Odd job ad on pathologyoutlines.com

[2121115]

---

Members do not see this ad.

The job specifically excludes anyone who has used nicotine in the last 6 months. Isn't that a little weird? Has anyone else seen this specification in a job advertisement? See below.



SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (USA). We are seeking applicants with excellent general surgical pathology skills. Fellowship training in surgical pathology, or in a subspecialty is required, along with AP board certification/eligibility. CP board certification/eligibility is desirable. Those with fellowship training, or who are due to complete fellowship programs in summer 2012, are encouraged to apply.

CellNetix Pathology & Laboratories is a dynamic, rapidly growing private pathology company headquartered in Seattle, WA, in the heart of the highly desirable Puget Sound region. We are one of the largest privately held pathology groups in the country, yet we retain a strong focus on local relationships and service. We serve 12 hospitals from large tertiary care institutions to small community hospitals, as well as specialty clinics and private physician practices.

Our 44 pathologists evaluate and/or supervise over 120,000 surgical accessions and more than 250,000 Pap smears per year, and also operate premier anatomic pathology laboratories serving western Washington. Our pathologists have a broad range of subspecialty expertise, making collaboration an integral part of case signout. In addition, CellNetix has been named a "Best Place to Work For in Washington" company for the last three years.

Seattle and the greater Puget Sound area offer livable and forward-looking cities with excellent restaurants, performing arts, museums and festivals. The mild climate and diverse landscape, including proximity to the Pacific Ocean, Puget Sound, mountains, lakes and rivers provide a myriad of outdoor recreational opportunities. Examples include skiing and snowboarding, year-round boating and kayaking, fishing, hiking, camping, mountaineering and biking.

If interested in this position, apply by clicking here.

IMPORTANT NOTICE
As a healthcare organization we are committed to providing a healthy and safe environment. As part of that commitment we do not hire anyone who has used nicotine products in the last six months. We require a criminal history background check as well as a drug test which will include nicotine testing.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

That is weird. Poor pathologist cant even smoke cigarettes anymore or chew.

Here is a urologist who they found with 33 pot plants in his basement here in Indiana. Yet he went on to make over 300,000 dollars at another local hospital a year after his arrest. Not to mention he got a 275,000 free loan from a hospital in Nevada after that. How many pathologists would recover from a scandal like that? Here are two internet pages about him that are interesting.

http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2005/12/ind_decisions_i_12.html
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03281112pdm.pdf

 

[yaah]

Some hospitals are not hiring people who smoke now, that isn't that uncommon. It lowers your group insurance rate for one. Doesn't cleveland clinic have that policy too?

 

[Gene_]

Will someone not explain to me why this is not discriminatory. Nicotine is not illegal, so why would doing something legal in private (not on hospital property) disqualify someone from a job. I haven't seen any evidence indicating that nicotine use drives up healthcare costs. Why don't we discriminate based on things that actually increase healthcare costs like a history of STDs, obesity or being a reproductive age female?

 

[superkeith]

Some hospitals are not hiring people who smoke now, that isn't that uncommon. It lowers your group insurance rate for one. Doesn't cleveland clinic have that policy too?

😱

 

[Substance]

Will someone not explain to me why this is not discriminatory. Nicotine is not illegal, so why would doing something legal in private (not on hospital property) disqualify someone from a job. I haven't seen any evidence indicating that nicotine use drives up healthcare costs. Why don't we discriminate based on things that actually increase healthcare costs like a history of STDs, obesity or being a reproductive age female?

Now this is a good point.

I wonder if any other physicians are expected to comply with this rule. The reason I ask is because at many centers, the pathology department is under "laboratory" which means that the administration does not see it as a physician department, but a rank-and-file support one similar to housekeeping.

 

[Euchromatin]

Some hospitals are not hiring people who smoke now, that isn't that uncommon. It lowers your group insurance rate for one. Doesn't cleveland clinic have that policy too?

I remember this being mentioned when I interviewed at Cleveland Clinic. I think you were given a few months (3? 6?) to quit smoking once you started working there and if you failed the cotinine test again at the end of that period, they would terminate your employment.

Given the fact that smoking cigarettes is known to increase your risk of developing various malignancies (lung, bladder, etc.), thromboembolic events (including coronary artery disease), COPD and osteoporosis; as well as increasing the rates of asthma and illness in children exposed to second hand smoke, I really don't think it should be that shocking to anyone that it might be cheaper to insure nonsmokers and a company that provides health insurance to its workers might not want them to smoke. I'll admit, I think that the strict policy of not hiring/firing smokers is rather draconian and I think a more rewards-based system (similar to many insurance companies giving members a discounted rate for getting regular preventative care, keeping their weight and cholesterol under control, etc.) would be preferable, but no one is forcing people to apply for jobs at these institutions if it is going to put their panties into that much of a twist.

 

[Torsed]

Cleveland Clinic? Cleveland is such a dump, I'd have to be coked up everyday of my life to live in that area of the country and be a paranoid schizophrenic.

I find it markedly odd that they would put that in a pathologist's contrat. Why don't they state you can't eat bacon and we will monitor your LDL and cholesterol every 3 months to ensure you comply. I bet one reasoning is not only health insurance but they may have DI insurance as well that the group offers.

 

[Euchromatin]

I haven't seen any evidence indicating that nicotine use drives up healthcare costs. Why don't we discriminate based on things that actually increase healthcare costs like a history of STDs, obesity or being a reproductive age female?

Seriously? You think it would be okay to "discriminate" for health insurance related purposes for obesity, but not for nicotine use? Did you miss the lectures in medical school that talk about the health consequences of smoking or something?

Here is some quick evidence I spent < 5 minutes on the interwebs gathering:

CDC data - see Table 4 "Smoking Attributable Costs"
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/state_data/data_highlights/2006/pdfs/dataHighlights06rev.pdf

Excess insured health care costs from tobacco-using employees in a large group plan.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

Pathologists are dime a dozen. Might as well hire only non-smokers.
Guarantee you they wouldnt reject any other specialist for nicotine.

Think I am gonna start taking pathologists to the track and only hire sub 6 minute milers.

 

[WEBB PINKERTON]

Seriously? You think it would be okay to "discriminate" for health insurance related purposes for obesity, but not for nicotine use? Did you miss the lectures in medical school that talk about the health consequences of smoking or something?

Here is some quick evidence I spent < 5 minutes on the interwebs gathering:

CDC data - see Table 4 "Smoking Attributable Costs"
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_sta..._highlights/2006/pdfs/dataHighlights06rev.pdf

Excess insured health care costs from tobacco-using employees in a large group plan.

Arent the feminist who thinks health insurance should cover birth control? Why do you care what insurance costs?

 

[KCShaw]

It might be illegal or inappropriate or discrimanatory, or whatever, despite all the places one is no longer allowed to smoke, but let's face it -- smokin' be nasty. It's the debil.

 

[gbwillner]

It might be illegal or inappropriate or discrimanatory, or whatever, despite all the places one is no longer allowed to smoke, but let's face it -- smokin' be nasty. It's the debil.

It's not illegal because being a "smoker" is not a protected class under law, like being pregnant, a woman, a minority, or another religion.

 

[LADoc00]

That is bonkers. Job sounds lame too. 44 Pathologists?!
250K pap smears?!

that sounds like my worst nightmare.

I can guarantee too like 1/2 that 44 barely speak English...

Sounds literally like a modern salt mine.

 

[lipomas]

I don't know man, I know a cellnetix pathologist and she/he is pretty happy and could have gotten a job basically anywhere in PP or academia. I don't really know much about the job, but 44 pathologists is likely to be a bit more corporate than private. Your income is likely to be somewhat lower than the groups with 15 or fewer pathologists, but then again your autonomy might be higher.

The nicotine thing is a distraction so that the paranoia-friendly on these boards can jump on it as another sign the job market is collapsing. It's not. This is a private lab which has significant physician ownership and administration (from what I know). It's not a sign of doom.

Like this comment:

Guarantee you they wouldnt reject any other specialist for nicotine.

Well ****, yeah. Because this is a private lab. They don't have any other specialists! But I bet cleveland clinic and whoever else does it would not treat pathologists any differently than other specialists. You need to chill on the paranoia.

 

[LADoc00]

Who would join a group with 44 pathologists though?

44 pathologists:
1.) Guaranteed 10 or so are named "Mike" because you cant pronounce their given names...
2.) I guarantee a couple dozen of those wont do this or do that (like senior dudes wont do autopsies, cytologies, take call or any procedures etc.), making your share of the crap work that much more.
3.) Guaranteed not ever get a majority of the staff to agree on anything, 6-10 pathologists is herding cats, 40+ is waving your hands around in a Greek Riot in Athens while tear gas falls all around you and some dude in a hoodie is hurling petrol bombs at you.
4.) By odds, you will end up hating around 10 people in the group.
5.) Guaranteed all the old timers are taking all the loot, leaving you with a meager salary. And trust me you will be first to be let go when the group loses this contract or that one, which invariably will occur.

Im having shivers just visualizing that.
I would rather sign out cases for Somalian pirates.

 

[sirenomelia]

The job specifically excludes anyone who has used nicotine in the last 6 months. Isn't that a little weird? Has anyone else seen this specification in a job advertisement? See below.


CellNetix Pathology & Laboratories is a dynamic, rapidly growing private pathology company headquartered in Seattle, WA, in the heart of the highly desirable Puget Sound region. We are one of the largest privately held pathology groups in the country, yet we retain a strong focus on local relationships and service. We serve 12 hospitals from large tertiary care institutions to small community hospitals, as well as specialty clinics and private physician practices.

Our 44 pathologists evaluate and/or supervise over 120,000 surgical accessions and more than 250,000 Pap smears per year, and also operate premier anatomic pathology laboratories serving western Washington. Our pathologists have a broad range of subspecialty expertise, making collaboration an integral part of case signout. In addition, CellNetix has been named a "Best Place to Work For in Washington" company for the last three years.

QUOTE]

The 44 likely won't be all in the same place. They'll be spread out covering the different places like miniprivate practices- granted the $ will not be shared equally.

 

[Gene_]

Seriously? You think it would be okay to "discriminate" for health insurance related purposes for obesity, but not for nicotine use? Did you miss the lectures in medical school that talk about the health consequences of smoking or something?

Here is some quick evidence I spent < 5 minutes on the interwebs gathering:

CDC data - see Table 4 "Smoking Attributable Costs"
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/state_data/data_highlights/2006/pdfs/dataHighlights06rev.pdf

Excess insured health care costs from tobacco-using employees in a large group plan.

Maybe you should have read longer than 5 minutes. The other side of the argument is that non-smokers live longer and require more care over their lifetime. Your references are not too convincing. What else would you expect the CDC to say? The other abstract you reference clearly states that it is a marker for other high-risk behaviors and the increased costs are not solely attributable to nicotine - high risk behaviors like eating donuts or having random unprotected sex.

 

[deleted314957]

comes out to a little less than 11 surgical accessions per pathologist--about enough to starve on.

 

[gungho]

Who would join a group with 44 pathologists though?


3.) Guaranteed not ever get a majority of the staff to agree on anything, 6-10 pathologists is herding cats, 40+ is waving your hands around in a Greek Riot in Athens while tear gas falls all around you and some dude in a hoodie is hurling petrol bombs at you.

Im having shivers just visualizing that.
I would rather sign out cases for Somalian pirates.

 

[KCShaw]

The Somalian pirates probably make decent money. Although, getting fired may take on a whole new meaning.

 

[Pathwrath]

44 pathologists:
2.) I guarantee a couple dozen of those wont do this or do that (like senior dudes wont do autopsies, cytologies, take call or any procedures etc.), making your share of the crap work that much more.
4.) By odds, you will end up hating around 10 people in the group.
5.) Guaranteed all the old timers are taking all the loot, leaving you with a meager salary. And trust me you will be first to be let go when the group loses this contract or that one, which invariably will occur.

LOL, the same proportionately applies to smaller groups, too. One quarter senior prima donnas you'll end up despising sounds about right.

 

[Ruination]

The Somalian pirates probably make decent money. Although, getting fired may take on a whole new meaning.

did you guys see that South Park episode where they go try to be pirates? hilarious.

 

[BrainPathology]

Seems like a great opportunity for a non-smoker...

But NOOOOOOO it's a sign of the apocalypse!!!!!!

Not only will you have to not smoke but you'll have to stay in the office on a cot all night to sign out the load the senior partners make you take on, with no heat! and only leftover dog food to eat (that you have to steal from when you're made to go feed the partner's dogs in their Olympian estates that you'll never have a chance at)! All the while you'll also be forced to get coffee for the senior partners (on penalty of death or contracts with urology labs <shiver>) who will dictate orders for you from on high sent by a herald with a trumpet (and a sample cup to make sure you're not smoking).

Woe is us!... the real victims in pathology are those who practice in towns so small that none of the buildings are high enough to jump off of.

 

[2121115]

Not only will you have to not smoke but you'll have to stay in the office on a cot all night to sign out the load the senior partners make you take on, with no heat! and only leftover dog food to eat (that you have to steal from when you're made to go feed the partner's dogs in their Olympian estates that you'll never have a chance at)! All the while you'll also be forced to get coffee for the senior partners (on penalty of death or contracts with urology labs <SHIVER>) who will dictate orders for you from on high sent by a herald with a trumpet (and a sample cup to make sure you're not smoking).

Not kidding, one of my residency classmates took a job with that description.

 

[Euchromatin]

Maybe you should have read longer than 5 minutes. The other side of the argument is that non-smokers live longer and require more care over their lifetime. Your references are not too convincing. What else would you expect the CDC to say? The other abstract you reference clearly states that it is a marker for other high-risk behaviors and the increased costs are not solely attributable to nicotine - high risk behaviors like eating donuts or having random unprotected sex.

I'm starting to feel a little bit like I'm feeding a troll, but here goes:

I'm not really sure why you find it so hard to believe that smokers cost their health insurance company more than non-smokers (regardless of whether it is solely attributable to nicotine or nicotine use/smoking plus other behaviors smokers are more likely to partake in). You clearly think that obese individuals will incur more health care costs (which I agree with), but I could use your own silly argument against you and say that non-obese people "live longer and require more care over their lifetime" and would therefore cost more.

I'm also not sure why you are criticizing the CDC - do you have any evidence that they are NOT an excellent resource for accurate public health-related information? Do you think there is some massive conspiracy between the CDC and the majority of the medical community to make smoking look bad?

As I mentioned before, I don't necessarily agree with companies that are implementing this policy, I just thought that the amount of shock and horror that some of the posters in this thread expressed seemed unwarranted and surprising to me.

 

[malchik]

My insurance company seems convinced that smoking costs them more. If I admit to being a tobacco user I have to pay an additional $20 per month on my policy.

 

[papaya]

🙂

 

[lipomas]

As I mentioned before, I don't necessarily agree with companies that are implementing this policy, I just thought that the amount of shock and horror that some of the posters in this thread expressed seemed unwarranted and surprising to me.

I agree with it. Hell, if it reduces my insurance bill to be in a pool with only non-smokers then sign me up! Charge the smokers more.

People say smokers should be free to smoke and this is a free country, blah blah. Yeah, and I should be free to not have to subsidize their disgusting habit!

 

[dermpathdoc]

CellNetix is a weird group, am not surprised. But they fail to realize it is pretty hard to not be exposed to nicotine with all the second hand exposure out there.
I can just see it
"your nictoine test was elevated, you dont get the job"
"but I dont smoke and never have? I do have a brother who smokes and I stayed at his place for a week while interviewing for you job. I am going to sue you for discrimination!"

 

[pathstudent]

Who would join a group with 44 pathologists though?

44 pathologists:
1.) Guaranteed 10 or so are named "Mike" because you cant pronounce their given names...
2.) I guarantee a couple dozen of those wont do this or do that (like senior dudes wont do autopsies, cytologies, take call or any procedures etc.), making your share of the crap work that much more.
3.) Guaranteed not ever get a majority of the staff to agree on anything, 6-10 pathologists is herding cats, 40+ is waving your hands around in a Greek Riot in Athens while tear gas falls all around you and some dude in a hoodie is hurling petrol bombs at you.
4.) By odds, you will end up hating around 10 people in the group.
5.) Guaranteed all the old timers are taking all the loot, leaving you with a meager salary. And trust me you will be first to be let go when the group loses this contract or that one, which invariably will occur.

Im having shivers just visualizing that.
I would rather sign out cases for Somalian pirates.

The upside to being in a mega group is that you have more weight when negotiating with insurers and if a prominent surgeon moves from one hospital to the next, you don't really care as your group is at the new hospital too. Also you can claim to be More subspecialized, but in general mega groups cover multiple small hospitals that can be staffed with 3-4 pathologists and pretty much you need a core group to cover those hospitals as physicians and admins don't appreciate rotating through 10 pathologists for the 2 it takes to cover the hospital. So most everyone is signing out general whether they have subspecialty training or not.

And from those I have talked to animus runs deep even among senior pathologists towards the other partners in their group.

 

[KCShaw]

..snip..
"but I dont smoke and never have? I do have a brother who smokes and I stayed at his place for a week while interviewing for you job. I am going to sue you for discrimination!"

Better yet, sue your brother. It is, after all, his fault.

 

[dermpathdoc]

Better yet, sue your brother. It is, after all, his fault.

Ever tried to sue a relative???
Seriously.....I think if that policy was taken tothe supreme court it would fail

 

[KCShaw]

Not personally. But it certainly happens, though usually about things like divorce, disagreements over finances/inheritance, and so on. As far as nicotine goes, well, it -is- his fault in that situation, but the issue is how much blame 'you' accept for staying in his home knowing that he's a smoker and that you're trying for a job which won't take you if you have nicotine on board.

I figure it has at least as much chance at success as someone buying hot coffee, spilling it on themselves without an outside influence, getting burned, suing complaining the coffee was too hot, and getting initially awarded >$2.8 million. And probably more success than suing a company for discrimination when tobacco users evidently aren't a group protected by discrimination laws (although supposedly some states do have specific "smokers' rights" laws, or laws regarding employees' "lawful activities" away from work, so it's not universally cut and dry). On the other hand, if you go to a $1000/entree restaurant with your pet dog Matilda the gassy malamute and slap a $5 collar on her that says "service animal" then they can't even ask you why you have the animal nor suggest she wait outside, they have to let you (and her) in -- as long as it's a place that would normally be publicly accessible.

All that said, I'm obviously not a lawyer, and don't know how it would fare against the U.S. Constitution. It didn't take much of a search to see that some people think it might not pass some -state- constitutions. But, that's why we have so many different laws on so many levels (city, county, state, federal..) -- so we can support more law schools.

 

[LADoc00]

Actually you might think being in a big pathology group would help you negotiate better rates and the exact opposite is the case: your reimbursement is less.

Insurers know they can strong arm hospital based docs into lower payments by cutting deals with the institutions they are tied to, larger path groups make the effort for payors worthwhile.

Meanwhile, small groups in rural areas (1-3 guys) run completely under the radar getting far above average reimbursement because its not worth the time for payors to go after them.

Strange, but that is what Ive found. Get large and get targeted for cutbacks from payors, stay small and off the radar keeps your pay higher.