New healthcare and pathology

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

pathstudent

Sound Kapital
20+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Messages
2,962
Reaction score
79
I was watching a youtube video speech by Obama. He said that doctors will be paid according to the quality of care not the quantity of care they give. Does he have any idea what he is talking about? Does that mean we will get paid as much or more in pathology if we spend all day looking at one cervical cone or lumpectomy rather than looking at 6 of them? Because surely that is better care.

I am being facetious because I know that quality vs quantity is just code for transferring money to primary care and rewarding primary care docs to document that they, you know, checked the sodium value if they ordered it, etc...

Pathology is already the highest quality of care and can only be reimbursed per case signed out.
 
I was watching a youtube video speech by Obama. He said that doctors will be paid according to the quality of care not the quantity of care they give. Does he have any idea what he is talking about?

Who knows? Perhaps he was referring to Medicare's 55 Pay-For-Performance Demonstration Projects. You can find a quick take on the results of three big ones here (courtesy the AAFP). Or perhaps he was referring to initiatives like Bridges To Excellence, which have supported reimbursement projects such as Prometheus (full text of NEJM article on this system here.).
 
I was watching a youtube video speech by Obama. He said that doctors will be paid according to the quality of care not the quantity of care they give. Does he have any idea what he is talking about? Does that mean we will get paid as much or more in pathology if we spend all day looking at one cervical cone or lumpectomy rather than looking at 6 of them? Because surely that is better care.

I am being facetious because I know that quality vs quantity is just code for transferring money to primary care and rewarding primary care docs to document that they, you know, checked the sodium value if they ordered it, etc...

Pathology is already the highest quality of care and can only be reimbursed per case signed out.
I don't think he's the only one pushing "quality-based compensation." Many people feel doctors should be paid on the quality / outcome of the care they provide...though I can't foresee it translating into anything other than a govt. sponsored panel (maybe of physicians) arbitrarily determining the "value" of treating disease "X" based on avg expenses and what they think it's worth compensation-wise, which would follow that bad outcomes = physician didn't do his/her job (because patients don't have a responsibility in the patient doctor relationship, right?) = you don't get paid.

On the one hand, it's very disturbing to see fields like derm, GI, etc, rake in $$ hand over fist because of the current reimbursement strategy. And specific to pathology, you can't deny that a large number of immustains (which really add $$$$ to the bills, especially with heme) are unnecessary...but what % of them are ordered defensively to C.Y.A.?

Trying to incorporate outcome-based compensation schemes to path would be impossible. What are they going to do? Withold payment until the disease process has run it's course, for better or worse?
"Hey that lady you dx'd DCIS on 20 years ago? She actually had invasive carcinoma. You've been named in a law suit. AND, you have to repay us that $20 for signing out the case wrong."

Pathologists want to make the right diagnosis because:
1.) they want the patient to receive the appropriate care
2.) they want the normal life- and career-fulfulling gratification that's inherent to the field
3.) they don't want to get sued

Adding '4.) your wages will be garnished if you make the wrong diagnosis' is redundant.
 
I don't think any of what they are talking about has anything to do with pathology. Well, it has something to do with pathology, because a lot of our pay comes from hospital contracts. All these general arguments talk mostly about medicine in general. Pathology and radiology and other ancillary fields are sort of left holding the bag. I do not like the idea of "health care cooperatives" where money is assigned to a large pool of physicians and everyone negotiates how much each gets. Pathology is really going to be left holding the bag then. Might have to provide diagnoses only if cash is received in advance.
 
Top