Last edited:
Pathology groups stealing business with illegal inducements
- Thread starter Thrombus
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2003
- Messages
- 2,962
- Reaction score
- 79
What is illegal about putting in an EMR as part of your reporting system. I remember LADoc pondered providing clinicians with secure Blackberrys that would give them instant results about their biopsies. The EMR seems similar but just more advanced.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2007
- Messages
- 1,699
- Reaction score
- 721
Are providing in office EMRs illegal? I thought LADoc said they weren't in a previous post. I remember reading in a blog some ppl do unnecessary stains on prostate cores to get more revenue to provide for these EMRs. I don't think that is the case in your situation because they probably have the capital to do it.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 7,132
- Reaction score
- 1,250
eh? I dont see an OP.
he erased it?
Providing an EMR up to a specified % (dunno what that is now but near 100%) of costs as an inducement is now LEGAL. In every state.
Inducements will continue to flow like milk and honey because politicians are idiots beyond measure, pretty much every state government is broke and at the end of the day the ENTIRE UNION OF STATES at the Federal level is a Ponzi...errr Madoff Scheme.
he erased it?
Providing an EMR up to a specified % (dunno what that is now but near 100%) of costs as an inducement is now LEGAL. In every state.
Inducements will continue to flow like milk and honey because politicians are idiots beyond measure, pretty much every state government is broke and at the end of the day the ENTIRE UNION OF STATES at the Federal level is a Ponzi...errr Madoff Scheme.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,130
- Reaction score
- 1,032
Get used to inducements. Everyone is doing them: from client billing, fee spliting, EMR donations, free phlebotomist. Its not about quality or relationships anymore. Its a race to the bottom. How low can you go? Pathology and lab medicine are a mess.
<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%">Pathology Salaries and the Big Picture </TD><TD class=buttonheading align=right width="100%">
</TD><TD class=buttonheading align=right width="100%">
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Written by Mick Raich </TD></TR><TR><TD class=createdate vAlign=top>Monday, 29 November 2010 14:35 </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>I recently read where Sonic has purchased CBL Path. This is a nice entry point for Sonic and will give them a larger foot print in the anatomic pathology world. This sale prompted me to think about how companies like Sonic, Quest or Labcorp make a margin on their anatomic pathology cases.
Over the past 15 years, the big labs in the United States have worked hard to gain market share in anatomic pathology. At first, their thoughts must have been to come in and make money from the technical component of anatomic pathology work. It is common knowledge that the technical side of the billing has risen steadily, while the professional side has been slowing declining. (Please note it is the increase in the technical component that has allowed so many pathologists to outsource the histology work from their community hospitals and start their own anatomic pathology labs.)
Lets assume that theses companies enjoy a fair profit margin from the technical work. But how do they profit on the professional side of the market? It has been rumored that they are getting 65% of Medicare from their national payer contracts. How do you make a profit at 65% of Medicare? The answer came to me when I attended the recent CAP and ASCP shows. I had the opportunity to speak with many pathologists from around the nation. I often asked what they thought the average pathologists made for a year. The answers stunned me. Many of these commercial pathologists told me the average salary was $180,000 to$220,000. I found this interesting as this range is usually the starting point for pathologists coming out of school, not someone with 10 years of experience. (My database shows that the average pathologist makes around $537,000 per year. This data includes more than 1,600 pathologists working nation wide in private practice.)
Look closely and the answer is simple. If these labs get paid 65% of Medicare they have to make a profit somewhere. Obviously, they are making this margin by paying these pathologists below the industry norm. In fact, if they paid only 65% of the industry norm (i.e. 65% of $537,000) they would have to pay $349,050 for each pathologist. Now you can argue that pathologists working in these labs have other non-salary benefits like 401(k) plans, health benefits, etc.; so even if you add 20% for employee benefits, these pathologists would still only be paid $418,860 per year. Still a substantial decrease from the industry norm.
My gut feeling is that these wonderful, qualified pathologists are beingpaid considerably less then their private practice peers. Just something tothink about
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD><TD class=buttonheading align=right width="100%"> </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Written by Mick Raich </TD></TR><TR><TD class=createdate vAlign=top>Monday, 29 November 2010 14:35 </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>I recently read where Sonic has purchased CBL Path. This is a nice entry point for Sonic and will give them a larger foot print in the anatomic pathology world. This sale prompted me to think about how companies like Sonic, Quest or Labcorp make a margin on their anatomic pathology cases. Over the past 15 years, the big labs in the United States have worked hard to gain market share in anatomic pathology. At first, their thoughts must have been to come in and make money from the technical component of anatomic pathology work. It is common knowledge that the technical side of the billing has risen steadily, while the professional side has been slowing declining. (Please note it is the increase in the technical component that has allowed so many pathologists to outsource the histology work from their community hospitals and start their own anatomic pathology labs.)
Lets assume that theses companies enjoy a fair profit margin from the technical work. But how do they profit on the professional side of the market? It has been rumored that they are getting 65% of Medicare from their national payer contracts. How do you make a profit at 65% of Medicare? The answer came to me when I attended the recent CAP and ASCP shows. I had the opportunity to speak with many pathologists from around the nation. I often asked what they thought the average pathologists made for a year. The answers stunned me. Many of these commercial pathologists told me the average salary was $180,000 to$220,000. I found this interesting as this range is usually the starting point for pathologists coming out of school, not someone with 10 years of experience. (My database shows that the average pathologist makes around $537,000 per year. This data includes more than 1,600 pathologists working nation wide in private practice.)
Look closely and the answer is simple. If these labs get paid 65% of Medicare they have to make a profit somewhere. Obviously, they are making this margin by paying these pathologists below the industry norm. In fact, if they paid only 65% of the industry norm (i.e. 65% of $537,000) they would have to pay $349,050 for each pathologist. Now you can argue that pathologists working in these labs have other non-salary benefits like 401(k) plans, health benefits, etc.; so even if you add 20% for employee benefits, these pathologists would still only be paid $418,860 per year. Still a substantial decrease from the industry norm.
My gut feeling is that these wonderful, qualified pathologists are beingpaid considerably less then their private practice peers. Just something tothink about
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,654
- Reaction score
- 37
<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%">Pathology Salaries and the Big Picture </TD><TD class=buttonheading align=right width="100%">
Over the past 15 years, the big labs in the United States have worked hard to gain market share in anatomic pathology. At first, their thoughts must have been to come in and make money from the technical component of anatomic pathology work. It is common knowledge that the technical side of the billing has risen steadily, while the professional side has been slowing declining. (Please note it is the increase in the technical component that has allowed so many pathologists to outsource the histology work from their community hospitals and start their own anatomic pathology labs.)
Lets assume that theses companies enjoy a fair profit margin from the technical work. But how do they profit on the professional side of the market? It has been rumored that they are getting 65% of Medicare from their national payer contracts. How do you make a profit at 65% of Medicare? The answer came to me when I attended the recent CAP and ASCP shows. I had the opportunity to speak with many pathologists from around the nation. I often asked what they thought the average pathologists made for a year. The answers stunned me. Many of these commercial pathologists told me the average salary was $180,000 to$220,000. I found this interesting as this range is usually the starting point for pathologists coming out of school, not someone with 10 years of experience. (My database shows that the average pathologist makes around $537,000 per year. This data includes more than 1,600 pathologists working nation wide in private practice.)
Look closely and the answer is simple. If these labs get paid 65% of Medicare they have to make a profit somewhere. Obviously, they are making this margin by paying these pathologists below the industry norm. In fact, if they paid only 65% of the industry norm (i.e. 65% of $537,000) they would have to pay $349,050 for each pathologist. Now you can argue that pathologists working in these labs have other non-salary benefits like 401(k) plans, health benefits, etc.; so even if you add 20% for employee benefits, these pathologists would still only be paid $418,860 per year. Still a substantial decrease from the industry norm.
My gut feeling is that these wonderful, qualified pathologists are beingpaid considerably less then their private practice peers. Just something tothink about
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The fact that pathologists at a commercial lab with 10 years experience make less than I do in starting salary as a new grad is astounding to me. As the old saying goes, "There, but for the grace of God, go I".
