NYTimes OpEd - Drs Also Rational

[jult24er]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/opinion/24bach.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I know by looking into applicants' souls, adcoms our able to select only the most altruistic candidates, but I'm still tempted to believe this article's argument on the flaws of the system by which we pay doctors ... anyone else agree?

 

[whoisthedrizzle]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/opinion/24bach.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I know by looking into applicants' souls, adcoms our able to select only the most altruistic candidates, but I'm still tempted to believe this article's argument on the flaws of the system by which we pay doctors ... anyone else agree?

oh, our they?

 

[87138]

Altogether, doctors are ordering roughly $40 billion worth of unnecessary imaging each year — which adds up to nearly 2 percent of the total Americans pay for health care.

You can thank overly litigious patients for a lot of that.

 

[jult24er]

You can thank overly litigious patients for a lot of that.

It seems to me like they measured "unecessary" imaging by comparing the amount of imaging ordered by Drs who had their own equipment (and therefor could charge for it) against the amount ordered by doctors without their own equipment. That difference wouldnt have anything to do with litigation.

 

[87138]

It seems to me like they measured "unecessary" imaging by comparing the amount of imaging ordered by Drs who had their own equipment (and therefor could charge for it) against the amount ordered by doctors without their own equipment. That difference wouldnt have anything to do with litigation.

With the sentence that precedes the one I quoted, I read it as more of a unifying statement about all doctors.

 

[LizzyM]

The take home message is this:

Doctors who do their own CT scanning and other imaging order roughly two to eight times as many imaging tests as those who do not have their own equipment, a 2002 study by researchers at the University of North Carolina found.

So it isn't about litiginous patients or those docs without their own equipment would be sued from here to Tuesday.

 

[beachblonde]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/opinion/24bach.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I know by looking into applicants' souls, adcoms our able to select only the most altruistic candidates, but I'm still tempted to believe this article's argument on the flaws of the system by which we pay doctors ... anyone else agree?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not....

But seriously, if the most "altruistic" candidates were the only ones chosen, then derm wouldn't be the uber-competitive field that it is. 🙄

 

[87138]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not....

But seriously, if the most "altruistic" candidates were the only ones chosen, then derm wouldn't be the uber-competitive field that it is. 🙄

You may have to adjust your sarcasm detector. Quite clear in the wording that it was meant facetiously.

Edit: Also, keep in mind that a lot of students enter medical school with a serious case of iwanttohelpothersitis, but after 2 years of grueling preclinical coursework and (more significantly) over a year of intense clinical patient interaction, by the time they submit their ERAS they've realized medicine isn't quite what they expected and since it's too late to turn back, now simply want to put their MD degree to good use and earn a good salary.