Shredder said:
No more donald for your avatar??? 😉
Interview Question: "What is the single biggest problem with Healthcare today"
- Thread starter attaboybambeeks
- Start date
No more donald for your avatar??? 😉
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,191
- Reaction score
- 6
Shredder said:
This would result in:
lower salaries for all docs
a physician-saturated market
no job security
edit: i didn't read Page 2 of this thread, so this post may be irrelevant/unnecessary.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 3,904
- Reaction score
- 4
all 3 of those contentions seem valid. but who are docs looking out for, themselves or the patients? the doc shortage is great for docs, terrible for everyone else. might as well flood and make it like other markets, where demand and supply actually find ways to match up instead of being perpetually uneven. the job security in medicine is a direct result of the artificial shortage of docs. lets put some market forces into play instead of having special interests and bureaucrats dictate. they dont dictate IT yet ppl are still motivated to enter that sector, saturated or not. saturation is the ultimate evolutionary device. i do have some qualms with the lower salaries for all docs point thoughTheMightyAngus said:
guju i change periodically when there are other happenings going on, usually tennis but this time baseball for my hometown
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Messages
- 1,384
- Reaction score
- 153
I would add that just because a job is in demand, job security is NOT guaranteed. Healthcare, compensating for lack of financial compensation for services rendered, has been hack and slash lately with health care systems looking for ways to run leaner. Unfortunately, this typically results in less than stellar patient care.
Even if there were more physicians, salaries may not decrease because salary is not the only financial burden employment brings. Employers must also consider benefits, liability, etc.
Even if there were more physicians, salaries may not decrease because salary is not the only financial burden employment brings. Employers must also consider benefits, liability, etc.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2005
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 1
gujuDoc said:
No more donald for your avatar??? 😉
Here's a new avatar for him:
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 28,762
- Reaction score
- 53,947
Go to www.nytimes.com and search on Jennifer Garden. This will lead you to a long (2400 word) article about a woman's struggle to get and keep medicaid coverage. It is the fourth in a series about Medicaid.
Navigating the system is a major problem whether people have Medicaid, HMO, fee-for-service, or no coverage.
Read, and read some more, and you will have no problem coming up with some answer to this question. (There is no single correct answer, being able to think of something is the key to answering well.)
Navigating the system is a major problem whether people have Medicaid, HMO, fee-for-service, or no coverage.
Read, and read some more, and you will have no problem coming up with some answer to this question. (There is no single correct answer, being able to think of something is the key to answering well.)
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 68
- Reaction score
- 0
More- WalMart adding physical tasks to jobs to discourage older/unhealthier job applicants to save on health care costs.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/26/news/fortune500/walmart/index.htm?cnn=yes
You may have also heard about how Walmart is adding "health clinics" to their stores run by nurses. Sounds like from the article they're also aiming to substitute this sort of care for normal health insurance.
The cost of health care on a national scale is too high already and still steadibly climbing. As myself and suppuration have pointed out, physician fees are not what's causing these high costs, its the cost of high technology care.
Tying this back to the OPs question, this is still a sticky issue to discuss at an interview. University medical centers are where much of this high tech care is invented, tested, and implemented.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/26/news/fortune500/walmart/index.htm?cnn=yes
You may have also heard about how Walmart is adding "health clinics" to their stores run by nurses. Sounds like from the article they're also aiming to substitute this sort of care for normal health insurance.
The cost of health care on a national scale is too high already and still steadibly climbing. As myself and suppuration have pointed out, physician fees are not what's causing these high costs, its the cost of high technology care.
Tying this back to the OPs question, this is still a sticky issue to discuss at an interview. University medical centers are where much of this high tech care is invented, tested, and implemented.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 28,762
- Reaction score
- 53,947
dabigv13 said:
But what good is high tech care if it bankrupts those people who need it? When it is invented and tested the patient usually does not pay, the study sponsor foots the bill. Once high tech care is approved, patients do pay and for some, health insurance is not enough. Read "When Health Insurance is Not a Safeguard" by John Leland in the Sunday, October 23 issue of The New York Times. You can find it online, and in some libraries, too.
It isn't a sticky issue. It shows compassion for sick patients and frustration with a system that continuously attempts to cost shift more of the cost onto the patient. The article describes a family making $65,000 per year. Their child needsinfusions that cost $50,000 per month. Their share of the bill is $5,000 (just 10% of the bill) but you can see that over a year that share is impossible to bear.
100 years ago docs could do little and thus costs were low. Docs were paid to tell a patient the prognosis, little more.
Today, there is so much that can be done, and costs can be very high. Docs should be paid to use the best evidence to judiciously use medical resources. Clinical epidemiology or medical decision making is one of the most important things you should learn in medical school.
- Joined
- May 8, 2004
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 0
Of all the forms of injustice, inequality in healthcare is the most shocking and inhumane.
.. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
If you don't want to go the normal route, you could talk about disparities in medical care, such as the Institute of Medicine's report "Unequal Treatment" (http://www.nap.edu/books/030908265X/html/ if you want some info on it). It's a huge deal in medicine and we had a discussion on it today and everyone was able to some up with something to help combat it - from more pt education to physcian training on diversity to system-wide changes such as incentives for providing care to underserved populations.
As far as access, most doctors are in favor of universal access, but as many people have noted, "socialized medicine" is not something people want to hear. However, a widely accepted plan is to have a publicly funded insurance but privately deliver medicine. The following question was asked:
Which would you prefer A universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare thats run by the government and financed by taxpayers, or the current health insurance system, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance?
ABC News/Washington Post Poll
62% said the Universal health insurance plan while 32% said the current health care plan. A few other tidbits if you want to talk about this. Medicare operates at a 3% overhead; private insurance companies are operating at 15-20% Of the 2 trillion dollars that go into medical care each year, $309 billion is lost to overhead. If this competition was eliminated, that would be $309 billion more to go into caring for patient, not to mention the profit that these companies are making.
In a study looking at how much it would cost to cover all Californians under a sngle-insurer plan, there was a $17 billion increase in cost to cover everyone, but there was a $25 billion decrease in administrative costs. It would cost less to cover everyone under a single insurer but they would still be receiving care like they do now.
Or if this is too complex for you, just talk about Wal-mart, which costs taxpayers $1 billion every year to pay for healthcare for their employees. Or how drug costs are the number one reason for healthcare cost inflation, but Congress has outlawed group purchasing (which is how other countries get the same drug for cheaper).
<gets down off her soap box>
.. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
If you don't want to go the normal route, you could talk about disparities in medical care, such as the Institute of Medicine's report "Unequal Treatment" (http://www.nap.edu/books/030908265X/html/ if you want some info on it). It's a huge deal in medicine and we had a discussion on it today and everyone was able to some up with something to help combat it - from more pt education to physcian training on diversity to system-wide changes such as incentives for providing care to underserved populations.
As far as access, most doctors are in favor of universal access, but as many people have noted, "socialized medicine" is not something people want to hear. However, a widely accepted plan is to have a publicly funded insurance but privately deliver medicine. The following question was asked:
Which would you prefer A universal health insurance program, in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare thats run by the government and financed by taxpayers, or the current health insurance system, in which most people get their health insurance from private employers, but some people have no insurance?
ABC News/Washington Post Poll
62% said the Universal health insurance plan while 32% said the current health care plan. A few other tidbits if you want to talk about this. Medicare operates at a 3% overhead; private insurance companies are operating at 15-20% Of the 2 trillion dollars that go into medical care each year, $309 billion is lost to overhead. If this competition was eliminated, that would be $309 billion more to go into caring for patient, not to mention the profit that these companies are making.
In a study looking at how much it would cost to cover all Californians under a sngle-insurer plan, there was a $17 billion increase in cost to cover everyone, but there was a $25 billion decrease in administrative costs. It would cost less to cover everyone under a single insurer but they would still be receiving care like they do now.
Or if this is too complex for you, just talk about Wal-mart, which costs taxpayers $1 billion every year to pay for healthcare for their employees. Or how drug costs are the number one reason for healthcare cost inflation, but Congress has outlawed group purchasing (which is how other countries get the same drug for cheaper).
<gets down off her soap box>
Similar threads
