Medicine is in decline. Do you agree?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

lmay0001

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
74
Reaction score
12
The looming problem over modern healthcare, they say, is that the model is structured to increase output, not better long-term health.

How many of us Doctors/future doctors care anymore about applying/researching and improving QOL for our patients and ourselves, without falling for the capitalist idea of output and profits?? where is research and the search for new therapies??
 
The looming problem over modern healthcare, they say, is that the model is structured to increase output, not better long-term health.

How many of us Doctors/future doctors care anymore about applying/researching and improving QOL for our patients and ourselves, without falling for the capitalist idea of output and profits?? where is research and the search for new therapies??
Who is “they”? And how little are you willing to work for per hour comrade?
 
The looming problem over modern healthcare, they say, is that the model is structured to increase output, not better long-term health.

How many of us Doctors/future doctors care anymore about applying/researching and improving QOL for our patients and ourselves, without falling for the capitalist idea of output and profits?? where is research and the search for new therapies??

Read some books, articles, websites or watch a Ted Talk by some of the following physician authors and you will have your answer.

Hint: the medical industry accounts for almost 20% of the US GDP and it is a catastrophe for both patients and physicians.

Hope this helps.

Orac
Respectful Insolence

Abraham Vergese, MD
Selected Articles by Abraham Verghese | Abraham Verghese

Atul Gawande, MD
Articles

Siddhartha Mukherjee, MD
Siddhartha Mukherjee | THE GENE: An Intimate History

How We Do Harm: A Doctor Breaks Ranks About Being Sick in America: Otis Webb Brawley MD, Paul Goldberg
Amazon product ASIN 1250015766
An American Sickness: How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back: Elisabeth Rosenthal MD
Amazon product ASIN 1594206759
Mistreated: Why We Think We're Getting Good Health Careand Why We're Usually Wrong: Robert Pearl MD
Amazon product ASIN 1610397657
####

On a somewhat related note...

Mukherjee’s short book “The Laws of Medicine” is excellent. Must read for future physician

Amazon product ASIN 1476784841
Rent any of these books from your university medical school library. Put your university fees to good use.
 
Read some books, articles, websites or watch a Ted Talk by some of the following physician authors and you will have your answer.

Hint: the medical industry accounts for almost 20% of the US GDP and it is a catastrophe for both patients and physicians.

Hope this helps.

Orac
Respectful Insolence

Abraham Vergese, MD
Selected Articles by Abraham Verghese | Abraham Verghese

Atul Gawande, MD
Articles

Siddhartha Mukherjee, MD
Siddhartha Mukherjee | THE GENE: An Intimate History

How We Do Harm: A Doctor Breaks Ranks About Being Sick in America: Otis Webb Brawley MD, Paul Goldberg
Amazon product ASIN 1250015766
An American Sickness: How Healthcare Became Big Business and How You Can Take It Back: Elisabeth Rosenthal MD
Amazon product ASIN 1594206759
Mistreated: Why We Think We're Getting Good Health Careand Why We're Usually Wrong: Robert Pearl MD
Amazon product ASIN 1610397657
####

On a somewhat related note...

Mukherjee’s short book “The Laws of Medicine” is excellent. Must read for future physician

Amazon product ASIN 1476784841
Rent any of these books from your university medical school library. Put your university fees to good use.
anyone with a semblance of common sense understands the status quo is not sustainable. The question is how long before the bubble pops or what the future will look like. After ACA it was apparent that payors are starting to squeeze healthcare organizations, but with the individual mandate repeal it is anyone's guess what the future will look like.
 
I thought this was just a question about incentives within a fee for service model, but then the second paragraph of the OP is devoid of anything resembling a meaningful premise. OP, please see any academic health center in america. QOL and new therapies and research are all they do. Sure, they have to keep the lights on and generate money, but they are usually non-profits in the end and devote many of their resources toward the things you mention.

Medicine is going to be fine.

No, the "golden years" of payors giving docs whatever they wanted for services are over. The future of health insurance as a thing is an interesting unknown as premiums continue to rise. I don't think the individual mandate repeal will change this much; the tax penalty was a pittance compared to premiums and the estimated numbers of people who will drop coverage as a result is nearly nothing. That said, premiums are expected to continue rising.

I think the fundamental issue for US Healthcare is simply the time elapsed and the realities of our current cost structure. I too would love to see a single-payer, medicare for everyone model, but the dumb fast is that it simply isn't economically feasible. Not only are medicare rates given to the whole population insanely expensive, but it would still not be enough for hospitals to cover their operating costs as they currently rely on commercial insurance to cover the spread. 2 states have passed laws to do single payer and both have dropped it once they saw the tab. Other countries that have single payer got a big head start on us and have been able to keep costs down over decades, yet they too are also struggling with the cost of care. The liberal in me would really like for this to work, but I just don't see how the numbers are feasible at the moment.

That said, I think the saving grace for our healthcare system will be the rise of cash-only services. You can see inklings of the this in things like the surgery center of oklahoma and direct primary care. If services can be offered for cash at a fraction of the cost -- often a fraction of the current medicare rates, then I'm hopeful that with time, we may in fact be able to transition to some government-sponsored insurance or tax credits that empower this sort of direct-to-consumer model.

There are some religious communities that already self-insure with only cash reserves; they will actually bring suitcases of cash when they come for surgery and pay on the spot. For them, they find it far more economical to do this rather than insure their people. They may have to pay the occasional $20k for a surgery, but they save far more than that each year in premiums. They are also pretty healthy people, no smoking or drugs or alcohol, so their over utilization is very low too. I can only imagine it would be even better for them if they had a cash-only no-insurance option locally here that would cut their costs even further.

This sort of free market consumerism is the only thing I see currently that will ultimately provide a route to near universal coverage at a reasonable cost, but there are some years of growing pains still to come. I can imagine a cash-only no-insurance system supported by tax credits/incentives to offset cost of services when they are needed, and some kind of catastrophic, very high deductible universal insurance plan to protect people from devastating diagnoses. Hopefully one day we will get to a political climate where reasonable discussions can be had; as it is, we have repeal and replace with nothing on one side and healthcare is a right on the other, neither of which seem particularly grounded in reality.
 
I thought this was just a question about incentives within a fee for service model, but then the second paragraph of the OP is devoid of anything resembling a meaningful premise. OP, please see any academic health center in america. QOL and new therapies and research are all they do. Sure, they have to keep the lights on and generate money, but they are usually non-profits in the end and devote many of their resources toward the things you mention.

Medicine is going to be fine.

No, the "golden years" of payors giving docs whatever they wanted for services are over. The future of health insurance as a thing is an interesting unknown as premiums continue to rise. I don't think the individual mandate repeal will change this much; the tax penalty was a pittance compared to premiums and the estimated numbers of people who will drop coverage as a result is nearly nothing. That said, premiums are expected to continue rising.

I think the fundamental issue for US Healthcare is simply the time elapsed and the realities of our current cost structure. I too would love to see a single-payer, medicare for everyone model, but the dumb fast is that it simply isn't economically feasible. Not only are medicare rates given to the whole population insanely expensive, but it would still not be enough for hospitals to cover their operating costs as they currently rely on commercial insurance to cover the spread. 2 states have passed laws to do single payer and both have dropped it once they saw the tab. Other countries that have single payer got a big head start on us and have been able to keep costs down over decades, yet they too are also struggling with the cost of care. The liberal in me would really like for this to work, but I just don't see how the numbers are feasible at the moment.

That said, I think the saving grace for our healthcare system will be the rise of cash-only services. You can see inklings of the this in things like the surgery center of oklahoma and direct primary care. If services can be offered for cash at a fraction of the cost -- often a fraction of the current medicare rates, then I'm hopeful that with time, we may in fact be able to transition to some government-sponsored insurance or tax credits that empower this sort of direct-to-consumer model.

There are some religious communities that already self-insure with only cash reserves; they will actually bring suitcases of cash when they come for surgery and pay on the spot. For them, they find it far more economical to do this rather than insure their people. They may have to pay the occasional $20k for a surgery, but they save far more than that each year in premiums. They are also pretty healthy people, no smoking or drugs or alcohol, so their over utilization is very low too. I can only imagine it would be even better for them if they had a cash-only no-insurance option locally here that would cut their costs even further.

This sort of free market consumerism is the only thing I see currently that will ultimately provide a route to near universal coverage at a reasonable cost, but there are some years of growing pains still to come. I can imagine a cash-only no-insurance system supported by tax credits/incentives to offset cost of services when they are needed, and some kind of catastrophic, very high deductible universal insurance plan to protect people from devastating diagnoses. Hopefully one day we will get to a political climate where reasonable discussions can be had; as it is, we have repeal and replace with nothing on one side and healthcare is a right on the other, neither of which seem particularly grounded in reality.
I agree with almost everything you have said. I do see a bright future for cash only practices, the only problems I see with the free-market-cash-only-no-insurance-system solving this is medicare will still exist, and employer provided insurance will still exist keeping the market for insurance and subsequently care that is modeled after payment from those entities vs cash only options. I also disagree on the affordability aspect of universal coverage considering we still pay more per capita in healthcare costs compared to every industrialized nation and our outcomes are almost always worse. The real issue lies in overutilization of services, administrative overhead, medication and services that really dont add any value in terms of efficacy. A majority of spending in the system is within the last six months of life,IMHO this really points to a deeper issue in our society and how we address death and mortality and how more often then not we want "everything done" .
 
I agree with almost everything you have said. I do see a bright future for cash only practices, the only problems I see with the free-market-cash-only-no-insurance-system solving this is medicare will still exist, and employer provided insurance will still exist keeping the market for insurance and subsequently care that is modeled after payment from those entities vs cash only options. I also disagree on the affordability aspect of universal coverage considering we still pay more per capita in healthcare costs compared to every industrialized nation and our outcomes are almost always worse. The real issue lies in overutilization of services, administrative overhead, medication and services that really dont add any value in terms of efficacy. A majority of spending in the system is within the last six months of life,IMHO this really points to a deeper issue in our society and how we address death and mortality and how more often then not we want "everything done" .

Very true. My hypothetical thinking is that as insurance costs continue to rise, employer coverage is going to drop back significantly. More and more companies are going with ultra-high deductible plans and HSAs which effectively does put them on the cash market unless they get really really sick. I still have what would probably be considered a cadillac plan and I think my monthly premium is over $800. My friends in PA with a family of 4 pay $2500 a month for their insurance.

I think medicare will gradually fade away and look very different if cash-only services become ubiquitous enough. No cash practice takes medicare currently, and medicare beneficiaries who use them have to pay out of pocket like anyone else. I think medicare may become what it was intended initially, as just hospital insurance for older adults who can't afford out of pocket costs. Perhaps we'll see something like we see overseas with medicare hospitals and private hospitals. Or, perhaps a system like my Pet insurance where the patient pays the bill and then the patient submits for reimbursement, offloading that burden and cost from providers.

I think the administrative overhead you mention is massive. When I see a cash only center offer an outpatient surgery for 75% than an insurance-based hospital, I have to wonder where the savings comes from. It looks the same from the patient side, maybe even better -- no forms, no bills, no surprises, just swipe your AMEX card and get your operation. I'm sure a huge chunk of the markup goes toward coders/billers and the administration needed to successfully navigate the insurance system, plus covering the cost of unreimbursed care. The cash centers don't have non-paying patients or insurance denials or anything like that. Prices are on the website and payment is due up front.

I often think back to my grandparents' era before any insurance when a working class couple could have one spouse receive a cancer diagnosis and they could pay out of pocket for treatment and live another 30 years. I wish I knew more details and I'm sure they probably had to make payments over time, but the sheer fact that it was possible for someone making less than the median income to pay out of pocket for surgery, chemo, rads, etc. is absolutely mindblowing in our current cost structure. This is why I put so much hope in the power of a cash-only consumer-driven market rising from the ashes of the insurance system.
 
I think medicare will gradually fade away.... I think medicare may become what it was intended initially, as just hospital insurance for older adults who can't afford out of pocket costs. ....

fade away, eh?

Name one Federal Benefits program that has faded away? You can't. they have all grown. They never resort to "what it was intended initially.

take a look at the 2003 vs 2013 Federal Welfare Program expenditures
Federal welfare programs.jpg


Get to know the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

you need to educate yourself on how massive our Federal Benefits programs have become

Medicare will never go away. CMS is here to stay

I think the administrative overhead you mention is massive.

if you are at a university medical center, look around the hospital. Check the hospital equipment: BP monitors, thermometers, hospital patient beds, patient stretchers, patient monitors, elevators, etc. Nothing but the best that money can buy. Ask any of the physicians, administrators, top ranked hospital personnel what the price of a hospital bed is. They have no clue. It's all hidden in secrecy.

if you have ever done a medical mission trip think about how much we do medically without that $1K BP cuff on a pole, or $5K hospital patient bed. Outrageous.

The administrative overhead is massive but not because of its inherent nature. We have become convinced we need patient hospital beds that do everything for us other than brush our teeth. Use a glass thermometer, simple inflatable BP cuff, plain patient stretcher with a metal flat top, flip rails and 4 wheels, and see what your administrative costs are. Not so massive.

I often think back to my grandparents' era before any insurance when a working class couple could have one spouse receive a cancer diagnosis and they could pay out of pocket for treatment and live another 30 years. I wish I knew more details ...

Today roughly 30% of cancers are a result of obesity. You know what the rates of Americans with BMI > 25 are. Your grandparents era didn't have those types of numbers in their time.

Medical costs during your grandparents era were a fraction of what they are today. There's a reason for that.

If you are a medical student or Resident or Fellow, get to know how it all evolved before you start your career as an Attending Physician. Otherwise you're going to be screwed
 
fade away, eh?

Name one Federal Benefits program that has faded away? You can't. they have all grown. They never resort to "what it was intended initially.

take a look at the 2003 vs 2013 Federal Welfare Program expenditures
View attachment 228019

Get to know the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

you need to educate yourself on how massive our Federal Benefits programs have become

Medicare will never go away. CMS is here to stay



if you are at a university medical center, look around the hospital. Check the hospital equipment: BP monitors, thermometers, hospital patient beds, patient stretchers, patient monitors, elevators, etc. Nothing but the best that money can buy. Ask any of the physicians, administrators, top ranked hospital personnel what the price of a hospital bed is. They have no clue. It's all hidden in secrecy.

if you have ever done a medical mission trip think about how much we do medically without that $1K BP cuff on a pole, or $5K hospital patient bed. Outrageous.

The administrative overhead is massive but not because of its inherent nature. We have become convinced we need patient hospital beds that do everything for us other than brush our teeth. Use a glass thermometer, simple inflatable BP cuff, plain patient stretcher with a metal flat top, flip rails and 4 wheels, and see what your administrative costs are. Not so massive.



Today roughly 30% of cancers are a result of obesity. You know what the rates of Americans with BMI > 25 are. Your grandparents era didn't have those types of numbers in their time.

Medical costs during your grandparents era were a fraction of what they are today. There's a reason for that.

If you are a medical student or Resident or Fellow, get to know how it all evolved before you start your career as an Attending Physician. Otherwise you're going to be screwed

Oh my, so much wrong information that I’m not sure where to begin

You may be right on medicare not fading away - time will tell. I don’t think it would fade from government cutback; I think it may fade if increasing numbers of providers stop accepting it. We’ve already seen this happening with Medicaid; I wouldn’t be surprised if Medicare comes along too IF the proliferation of cash only practices and hospitals continues.

The equipment cost argument is so off base I’m not sure if it merits rebuttal. I’m not sure how many top admins and physicians you’ve personally interacted with, but those I know and work with in leadership are painfully aware of what all those things cost. I haven’t seen exact cost breakdowns of admin vs equipment, but I do see that cash only providers offer the same surgeries with the same modern equipment and same personnel for about 50-75% less. My suspicion is that uncompensated care and admin cost is the biggest driver of this difference.
 
fade away, eh?

Name one Federal Benefits program that has faded away? You can't. they have all grown. They never resort to "what it was intended initially.

take a look at the 2003 vs 2013 Federal Welfare Program expenditures
View attachment 228019

Get to know the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

you need to educate yourself on how massive our Federal Benefits programs have become

Medicare will never go away. CMS is here to stay



if you are at a university medical center, look around the hospital. Check the hospital equipment: BP monitors, thermometers, hospital patient beds, patient stretchers, patient monitors, elevators, etc. Nothing but the best that money can buy. Ask any of the physicians, administrators, top ranked hospital personnel what the price of a hospital bed is. They have no clue. It's all hidden in secrecy.

if you have ever done a medical mission trip think about how much we do medically without that $1K BP cuff on a pole, or $5K hospital patient bed. Outrageous.

The administrative overhead is massive but not because of its inherent nature. We have become convinced we need patient hospital beds that do everything for us other than brush our teeth. Use a glass thermometer, simple inflatable BP cuff, plain patient stretcher with a metal flat top, flip rails and 4 wheels, and see what your administrative costs are. Not so massive.



Today roughly 30% of cancers are a result of obesity. You know what the rates of Americans with BMI > 25 are. Your grandparents era didn't have those types of numbers in their time.

Medical costs during your grandparents era were a fraction of what they are today. There's a reason for that.

If you are a medical student or Resident or Fellow, get to know how it all evolved before you start your career as an Attending Physician. Otherwise you're going to be screwed

45010-SummaryFigure2_LandingPage.png

upload_2018-1-17_12-1-37.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-1-17_11-52-52.png
    upload_2018-1-17_11-52-52.png
    219.3 KB · Views: 58
Oh my, so much wrong information that I’m not sure where to begin

You may be right on medicare not fading away - time will tell. ....

My suspicion is that uncompensated care and admin cost is the biggest driver of this difference.

so which one is it? I am wrong, I am right, or youre going on inner suspicion?

Feel free to rebutt with cogent arguments and scholarly citations

become familiar with how America’s medical industry has evolved, how it operates today and the arguments put forth by the various physician authors I cited earlier
 
so which one is it? I am wrong, I am right, or youre going on inner suspicion?

Feel free to rebutt with cogent arguments and scholarly citations

become familiar with how America’s medical industry has evolved, how it operates today and the arguments put forth by the various physician authors I cited earlier

Oh I've read all of those books and even know a couple of the authors personally. I don't think any of their arguments directly refute anything I've said. I don't think you understand the work involved to write a scholarly paper with citations and were I to invest that time, would probably publish it in a journal rather than a forum, but that's just me. For now, we will have to settle for opinions and observations.

As for whether you are right or wrong, I discussed already how some of your arguments seem to be wrong. As for our respective future predictions, time will tell.
 
No, medicine as a broad abstract concept is not on the decline. Medicine as it exists currently is certainly on the decline, and who knows what medicine 2.0 (3.0? - perhaps the popularity of employer-based coverage, HMOs, etc. was the real 2.0) will look like. I think that is largely a political question for which there is no real clear answer beyond the fact that there is a lot of disagreement. There’s a lot of opportunity for “innovation” - be it going outside of the insurance-based system altogether and having a resulting growth in cash-only practices, development of a single-payer system (+/- mandate), or perhaps other solutions - and time will tell what actually ends up developing.

But no, I don’t think that medicine is on the decline. The question is what the future of medicine will look like, and I don’t think anyone has the answer to that question.
 
employer provided insurance will still exist

Maybe, maybe not. I recently read an article that they may be attempting to phase out requirements of employers providing health insurance to their employees. It's killing me that I can't remember where I saw it, but if I find it I'll post the source here.

A majority of spending in the system is within the last six months of life,IMHO this really points to a deeper issue in our society and how we address death and mortality and how more often then not we want "everything done"

I think this, general poor health of the population (increasing levels of DM, HTN, heart disease, obesity, etc), and administrative bloat are the real problem areas the U.S. has. Before med school I took a class called Neurobiology of Aging and there was an article presented claiming that around 80% of the average U.S. citizen's healthcare expenditures occur in the last 2 months of life due to the attitude our population has about dying and the extreme measures taken to prevent this.

I think the administrative overhead you mention is massive. When I see a cash only center offer an outpatient surgery for 75% than an insurance-based hospital, I have to wonder where the savings comes from. It looks the same from the patient side, maybe even better -- no forms, no bills, no surprises, just swipe your AMEX card and get your operation. I'm sure a huge chunk of the markup goes toward coders/billers and the administration needed to successfully navigate the insurance system

Over 30% of US healthcare expenditures come from administrative cost, much of which I believe is just red-tape and unnecessary bureaucracy, and with the release of the ICD-11 coming in 2018 I suspect it will only get worse in the near future. The other issue which you mentioned earlier is Medicare. The life-expectancy of people since 1966 (when Medicare was introduced) has increased by over 8 years while the qualifying age has not increased at all. Combine that with the fact that we will soon have more individuals in the non-working age range (0-18 and 65+) than those working and we're headed for imminent failure of that system. Idk what solution will be attempted in terms of implementation, but I don't think the legitimate solutions will make anyone happy.
 
Trying to get the thread tossed into the SPF?

Perhaps. However OP asked a very good question.

The greatest need in physician training today that is flat out ignored by medical schools, ACGME and hospital and program administrators, is teaching medical students, Residents and Fellows the business of medicine. It is a perfect example of caveat emptor. They buy into the medical profession without any idea of the medical business landscape. No one is teaching them what awaits them as this thread shows. However this is a very important topic that really should be dissected ruthlessly and aggressively by everyone just as if it were a board exam... literally.

Caveat lector.

####

An American sickness : how healthcare became big business and how you can take it back / Elisabeth Rosenthal, MD, 2017. ISBN 9780698407183 (e-book)

In 1993, before the Blues (BCBS) went for-profit, insurers spent 95 cents out of every dollar of premiums on medical care, which is called their “medical loss ratio.” To increase profits, all insurers, regardless of their tax status, have been spending less on care in recent years and more on activities like marketing, lobbying, administration, and the paying out of dividends. The average medical loss ratio is now (2017) closer to 80 percent. Some of the Blues were spending far less than that a decade into the new century. The medical loss ratio at the Texas Blues, where the whole concept of health insurance started, was just 64.4 percent in 2010. .....Medicare uses 98 percent of its funding for healthcare and only 2 percent for administration.”....

“They are methodical money takers, who take in premiums and pay claims according to contracts—that’s their job,” said Barry Cohen, who owns an Ohio-based employee benefits company. “They don’t care whether the claims go up or down twenty percent as long as they get their piece. They’re too big to care about you.” .....

“In fact, history shows that once a procedure is covered by insurance, its sticker price generally goes up because patients are largely insulated from the cost. (For example, when patients had to pay for physical therapy on their own, the cost was likely under $ 100 a session, significantly less than the $ 500 an insurer will approve today for a forty-five-minute treatment in a major metropolitan area.) .....

“Once acceptance of health insurance was widespread, a domino effect ensued: hospitals adapted to its financial incentives, which changed how doctors practiced medicine, which revolutionized the types of drugs and devices that manufacturers made and marketed. The money chase was on: no one was protecting the patients.”

#####

Mistreated : why we think we’re getting good health care and why we’re usually wrong / Robert Pearl, MD, 2017, ISBN 9781610397667 (ebook)

When independent researchers crunch the numbers and compare nations, American health care ranks nowhere near the top of the list. In fact, among developed countries, the United States has the highest infant mortality rate, the lowest life expectancy, and the most preventable deaths per capita.....


“As a nation, we spend 50 percent more on medical care than any other country, and yet we rank seventieth globally in overall health and wellness...


“...our health care system functions in an environment unlike any other. There’s nothing comparable to it in American culture, society, or industry. The rules are different, the stakes are elevated, and the perceptions of everyone in it—from doctors to patients to US presidents—get radically distorted, leading to behaviors that prove hazardous to our health.”....


“Throughout my career, I’ve had the opportunity to observe American medicine from many different angles: as a physician and a health care CEO, as faculty at both the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and as the son of a man who died too young from a series of medical errors. My conclusion is that the American health system is sick. We have excellent physicians who are burned out, unfulfilled, and in some cases, terribly depressed. We have a number of billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies raising drug prices upward of 5,000 percent, operating without fear of public backlash or legislative overhaul. We have already unaffordable health care costs that continue to rise at twice the rate of our nation’s ability to pay.”...


“In today’s health care system, ruled as it is by economics, there’s no “billing code” physicians can use for the time they spend comforting a family or holding a patient’s hand when death is inevitable. Doctors get paid for intervening, not for moments of compassion. Today, the insurance reimbursement system dictates how care is delivered. It has eroded personal relationships, devalued empathy and kindness, and undermined the very mission and commitment that led most doctors to practice medicine in the first place.”.....

OP, educate yourself asap on the business landscape of medicine.

GL
 
Perhaps. However OP asked a very good question.

The greatest need in physician training today that is flat out ignored by medical schools, ACGME and hospital and program administrators, is teaching medical students, Residents and Fellows the business of medicine. It is a perfect example of caveat emptor. They buy into the medical profession without any idea of the medical business landscape. No one is teaching them what awaits them as this thread shows. However this is a very important topic that really should be dissected ruthlessly and aggressively by everyone just as if it were a board exam... literally.

Caveat lector.

GL

I've long tried to get my University interested in establishing an MS program in medical office business mgt. I had a neighbor who was doing one, but in law office ops. NO nibbles!
 
Maybe, maybe not. I recently read an article that they may be attempting to phase out requirements of employers providing health insurance to their employees. It's killing me that I can't remember where I saw it, but if I find it I'll post the source here.



I think this, general poor health of the population (increasing levels of DM, HTN, heart disease, obesity, etc), and administrative bloat are the real problem areas the U.S. has. Before med school I took a class called Neurobiology of Aging and there was an article presented claiming that around 80% of the average U.S. citizen's healthcare expenditures occur in the last 2 months of life due to the attitude our population has about dying and the extreme measures taken to prevent this.



Over 30% of US healthcare expenditures come from administrative cost, much of which I believe is just red-tape and unnecessary bureaucracy, and with the release of the ICD-11 coming in 2018 I suspect it will only get worse in the near future. The other issue which you mentioned earlier is Medicare. The life-expectancy of people since 1966 (when Medicare was introduced) has increased by over 8 years while the qualifying age has not increased at all. Combine that with the fact that we will soon have more individuals in the non-working age range (0-18 and 65+) than those working and we're headed for imminent failure of that system. Idk what solution will be attempted in terms of implementation, but I don't think the legitimate solutions will make anyone happy.
It is possible that Employer provided health insurance might be a thing of the past, however current tax law makes that extremely unlikely considering it is a way to prevent paying taxes on that portion of compensation. There was never a mandate prior to the ACA regarding employers providing health insurance yet a majority of large employers offered coverage because of tax implications. Even adjusting for poor life choices americans tend to fare worse off in terms of access, quality and outcomes. The real problem IMHO is overutilization of services which physicans enable. Overutilization is responsible for a third of all spending Administrative bloat is responsible for less than 15%.
 
You want doom and gloom? Head over to the Pharmacy forum. That place is just depressing. Nobody can find any jobs because the market is so saturated.

They can find jobs. Successful pharmacist's don't go on forums to complain. It's always the same people posting on that forum anyway.
 
It is possible that Employer provided health insurance might be a thing of the past, however current tax law makes that extremely unlikely considering it is a way to prevent paying taxes on that portion of compensation. There was never a mandate prior to the ACA regarding employers providing health insurance yet a majority of large employers offered coverage because of tax implications. Even adjusting for poor life choices americans tend to fare worse off in terms of access, quality and outcomes. The real problem IMHO is overutilization of services which physicans enable. Overutilization is responsible for a third of all spending Administrative bloat is responsible for less than 15%.
Citation?
 
Citation?
I dont know which part you want a citation for , but here is a starting point
The Cost Conundrum
Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America : Health and Medicine Division
The Perfect Storm of Overutilization
How does the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance work?
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue Brief/2012/May/1595_Squires_explaining_high_hlt_care_spending_intl_brief.pdf
U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective

The IOM report indicates overutiliztion of care is responsible for 30% of all expenses. It is a few years older but is fairly comprehensive.

furthermore administrative costs account for 25% of total cost, even if you dropped them down to canadian levels 12~% that is still only a 13% reduction. Medicare has administration costs in the single digits.
A Comparison of Hospital Administrative Costs in Eight Nations: U.S. Costs Exceed All Others by Far


Here is some data that also supports my point in terms of access and quality.
How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries? - Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker

Furthermore if you look at disease prevalence and give a 25% increased prevalence in the US we are still spending more than 25% more compared to the next OECD country.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you should bring your personal statement with you to your first job negotiation to keep yourself honest, Mr. Neddy Flanders.
Well it wasn’t all complete BS so I don’t need carry it along as a reminder. Your attitude is troubling though, even for those focused more on money. In my short time doing this, I’ve seen enough backstabbing money-hungry attendings with your attitude to know that I’d rather stay away.
 
Well it wasn’t all complete BS so I don’t need carry it along as a reminder. Your attitude is troubling though, even for those focused more on money. In my short time doing this, I’ve seen enough backstabbing money-hungry attendings with your attitude to know that I’d rather stay away.
I think the point is that most of our personal statements, while not likely complete BS, aren't entirely honest.

I enjoy being a doctor because it's interesting, I can make a difference, and it let's me provide a comfortable life for my family.

I can't remember exactly what I wrote back in 2004 but I guarantee that that last part wasn't in there and without that aspect I would absolutely be doing something else.
 
Well it wasn’t all complete BS so I don’t need carry it along as a reminder. Your attitude is troubling though, even for those focused more on money. In my short time doing this, I’ve seen enough backstabbing money-hungry attendings with your attitude to know that I’d rather stay away.
I think you are drawing an unfounded mandatory connection between money grubbing and backstabbing
 
I think the point is that most of our personal statements, while not likely complete BS, aren't entirely honest.

I enjoy being a doctor because it's interesting, I can make a difference, and it let's me provide a comfortable life for my family.

I can't remember exactly what I wrote back in 2004 but I guarantee that that last part wasn't in there and without that aspect I would absolutely be doing something else.
Yup. I was careful to acknowledge that it’s fine to not be completely forthcoming or knowledgeable on your PS. I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to provide for your family while taking care of others.
I think you are drawing an unfounded mandatory connection between money grubbing and backstabbing
The attitude of “maximizing my paycheck and everything else GTFO” is troubling to me. I don’t want my future partner to screw me over for an extra 1200 added to his paycheck, but feel free to work with someone like that if you wish.
 
The attitude of “maximizing my paycheck and everything else GTFO” is troubling to me. I don’t want my future partner to screw me over for an extra 1200 added to his paycheck, but feel free to work with someone like that if you wish.
again, you seem to be falsely assuming that the only way to make more money is by "screwing over" your partners, but that's simply not a given
 
again, you seem to be falsely assuming that the only way to make more money is by "screwing over" your partners, but that's simply not a given
Nope. The only thing that I am assuming is that someone with an attitude of maximizing profit and everyone else GTFO is more likely to engage in some shady ish that I don’t want to be a part of.
 
Nope. The only thing that I am assuming is that someone with an attitude of maximizing profit and everyone else GTFO is more likely to engage in some shady ish that I don’t want to be a part of.
I mean maybe? But shady stuff also runs the risk of disciplinary action.

I think the poster in question is more likely to consider pay the most important aspect of a job. That is quite common in some fields and isn't necessarily a bad thing.
 
I mean maybe? But shady stuff also runs the risk of disciplinary action.

I think the poster in question is more likely to consider pay the most important aspect of a job. That is quite common in some fields and isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Fair enough. Said poster has a history of making some pretty outrageous comments so I just assumed he meant the worst.
 
I'm not going to pretend I know anything about anything here. But it seems like people on this thread are basically saying that the future is one where we see employer provided insurance and medicare phased out.

I mean, our healthcare system already by in large by measures of outcomes sucks. Are we supposed to say that the future is only worse?
 
Concerns about the apparent decline of the medical profession have been raised for centuries, if not millennia.

A brief excerpt from "The Practice of Medicine as a Business," a speech by Dr. Charles Woodhull Eaton, M.D., presented in front of a small medical society in Iowa on August 21, 1883:

There is not among my acquaintance a single successful practitioner who has been out of college long enough to draw the line between theory and fact, ideal and real, and who has given his confidence to me, who is not now planning to get out of the practice of medicine, or resolving that he will at some future day — not so very distant either. When I say successful practitioner, I mean those whose prominent position as honored physicians, and large earnings in dollars and cents make them the ones ordinarily supposed to be the most fortunate. Those who find themselves not making as rapid strides toward high position and fat practice as they had hoped, are, of course open to the suspicion of having been soured by hard experience. Of these I have nothing to say. My point is the almost unanimous dissatisfaction of those who are already at the top. Dissatisfaction in failure is one thing. Dissatisfaction in success is quite another, and challenges our attention.

Two physicians, occupying positions with which you and I would be abundantly satisfied (at least we think we should), have expressed themselves to me within a week. The way of putting it was characteristic of the men. Said one, "I don't blame any man who leaves the practice of medicine. I have more than once felt like doing so, haven't you?" The other, "Some day I expect to throw up the whole damned business.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. Said poster has a history of making some pretty outrageous comments so I just assumed he meant the worst.
Yeah and I get that, I'm just trying to be more optimistic about people here. We have enough crotchety attendings as is.
 
I'm not going to pretend I know anything about anything here. But it seems like people on this thread are basically saying that the future is one where we see employer provided insurance and medicare phased out.

I mean, our healthcare system already by in large by measures of outcomes sucks. Are we supposed to say that the future is only worse?
We have good healthcare, we have a population that makes bad decisions and takes no responsibility for their health
 
We have good healthcare, we have a population that makes bad decisions and takes no responsibility for their health
Citation?
upload_2018-1-18_18-39-31.png

upload_2018-1-18_18-40-21.png

upload_2018-1-18_18-43-30.png


We do have more obesity, but are also consistently at the bottom in terms of access, preventable harm, and overutilization, but hey why not blame the population.
 
I dont know which part you want a citation for , but here is a starting point
The Cost Conundrum
Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America : Health and Medicine Division
The Perfect Storm of Overutilization
How does the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance work?
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue Brief/2012/May/1595_Squires_explaining_high_hlt_care_spending_intl_brief.pdf
U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective

The IOM report indicates overutiliztion of care is responsible for 30% of all expenses. It is a few years older but is fairly comprehensive.

furthermore administrative costs account for 25% of total cost, even if you dropped them down to canadian levels 12~% that is still only a 13% reduction. Medicare has administration costs in the single digits.
A Comparison of Hospital Administrative Costs in Eight Nations: U.S. Costs Exceed All Others by Far


Here is some data that also supports my point in terms of access and quality.
How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries? - Peterson-Kaiser Health System Tracker

Furthermore if you look at disease prevalence and give a 25% increased prevalence in the US we are still spending more than 25% more compared to the next OECD country.

Not sure if you read all your sources, but some of them directly contradict what you're saying.

The JAMA article (by Emanuel, who I think does some pretty dubious analyses, but that's a different argument) states the US averages less hospitalizations and annual physician visits than more other OECD countries. We do have higher rates of catheterizations, which I attribute less to overutilization and more a commentary on prevalence of CAD and heart disease, add to that the higher number of individuals on medications (which are more expensive) supports that. He also directly cites more hospital amenities and "nicer" rooms and waiting rooms to be a factor in the cost.

The article on 25% of healthcare costs only accounts for hospital administrative costs. What about private practices, government (Medicare/caid), and administrative costs associated with insurance? Not to mention administrative costs associated with research or social work. This seems like it's an incomplete picture which underestimates the actual costs to me.

Your article on "Explaining high healthcare costs in the United States:..." directly notes "The U.S. spends far more on health care than any other country. However this high spending cannot be attributed to higher income, an older population, or greater supply or utilization of hospitals and doctors. Instead, the findings suggest the higher spending is more likely due to higher prices and perhaps more readily accessible technology and greater obesity." Note the bolded stating that over-utilization is not the issue and argues that the US has on average fewer hospital visits than every other country in the study other than Japan and fewer annual physician visits than any country other than Sweden. It also argues pretty heavily that higher obesity rates play a significant role and cited reports stating that obesity-related disease alone accounts for 10% of healthcare expenditure in the U.S.

Most of the articles you're referencing are giving some pretty major contradictions, and the only area of over-utilization they seem to agree on is that the US orders more imaging studies than most OECD countries. There have been studies which have clearly shown that there is an over-utilization of imaging as a form of defensive medicine against lawsuits and creating better M&M reports (though the actual amount of this varies pretty widely). I think there needs to be a greater amount of reform to the malpractice side of medication if we want to see that decrease.

Also, the IOM report you referenced that stated the greatest issue is overutilization (stating it was $210 billion dollars) also suggested that the best way to decrease costs is actually to streamline administrative costs (which they claim could save up to $180 billion). So how is that reconciled?
 
We have good healthcare, we have a population that makes bad decisions and takes no responsibility for their health

Our costs are rising however. The outcomes for what we invest are far worse than other industrial nations. Likewise what's the point in having 'good' healthcare when you really can't afford it, ex my parents insurance deductible is basically 10k and their premiums are going up constantly. I won't even talk about other people I know who have 7000 dollar deductibles while barely being above working-poor.

I mean this not to mention that we are extremely horrible in mobilizing services to deal with epidemics. We literally have some cities in the US with HIV infection rates similar to 3rd world countries. That's not people having more unprotected sex than other places. That's a lack of services for prevention, detection, and treatment which can reduce infection rates.

We have a lot of major failings in our healthcare system. For the middle class it's rising costs. For the poor it's a lack of basic protections.
 
Citation?
View attachment 228117
View attachment 228118
View attachment 228119

We do have more obesity, but are also consistently at the bottom in terms of access, preventable harm, and overutilization, but hey why not blame the population.

It's easier to blame the population that to acknowledge that we behave more like a third world nation than a first world nation regarding healthcare and social services.

I mean, I'll change the question around. Why are our outcomes so much worse than Europe?
 
Not sure if you read all your sources, but some of them directly contradict what you're saying.

The JAMA article (by Emanuel, who I think does some pretty dubious analyses, but that's a different argument) states the US averages less hospitalizations and annual physician visits than more other OECD countries. We do have higher rates of catheterizations, which I attribute less to overutilization and more a commentary on prevalence of CAD and heart disease, add to that the higher number of individuals on medications (which are more expensive) supports that. He also directly cites more hospital amenities and "nicer" rooms and waiting rooms to be a factor in the cost.
less hospital visits does not mean no overutilization of services. Could you please link a study where we have higher rates of cath due to higher CAD. There are a large number of studies that indicate that there is overutilization of caths.
The article on 25% of healthcare costs only accounts for hospital administrative costs. What about private practices, government (Medicare/caid), and administrative costs associated with insurance? Not to mention administrative costs associated with research or social work. This seems like it's an incomplete picture which underestimates the actual costs to me.
Medicare has much lower administrative costs compared to private payors.
Your article on "Explaining high healthcare costs in the United States:..." directly notes "The U.S. spends far more on health care than any other country. However this high spending cannot be attributed to higher income, an older population, or greater supply or utilization of hospitals and doctors. Instead, the findings suggest the higher spending is more likely due to higher prices and perhaps more readily accessible technology and greater obesity." Note the bolded stating that over-utilization is not the issue and argues that the US has on average fewer hospital visits than every other country in the study other than Japan and fewer annual physician visits than any country other than Sweden. It also argues pretty heavily that higher obesity rates play a significant role and cited reports stating that obesity-related disease alone accounts for 10% of healthcare expenditure in the U.S.
I dont think you understand what overutilization entails. What you are quoting is in terms of access, however when we do end up in a hospital how much of that care is benefical or warrented or efficacious?
Most of the articles you're referencing are giving some pretty major contradictions, and the only area of over-utilization they seem to agree on is that the US orders more imaging studies than most OECD countries. There have been studies which have clearly shown that there is an over-utilization of imaging as a form of defensive medicine against lawsuits and creating better M&M reports (though the actual amount of this varies pretty widely). I think there needs to be a greater amount of reform to the malpractice side of medication if we want to see that decrease.

Also, the IOM report you referenced that stated the greatest issue is overutilization (stating it was $210 billion dollars) also suggested that the best way to decrease costs is actually to streamline administrative costs (which they claim could save up to $180 billion). So how is that reconciled?
Intensity of care where efficacy is questionable is where overutilization comes from. I am not saying administrative costs should be ignored, but even after accounting for our care is not magically better. Plus your assertion that defensive medicine contribute to a large portion of this is also incorrect since there would be a large difference between states with strict tort reform(texas) . And there is not.
 
I had sex last night. It was good.

Our costs are rising however. The outcomes for what we invest are far worse than other industrial nations. Likewise what's the point in having 'good' healthcare when you really can't afford it, ex my parents insurance deductible is basically 10k and their premiums are going up constantly. I won't even talk about other people I know who have 7000 dollar deductibles while barely being above working-poor.

I mean this not to mention that we are extremely horrible in mobilizing services to deal with epidemics. We literally have some cities in the US with HIV infection rates similar to 3rd world countries. That's not people having more unprotected sex than other places. That's a lack of services for prevention, detection, and treatment which can reduce infection rates.

We have a lot of major failings in our healthcare system. For the middle class it's rising costs. For the poor it's a lack of basic protections.

insurance with no maximum payout, and no ability to exlude pre-existing conditions, that must cover almost literally any health issue you can imagine......SHOULD be expensive. That's how actuarial tables work

less hospital visits does not mean no overutilization of services. Could you please link a study where we have higher rates of cath due to higher CAD. There are a large number of studies that indicate that there is overutilization of caths.

Medicare has much lower administrative costs compared to private payors.

I dont think you understand what overutilization entails. What you are quoting is in terms of access, however when we do end up in a hospital how much of that care is benefical or warrented or efficacious?

Intensity of care where efficacy is questionable is where overutilization comes from. I am not saying administrative costs should be ignored, but even after accounting for our care is not magically better. Plus your assertion that defensive medicine contribute to a large portion of this is also incorrect since there would be a large difference between states with strict tort reform(texas) . And there is not.
so solve the problem for us......what do we do too much of and exactly what do you ban people from getting to fix such a large portion of healthcare spending?
 
Easy! As opposed to other countries, doctors in the US come MOSLY from upper middle class and rich families... i.e. we are a bunch of elitists who think the worst of the masses.

Doctors have always come from middle class families in every nation.
 
insurance with no maximum payout, and no ability to exlude pre-existing conditions, that must cover almost literally any health issue you can imagine......SHOULD be expensive. That's how actuarial tables work

so solve the problem for us......what do we do too much of and exactly what do you ban people from getting to fix such a large portion of healthcare spending?

Yet it's cheaper across the sea and with better outcomes even when comparing class and income. Middle Class white ppl are still paying less and getting a lot less than what Europeans get.

I mean I'm going into Psych. Most of my patients are dirt poor. Are schizophrenics unworthy of medical care because they cannot afford it? Medicine cannot be completely seen as a capitalist venture, an enormous back bone of it is societal requirement and accepted norms. We treat people not only for their benefit but because it makes our society healthier, ex prevention via vaccines.

On my month in ICU we had patients who would die within a few months running up bills that exceeded all reason and rhythm. They don't need to be getting services like this. A young uninsured person with treatable cancer does, because they have an entire life of ability to contribute to society and experience happiness. Someone who is dying isn't any happier for being made die a few weeks later.
 
Top