inefficient and well compensated?

[nvrsumr]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

NYT editorial on medicaid

"The big savings for next year would mostly come from reducing payments to health care providers"

"many providers are inefficient and well compensated; most should be able to absorb the loss."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/opinion/19sat1.html?ref=opinion

I dont accept medicaid patients and editorials like this arent likely to make me change my mind.

 

[PMR 4 MSK]

I am required to accept Medicaid referrals from my practice partners. The orthos get stuck with ER referrals and sometimes **** rolls downhill. However, it's usually only 1-2/month.

I accept 1 new Medicaid per week to keep outside referring sources happy, but I find many, if not most, come from the county free health clinic. Still, I feel I'm doing my civic duty. If I were straight salary, I wouldn't care at all. But I'm "Eat What You Kill" so it matters.

The bad thing about Medicaid (Public Aid here) is that these are the patients most likely to no-show, least likely to be compliant, and most likely to be demanding, angry and self-entitled.

 

[docnyc]

I limit my medicaid exposure as well. Without fail they are no shows, non-compliant, entitiled. Part of the reason is because they are not paying for their care and a large proportion do not work therefore they dont value anyones time except their own. Meanwhile I see them come into my office with their brand new iphones and other expensive accessories.

Let them drop the medicaid reimbursements more, I dont think any physicians are begging to have more medicaid in their practice. The more they drop the reimbursement, the more we walk away as doctors.

How about having the govt pay us for a no show or the patient has some accountability if they no show, that would help with the "inefficiencies". This writer is a ***** and clueless.

 

[Pain_doc]

Medicaid reimbursement is horrible. The billing service pointed out that I was losing money with these patients. Not breaking even, but it was costing me to see them. Combine that with all the recognized problems with this group of folks, and it is certainly not worth my time or effort. I've also severely cut back on the medicare patients with medicaid as secondary. Medicaid never paid anything after the 80% medicare part B covered, and I see no reason to have an additional 20% discount added to bad reimbursement.

 

[Tenesma]

>80% of my medicaid population:
1) non-compliant... with everything
2) frequently no-show for appointments without calling... usual excuse: "no transportation"... why didn't they call?: "no phone"...
3) drug-seeking/diverters
4) criminal history (larceny, fraudulent checks, DUIs, Breaking/Entering, Disorderly conduct, Assault/battery)

the other 20% are down on their luck, and I will gladly see those patients - the problem is screening...

 

[Mister Mxyzptlk]

"inefficient and well compensated" sounds more like the government.

Let's see, earnings growth of NYT over the past 5 years has been roughly -20%. The CEO, Arthur Sulzburger Jr, draws a salary of $2,000,000.

Who's overpaid and inefficient?

Thank you NYT for your ignorance perpetuating the "rich doctor" myth. You can't die off soon enough for me. At -20% growth I'll get my wish soon enough and make a special trip to NYC to dance in front of your shuttered offices.

 

[hyperalgesia]

"inefficient and well compensated" sounds more like the government.

Let's see, earnings growth of NYT over the past 5 years has been roughly -20%. The CEO, Arthur Sulzburger Jr, draws a salary of $2,000,000.

Who's overpaid and inefficient?

Thank you NYT for your ignorance perpetuating the "rich doctor" myth. You can't die off soon enough for me. At -20% growth I'll get my wish soon enough and make a special trip to NYC to dance in front of your shuttered offices.

I heard they're planning to start charging for their garbage propaganda. It will be amusing to see how much the rag is worth to some people.