand began, which she—and her doctor—at first mistook for a pinched nerve. Then came debilitating headaches and nausea and, ultimately, a diagnosis of medulloblastoma, a fast-growing cancerous brain tumor.

The treatment for her tumor was straightforward: surgery, radiation, then chemotherapy. Figuring out how to pay for it was much less clear. She worried that the insurance she had through AmeriCorps wouldn’t cover enough of her bills.

Your browser does not support the audio element.
Hear Katie Weber tell her story.

"It's a lot of money to do all that stuff, and to get all those MRIs."


“My dad said to me, ‘Your health is the most important thing. If you have to declare bankruptcy at age 23, it’s no big deal,’” Weber says.

Because of the ACA, she says, it never came to that. After her year with AmeriCorps, the new healthcare law enabled her to get coverage under her parents’ insurance plan.

The ACA provisions required that the family’s insurance company cover her even though she had already been diagnosed with cancer. That would not have been the case before the ACA, which mandates the coverage of pre-existing conditions for all consumers.

Later, when she aged out of her parents’ insurance, Weber was able to enroll in Apple Health, Washington state’s version of Medicaid, a program that was expanded once the ACA was passed. That coverage, she says, has been crucial to her financial and medical well-being, especially once the cancer returned last fall.

Weber says she now spends more time discussing treatment options and less time worrying how she’ll pay for MRIs and drugs. These are covered in full under her Apple Health policy.

“Cancer is really expensive,” she says. “My insurance saved my life.”

Numbers Plummet
If you want further testimony about how much personal bankruptcies have dropped over the past decade, talk to Susan Grossberg, a Springfield, Mass., attorney.

For more than 20 years she has helped consumers push the financial reset button when debt triggered by divorce, unemployment, or a costly illness or medical episode became too much to handle. “Medical debt can get really big really quickly,” Grossberg says. “When you’re in the emergency room they’re not checking your credit score while they’re caring for you.”

With the advent of the ACA—and before that, expanded state healthcare in Massachusetts—she says fewer clients with large medical debts walked through her door.

Grossberg adds that her bankruptcy business has slowed so much that she has been forced to take on other kinds of legal work—landlord-tenant and housing discrimination cases—to cover her own bills.

The American Bankruptcy Institute suggested that veteran Chicago bankruptcy attorney and trustee David Leibowitz could also help parse the reasons for the decadelong decline.

First, he says, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 made it more difficult for consumers to file for bankruptcy. The law required credit counseling and income verification and forced many consumers to seek protection under Chapter 13, which restructures, but does not eliminate, most debt. The piles of paperwork also meant most filers needed a lawyer, which made bankruptcy more costly and therefore not an option for many poor consumers.

Read More of Our Healthcare Coverage
Then there was the economy. After a slow and steady recovery following the housing crisis of 2008, Leibowitz explains that American consumers generally had fewer problems with their mortgages, better employment prospects, and greater access to credit, which made them less likely to file.

The final factor, according to Leibowitz, has been the ACA, which afforded health coverage to many more consumers and expanded protections for all.

Of course, not everyone sees such a direct connection between the decline in bankruptcies and the emergence of the ACA.

Thomas P. Miller, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and co-author of “Why ObamaCare is Wrong for America” (HarperCollins, 2011), cautioned against “reaching broad conclusions” because the subject is so complex.

“Certainly there are fewer people declaring bankruptcy, and certainly fewer are declaring bankruptcy because of healthcare spending,” he says. But his earlier research suggested that some studies exaggerated the degree to which high healthcare bills cause bankruptcies. “They tended to reflect other problems with credit card balances well beyond healthcare,” he says. “It stems from multiple causes.”

Figuring Out Why
Over the past decade, determining the cause-and-effect relationship between medical debt and bankruptcy has become a political football, particularly during the years the Obama administration was trying to pass the ACA through Congress.

The truth is that it’s not that easy to determine how many bankruptcies are caused by medical debt. Examining the paperwork doesn’t always offer insight because debtors often juggle their indebtedness, for example, using a credit card to pay an outstanding medical bill while leaving other debts unpaid.

But a 2014 study from Daniel Austin, a bankruptcy attorney and, at the time, a professor at the Northeastern University School of Law, offers some of the most in-depth research to date.

Austin and his team selected a nationwide group of 100 bankruptcy filers meant to represent a cross-section of the U.S. population, studied their paperwork, then followed up with a survey asking filers, basically, “Why?”

His team’s research found that medical debt is the single largest factor in personal bankruptcy. First, Austin analyzed the paperwork of individual case files, which suggested that medical bills were a factor in 18 percent of filings. But when he directly asked the same filers, in a survey, the number was even higher, with 25 percent citing medical bills as a factor in their decision to file bankruptcy.

CR-Hero-Inline-1-ACA-0517

Illustration: Sébastien Thibault
In addition to the nationwide group, Austin isolated a group of 100 bankruptcy filers from Massachusetts. Why Massachusetts? Because its citizens, starting in 2006, had been covered by a comprehensive state healthcare program similar to the ACA known as Romneycare, after the state’s former governor, Mitt Romney.

The differences between the two groups were striking. Even though the Massachusetts filers owed substantially more in unsecured debt (that is, debt not backed by a home, a car, or another asset) than their counterparts in other states, they reported less than half as much medical debt, which is also unsecured.

“The average medical debt in Massachusetts in 2013 was relatively low at just $3,041 (6 percent of total unsecured debt) compared to $8,594 (20 percent of total unsecured debt) nationwide,” Austin writes in his 2014 study, portions of which were published in the Maine Law Review.

“Only about 9 percent of Massachusetts debtors felt their bankruptcy filing was a result of medical bills,” Austin explains. “This compares to 25 percent for debtors from [other] jurisdictions.” Austin’s research found that comprehensive medical coverage in Massachusetts had all but eliminated medical bills as a cause for bankruptcy.

“Not only in absolute numbers—they had much smaller medical debt—but psychologically, medical debt did not loom nearly as large for people in Massachusetts as it did for other people in other states.” And in 2010, four years after Romneycare began, the state had a bankruptcy rate that was about 30 percent lower than that of other states.

In Search of Certainty, Consistency
At its most basic level, health insurance allows consumers to pay for the medical care they need. Each year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines how well the system is working by surveying Americans and asking a simple but powerful question: Did you have problems paying medical bills in the last 12 months?

The percentage of those reporting problems has dropped from 21.3 percent of households when they first asked the question in 2011 to 16.2 percent in 2016. That’s almost 13 million fewer Americans no longer facing collection notices from a doctor or hospital.

“It’s been happening across the board, by race, by age, by insurance status, by gender,” says Robin Cohen, the study’s lead author.

But insurance is also about peace of mind. And judging from the consumers who have shared their stories with Consumer Reports, that certainty is in short supply as the fate of the ACA is decided. People are wondering what comes next: Repeal? Replace? Improve? Retain and neglect? No one really knows the answer. Americans are concerned about how the future of healthcare will affect them and their families.

CR-Inline-CDC-chart4-06-17


In CR’s Consumer Voices survey in January 2017, 55 percent of consumers said they lacked confidence that they or their loved ones would be able to afford insurance to secure that care.

Don Shope of Ocean View, Del., said the availability of ACA coverage gave him the confidence to leave a corporate job and start his own consulting business. But now, with the ACA’s future in limbo, he and his wife are watching the action in Washington and worrying that they might have to return to jobs with benefits.

“I’m not a liberal or a conservative, a Democrat or a Republican,” Shope said in a phone interview. “Our biggest concern is that with repeal and replace we’re going to be left high and dry.”

He also believes in expanded health coverage for all. “If any American is sick, we should be willing to take care of them,” Shope says. “It’s the right thing to do. Economics and profit shouldn’t be part of the healthcare equation.”

Hanging On Every Dip and Turn
And then there’s Kristin Couch, who has channeled the uncertainty into her own brand of activism.

“I was kind of anxious,” Couch says about the day in March when Congress was set to vote on a less robust bill that would replace the ACA.

The 31-year-old public relations executive, of Gainesville, Ga., has started to follow health-care politics in the intense, almost obsessive way some people follow sports. The morning after Election Day, she called the offices of her local congressional representatives, urging them to preserve the protections the ACA offers.

Couch began caring about healthcare as a high school senior when she was diagnosed with lupus and since then has become something of a reluctant expert on how to manage not only her treatment but also the insurance that pays for it.

With friends and neighbors she talks about the law in simple but personal terms. “I tell people, ‘I have a pre-existing condition, and this has helped me,’” she says of the ACA. Couch follows the healthcare debate in Washington so closely because she knows firsthand what happens when you don’t have adequate coverage.

Your browser does not support the audio element.
Hear Kristin Couch tell her story.

“I tell people, ‘I have a pre-existing condition, and this has helped me.’ ”


Couch remembers the time, before the ACA, when a new immunosuppressive drug that wasn’t covered by her policy became available. “It was expensive,” she explained in an interview, “but it worked, and I knew I needed it. Every month I’d just put it on a credit card. When your medication is thousands of dollars a month, that’s the start of being in debt.” She considered bankruptcy but ultimately worked her way out from under the pile of medical bills.

As a result of the ACA, her coverage shifted again when her employer no longer offered a traditional plan and she had to switch to one with a high $3,000 deductible. Initially she was stunned by her out-of-pocket costs, but she quickly realized that her total costs would be capped once she’d met that threshold.


Are you worried about healthcare costs? Join Consumer Reports' efforts to #ProtectOurCare.


“It seemed scary and it seemed different,” she explains. “But it actually saved me money.” And now, she says, “I don’t have to worry about how much a new drug costs.”

So on the March day the House of Representatives was supposed to vote on repealing the ACA, she worried that the insurance she’d come to depend on was about to be yanked away. Only after emerging from a client meeting did she learn the vote had been canceled. “I started crying I was so happy,” Couch recalls. “It’s like a weight has lifted.”

But Couch’s relief was short-lived. Now she’s back to paying close attention to the rhetoric and vote-counting deals in Washington, awaiting another possible vote on the newly revised plan. “I'm still optimistic,” she said this week. “I think enough people will stand up and fight for the coverage.”
in this case, the ACA was not about us. it was about the people above. I know its hard to imagine that something would not be focused on us doctors, narcissistic that we all are, myself included
 
Last edited:
for all the high faluting attitude of private pain practice, there are multiple examples where a private practice doctor that does procedures at an OON facility, or multiple procedures at a facility that he/she owns and captures a portion of the fees that the ASC collects.

I previously told about a case of a patient who lived in AZ on this forum, saw a private pain doc, who then proceeded to do series of three FJI and TF, to the tune of $20000+. the man went through medical bankruptcy and had to move to NY because family was here.

long and short - either the crooks are some of the PP docs, or some of the hospitals. because money is involved.




fwiw, the rate of medical bankruptcy has gone down since the ACA.
How the Affordable Care Act Drove Down Personal Bankruptcy

in this case, the ACA was not about us. it was about the people above. I know its hard to imagine that something would not be focused on us doctors, narcissistic that we all are, myself included

No doubt this happens in a small percentage of cases in which the doc owns an OUT OF NETWORK ASC. This is a small percentage.

As opposed to hospitals, for which 100% of patients (who pay for their health care) are ripped off with SOS differentials.
 
No doubt this happens in a small percentage of cases in which the doc owns an OUT OF NETWORK ASC. This is a small percentage.

As opposed to hospitals, for which 100% of patients (who pay for their health care) are ripped off with SOS differentials.
SOS differential happens in all ASCs, right? OON is much worse, of course, but tell me, what SOS differential doesn't exist for ASC vs office based?
 
SOS differential happens in all ASCs, right? OON is much worse, of course, but tell me, what SOS differential doesn't exist for ASC vs office based?
It's less pronounced than HOPD. Also is OON still a thing? I haven't seen it in a long time When I bill OON, I get LESS than in network I think insurance has way more leverage than it used to. Thanks, in part to O care. .
 
SOS differential happens in all ASCs, right? OON is much worse, of course, but tell me, what SOS differential doesn't exist for ASC vs office based?

SOS differential for ASCs is a smidgen of that of HOSP settings. There is also a differential between ASC and office, but much smaller than that between HOSP and everything else. ASCs are a TON cheaper than HOSP for almost all surgeries.
 
Wage gap between hospital executives and doctors is widening, study finds

"Adjusted for inflation, average compensation for CEOs at these medical centers increased from $1.6 million in 2005 to $3.1 million in 2015 -- a 93 percent increase. During the same period, compensation rose by 26 percent for orthopaedic surgeons and 15 percent for pediatricians, reflecting the higher versus lower end of doctor salaries. For registered nurses, wages increased by three percent."

"In 2005, hospital CEOs made three times more than orthopaedic surgeons; by 2015, they made five times more. There were even larger increases in the wage gap between CEOs and pediatricians, from 7:1 to 12:1; and CEOs and registered nurses, from 23:1 to 44:1."

Every hospital employed MD's hair should be on fire with this news. This is could light a hire under the behinds of medical staff members and result in calls for pay-cuts and accountability among Admin. No one has ever shown the hospital CEO pay is tied to value-based outcomes.

Physicians Rise

"The practice of medicine has been stolen. It's time for physicians to reclaim the responsibility for the patient-physician relationship. Third-party payors, government, hospitals, and non-physician staff disrupt the patient-physician relationship, once considered sacred. Productivity demands, shorter appointments, and a one-size-fits-all algorithms rob patients of physician time."
The reason for the ever-growing CEO salaries is that they are managing ever-larger networks, and for millions of dollars less than CEOs make managing similar numbers of employees elsewhere in the private sector. It's easier to find an orthopedist than a person that can competently run an organization that employs 10,000+ people. Hell, I used to complain about a certain local hospital CEO until I realized she was basically running the largest employer in the entire state, and for far less than CEOs of organizations a tenth the size of hers.
 
So my point stands.

One can not equate being hospital employed is directly associated with SOS differential.

These are 2 independent arguments.

If you want to complain about doctors being hospital employed, go right ahead. If you want to complain about SOS differential, go really get ahead,

But...Please stop implying that being hospital employed is the root cause for SOS differential. It’s not. Each hospital clinic chooses it’s Site of service independently, and some more deviously than others.
 
Agree. Obama purposely crippled private practice physicians with Obamacare, skyrocketing co-pays and deductibles and premiums, forcing many to loose profit margins and sell out to hospital systems who with their criminally high SOS differential sucked them up like filter feeders. The entire goal of Obamacare was to destroy private practice and force socialized medicine as a result.

Things were much, much better prior to Obamacare for patients who paid for insurance and for physicians.

Total BS
C0-pays and deductibles have been on rise for years, don't let the FACTS get in the way of a good story though
Cumulative-Increases-in-Health-Ins.-premiums-99-04.png
 
So my point stands.

One can not equate being hospital employed is directly associated with SOS differential.

These are 2 independent arguments.

If you want to complain about doctors being hospital employed, go right ahead. If you want to complain about SOS differential, go really get ahead,

But...Please stop implying that being hospital employed is the root cause for SOS differential. It’s not. Each hospital clinic chooses it’s Site of service independently, and some more deviously than others.

You're wrong: These are two intertwined issues. The problem *STARTED* with non-evidence based SOS d(f) for hospitals that did not incorporate any means testing or objective vetting of cost-to-charge ratios. Then, as usual, the government made the problem worse by creating policies that encouraged the absorption of independent MD's to reduce revenue leakage from their systems.

We have to attack the problem on two fronts: First, deal with the legacy MD's/hospitals by reducing & modernizing SOS d(f) payments. And, prevent new MD's from becoming hospital employees by encouraging new and disruptive delivery models: Direct access, concierge, etc.
 
Last edited:
No
Total BS
C0-pays and deductibles have been on rise for years, don't let the FACTS get in the way of a good story though
Cumulative-Increases-in-Health-Ins.-premiums-99-04.png
No, not total BS. I was there in private practice before during and after Comrade Obamacare. Peoples deductibles skyrocketed immediately, private insurers pulled out of the market (including here in the Puget sound, no good options left for people), co-pays skyrocketed. Hell, I even had my own personal deductibles and co-pays skyrocket, until that is my insurer PULLED OUT of the market for individual policyholders! So I lost my health insurance.

I don't know what fantasy world you live in that you think things got BETTER for people who PAY for health care during Obamacare.
 
Nobody is implying that being hospital employed is the root cause for SOS differential. The SOS differential is the root cause you are employed by a hospital! No SOS differential, no reason for hospitals to employ you!

And, there is nothing wrong with being hospital employed either. What is wrong is hospitals stealing billions of revenue for things that can be done infinitely cheaper in ASCs and office settings.

The problem is with the hospital and their lobbyists and the corrupt folks in DC.

So my point stands.

One can not equate being hospital employed is directly associated with SOS differential.

These are 2 independent arguments.

If you want to complain about doctors being hospital employed, go right ahead. If you want to complain about SOS differential, go really get ahead,

But...Please stop implying that being hospital employed is the root cause for SOS differential. It’s not. Each hospital clinic chooses it’s Site of service independently, and some more deviously than others.
 
No

No, not total BS. I was there in private practice before during and after Comrade Obamacare. Peoples deductibles skyrocketed immediately, private insurers pulled out of the market (including here in the Puget sound, no good options left for people), co-pays skyrocketed. Hell, I even had my own personal deductibles and co-pays skyrocket, until that is my insurer PULLED OUT of the market for individual policyholders! So I lost my health insurance.

I don't know what fantasy world you live in that you think things got BETTER for people who PAY for health care during Obamacare.

I have been in private practice for 15 years, deductibles have bee skyrocketing way before the ACA, so sorry for your personal sob story but those are the facts.

Please show me evidence that deductibles and premiums were NOT on rise before ACA
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Kinda? As the ACA was signed in 2010 I'm not sure this says what you think it does. And yes I know it didn't come into full effect until 2014, but that doesn't mean it had no impact prior to that date.
So your argument is deductibles, co pays and premiums were not rising significantly prior to ACA?

1859d0_519cbf7da9a84c49bf8efb7b18263008.webp
 
No

No, not total BS. I was there in private practice before during and after Comrade Obamacare. Peoples deductibles skyrocketed immediately, private insurers pulled out of the market (including here in the Puget sound, no good options left for people), co-pays skyrocketed. Hell, I even had my own personal deductibles and co-pays skyrocket, until that is my insurer PULLED OUT of the market for individual policyholders! So I lost my health insurance.

I don't know what fantasy world you live in that you think things got BETTER for people who PAY for health care during Obamacare.

things did not get better for "people who pay for insurance" after obamacare. i actually dont think obamacare moved the needle all that much. the trends lonelobo posted are pretty telling.