

Instead of being a nearly completely independent physician who can be a jack of all trades in addition to being my own man and planning my own days, I would show up from 8 to 5, give checkups to strangers and write referral letters, whereas in private practice I could be doing knee replacements, delivering babies and giving out psych meds all in the same day.[/B]
I shadowed a family practitioner who did all of that in one day. The guy's a beast, he's been practicing forever and he's board certified in everything. He's like a one-man hospital.
Anyone who has a knee replacement done by someone who does fewer than 50 per year is an idiot. A family practice doc who delivers babies and does major orthopedic surgery?😱 I wouldn't want to know what his annual malpractice insurance bill looks like!
That is highly unusual.
It is unusual. He's a local legend because of how broad his repertoire of skills is and how great his attitude is. We joke that he's the lord of all doctors and the mold from which all family practitioners were cast.
I have no idea if or how it works out for him financially, but he certainly loves his job and did a great job making me want to go into family practice.
A very informative topic here; thanks to the OP for bringing this up. I'm hoping someone could clarify a few points for me though. It's been mentioned a few times earlier in the thread that HMO is a capitated system whereby a physician is essentially paid a flat fee to care for a group of patients. Now I'm not a fan of fixed salaries but isn't it true that being paid a flat fee does not provide an incentive to see more patients and hence physicians may actually be more thorough with each patient? Someone said above that HMO docs would be encouraged to see more patients and sacrifice the quality of each appointment for a higher volume and as a result higher income. BUT this is true of our fee-for-service delivery system as it is right now regardless. So I guess my confusion is: Is the flat fee per patient seen, irrespective of the nature of the care provided, OR is it a flat salary regardless of the number of patients one sees?
Now, I don't want to sound like an idiot but can someone explain this to me. Since doctors are limited in their scope of practice, who limits it and how are these things regulated? Also, I know that PCPs have a very wide scope but how far does/can it go?
Also, very informative thread.
Doctors are licensed as physicians and surgeons. They can legally do just about anything within that scope of practice. However, good judgment keeps physicians from practicing beyond what they are qualified to do by their training.... a malpractice lawyer would have a field day with a physician who goes far beyond his training and subsequently has a tragic outcome.
So basically HMO's look great on paper but less so in practice? I mean, isn't the fact that you're only paid a certain amount per patient going to be a *deterant* against performing potentially necessary procedures(let's say ordering certain lab works) because it'll eat up what you're reimbursed?
Now, I don't want to sound like an idiot but can someone explain this to me. Since doctors are limited in their scope of practice, who limits it and how are these things regulated? Also, I know that PCPs have a very wide scope but how far does/can it go?
Also, very informative thread.
I had no idea! So (I know it wouldn't really be possible) technically if I do a FM residency I can get board certified as an orthopedic surgeon?