ROAD specialties not as appealing anymore?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Ya, if I was going to do cards I would do interventional. Don't really looking for the stereotypical "surgery" lifestyle, though. I have really been considering EM but I am worried I one day as I am 45 YO and waking up at 2AM to go to work that I will hate my life.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I just don't get why the media singles out physicians for vitriol, and why the public assumes doctors should be monks who work for as little as possible.

Food, water, housing, and sanitation are more basic needs than medical care, yet you don't see the media attacking plumbers or landlords or water companies when they refuse to service people who don't pay. But a physician refuses to see someone on Medicaid, and everyone loses their minds!

Well when you're dying, a doctor can't refuse to treat you (legal issue) but then doing this for everyone is expensive. When you're in an ambulance, you don't have a choice to go and get life saving treatment. We as a society refuse to withhold treatment even for those who don't want it and the money for this is coming out of someone's pocket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ya, if I was going to do cards I would do interventional. Don't really looking for the stereotypical "surgery" lifestyle, though. I have really been considering EM but I am worried I one day as I am 45 YO and waking up at 2AM to go to work that I will hate my life.

x2 it seems like a great field but exhausting
 
Members don't see this ad :)
maybe it's location based and the fact they're private practice, but the interventional cardiologists at this hospital work the longest hours of anyone I've seen. clinic and cath lab all day, followed by rounds on inpatients at 8-9 pm.

general surgeons here have it way easier, but probably get paid half as much.
 
Have you done derm rotations? I did. I wanted to love it. Wasn't happening. They are also extremely cerebral when they want to be, discussing dermatopathology to death, etc. They can give the fleas a run for their money.

Honestly I don't understand how you can become an attending and really think it's okay to **** on other peoples' specialties. I would think as an anesthesiologist you would have enough experience on the other side of that exchange. Grow up, dude.
 
Honestly I don't understand how you can become an attending and really think it's okay to **** on other peoples' specialties. I would think as an anesthesiologist you would have enough experience on the other side of that exchange. Grow up, dude.
Wow, you really think that is ******* on other peoples' specialties? Believe me, that's not ******* on a specialty, not even close.
 
Honestly I don't understand how you can become an attending and really think it's okay to **** on other peoples' specialties. I would think as an anesthesiologist you would have enough experience on the other side of that exchange. Grow up, dude.
That's information chief. I'm not dumping on anyone's career choices.
I don't care what other people do with their lives. I try to provide some useful information to counter the endless misinformation, delusion, and fantasy that people post every day. If my sarcastic tone offends you so much, you're in for a rocky career.
I'm actually curious about what it is that so offends you about what I said? It is all 100% true. My specialty is frequently boring and people don't send me bottles of wine or follow up cards and photos. I'm OK with that, we provide a valuable service. It's not for everybody either.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
That's information chief. I'm not dumping on anyone's career choices.
I don't care what other people do with their lives. I try to provide some useful information to counter the endless misinformation, delusion, and fantasy that people post every day. If my sarcastic tone offends you so much, you're in for a rocky career.
I'm actually curious about what it is that so offends you about what I said? It is all 100% true. My specialty is frequently boring and people don't send me bottles of wine or follow up cards and photos. I'm OK with that, we provide a valuable service. It's not for everybody either.

Thanks for the info.

What's the point of a message board if we have to self-censor. Already do too much of that IRL.
 
That's information chief. I'm not dumping on anyone's career choices.
I don't care what other people do with their lives. I try to provide some useful information to counter the endless misinformation, delusion, and fantasy that people post every day. If my sarcastic tone offends you so much, you're in for a rocky career.
I'm actually curious about what it is that so offends you about what I said? It is all 100% true. My specialty is frequently boring and people don't send me bottles of wine or follow up cards and photos. I'm OK with that, we provide a valuable service. It's not for everybody either.

I love how you can actually try to ascertain my personality and inform me that i'm in for a rocky career. it's not that i'm offended, but just as a generality, based on your previous posts (not that specific one that I quoted) you seem to be a very opinionated person, which I can appreciate, since I'm similar. But, it's counter to to physician movement to post things that are in the same vain as "pimple popper MD". Just my two cents.
 
Unless you are specifically referring to EMTALA, there is no law requiring physicians to treat any patient, dying or not.

So except for the law that requires physicians to treat patients, there's no law that requires physicians to treat patients. Got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I just don't get why the media singles out physicians for vitriol, and why the public assumes doctors should be monks who work for as little as possible.

Food, water, housing, and sanitation are more basic needs than medical care, yet you don't see the media attacking plumbers or landlords or water companies when they refuse to service people who don't pay. But a physician refuses to see someone on Medicaid, and everyone loses their minds!

Get used to it. That's what happens when you label medical services a "human right". You will be expected to give some of your services for "free" = a.k.a. at a loss for you.

Why do you think the healthcare reform law is touting some things to be "free"? They're not free, of course. SOMEONE pays. It's just not the beneficiary. Get used to being singled out by tv/blogs/internet media, etc. for being the greedy, selfish doctor. You can take your seat right next to the "lazy, greedy, fat cat" Wall Street bankers, as far as they're concerned.

These are nurses, by the way, who work with doctors. So you can imagine how much worse, the general public is:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Unless you are specifically referring to EMTALA, there is no law requiring physicians to treat any patient, dying or not.
So except for the law that requires physicians to treat patients, there's no law that requires physicians to treat patients. Got it.

There's a difference between "treating" a patient, and "medically stabilizing" them. I'm sure Winged Scapula having completed a Surgery residency where many people come in with surgical abdomens, knows EMTALA, quite well.

EMTALA only largely applies to Emergency Room settings. It's why your Family Doctor who listens to you over the phone can refuse to see you and pretty much tell you to buzz off and call 911 and take a trip to the emergency room.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
So except for the law that requires physicians to treat patients, there's no law that requires physicians to treat patients. Got it.
Perhaps you misunderstand EMTALA: it requires hospitals that receive payments from Medicare to provide treatment for patients regardless of citizen or insurance status.

It does not require me, as the consultant, to see or treat that patient (my hospitals do not mandate ER call as a requirement for hospital privileges). Nor does it extend to my office or other settings. Physicians are not required by law to provide treatment to patients who present to their office or whom they might encounter in auto accidents, on a plane etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
hm okay my bad
didn't realize that stabilizing isn't the same thing as treating
 
Last edited:
So except for the law that requires physicians to treat patients, there's no law that requires physicians to treat patients. Got it.

No EMTALA doesn't say that. It says that any patient in the ER is required to be evaluated and stabilized if in an emergent condition. It also mandates that any woman in labor in the ER has to have access to delivery services.

That's it. No physician is obligated to provide treatment to a patient that is not in an emergent condition. You can have pneumonia, go to the ER and if they determine you aren't an emergent case, they can dump your ass and be legally covered. It's only those patients who pass the initial ER screen and require stabilization will be the ones who get treated. And no patient is treated for free, the hospital can legally charge for services rendered and can send the bill to collections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
hm okay my bad
didn't realize that stabilizing isn't the same thing as treating

np, this is a VERY common misconception, even amongst physicians.

It's also easy Step 1 points, since EMTALA is testable material.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
hm okay my bad
didn't realize that stabilizing isn't the same thing as treating
Lets use an example that I've seen in real life to highlight the difference:

An elderly woman presents to the ER in Wickenburg Arizona with nausea, vomiting and abdominal distention. On physical exam she looks toxic with a very tender non reducible mass in the right groin below the inguinal ligament. White blood cell count is 23,000 and her temperature is 102.1 Fahrenheit. She's tachycardic and her blood pressure is 90/64.

The ED staff will start an IV and fluids and arrange for emergent transfer to a facility which has surgical services as they do not have any functioning operating rooms or surgeons on staff.

Have they stabilized her for transport? Yes. Have they treated her condition? No. She has an incarcerated femoral hernia which requires surgery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
When you're in an ambulance, you don't have a choice to go and get life saving treatment. We as a society refuse to withhold treatment even for those who don't want it

Actually, anyone of sound mind, or a properly filled out DNR, can and do refuse treatment all the time. There's nothing stopping the guy with STEMI from saying, "thanks guys, but I'd rather just stay home and not go to the hospital."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Actually, anyone of sound mind, or a properly filled out DNR, can and do refuse treatment all the time. There's nothing stopping the guy with STEMI from saying, "thanks guys, but I'd rather just stay home and not go to the hospital."

Perhaps the discussion should be on 'futile treatment' (erhmagerd, death panels) rather than 'refusing treatment'.

That being said, second the thanks on EMTALA education.

Quick scenario - What if instead of an elderly female in WS's example (who is likely on medicare), it's an uninsured, homeless 45 year old man. The ED he comes to has a surgery department, and he is stabilized by the ED (but still has the incarcerated inguinal hernia). A private practice surgeon comes and sees that the patient is uninsured. As a surgeon, are you allowed to refuse to do surgery on this patient, since you know you won't be getting paid for it? Or if you're doing surgical call in a hospital, are you contracted by the hospital, and therefore you do the surgery (and get paid by the hospital for the call shift) even if the hospital doesn't get paid?
 
Perhaps the discussion should be on 'futile treatment' (erhmagerd, death panels) rather than 'refusing treatment'.

Even that has some relative issues. A lot of what people look at is length of life instead of (what in my mind is more important) quality of life. Is palliative treatment "futile?" How about treatments that only increase quality of life (say... hip replacements)?

That being said, second the thanks on EMTALA education.

Quick scenario - What if instead of an elderly female in WS's example (who is likely on medicare), it's an uninsured, homeless 45 year old man. The ED he comes to has a surgery department, and he is stabilized by the ED (but still has the incarcerated inguinal hernia). A private practice surgeon comes and sees that the patient is uninsured. As a surgeon, are you allowed to refuse to do surgery on this patient, since you know you won't be getting paid for it? Or if you're doing surgical call in a hospital, are you contracted by the hospital, and therefore you do the surgery (and get paid by the hospital for the call shift) even if the hospital doesn't get paid?

EMTALA requires hospitals to maintain transfer agreements (i.e. hospitals without OB services don't have to have OB on call. Non-trauma hospitals don't have to have trauma surgeons) and an on-call list. The details, however, are left to the hospital including which specialties are on the list and how often individual physicians are listed. If the ED calls in a consult for a patient still in having an emergent condition (say, a strangulated hernia to use your example), then the on-call surgeon is mandated to see the patient and provide care under EMTALA is the surgeon feels an emergent condition is present. If the surgeon doesn't take an emergent case to the OR because of the patient's ability to pay, then it's an EMTALA violation. Similarly, refusing to see a patient based on ability to pay when on call is also an EMTALA violation provided the EM physician believes an emergent condition is present. On ED-ED transfer documents, there's an EMTALA section justifying the transfer in regards to EMTALA (higher level of care, no emergent condition exists, etc). There is a box that reads along the lines of "on-call physician failed to see patient" with a place to list the physician's name.

TL/DR: EMTALA mandates on-call physicians to see patients in the ED and provide care if the emergency persists.
 
TL/DR: EMTALA mandates on-call physicians to see patients in the ED and provide care if the emergency persists.

Slight clarification:

if the surgeon is an employee of the hospital or is in PP but has mandatory call in exchange for hospital privileges, he must accept the consult. He cannot refuse to treat the patient for insurance reasons but can refuse to treat say, in the case of a patient who has been terminated from the practice or who is suing him, as long as another equally qualified surgeon is available.

if the surgeon is in PP with "courtesy" call, then he can refuse any and all consultations, regardless of reason.
 
Get used to it. That's what happens when you label medical services a "human right". You will be expected to give some of your services for "free" = a.k.a. at a loss for you.

Why do you think the healthcare reform law is touting some things to be "free"? They're not free, of course. SOMEONE pays. It's just not the beneficiary. Get used to being singled out by tv/blogs/internet media, etc. for being the greedy, selfish doctor. You can take your seat right next to the "lazy, greedy, fat cat" Wall Street bankers, as far as they're concerned.

These are nurses, by the way, who work with doctors. So you can imagine how much worse, the general public is:

3:22

there is probably a more eloquent way of putting it, but **** everything about that person.
 
3:22

there is probably a more eloquent way of putting it, but **** everything about that person.

Don't be so hard on yourself. There is no way to say that in a more eloquent manner...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
There's a difference between "treating" a patient, and medically stabilizing them. I'm sure Winged Scapula having completed a Surgery residency where many people come in with surgical abdomens, knows EMTALA, quite well.

EMTALA only largely applies to Emergency Room settings. It's why your Family Doctor who listens to you over the phone can tell you to buzz off and call 911 and take a trip to the emergency room.
3:22

there is probably a more eloquent way of putting it, but **** everything about that person.

No, I don't think there is a more eloquent way of putting it. You pretty accurately encompassed it. 2:53 as well - Now I know why hippies were hated so much.
 
Patients not uncommonly will try to extend EMTALA to the private practice scenario thinking that they can never be refused service even if they can't pay for it. SMH.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Wow, amazing to me how grown adults don't understand how basic economics work (i.e. money to keep your lights on). Never mind, I have to forget these are the type of people we elect to Congress.
 
3:22

there is probably a more eloquent way of putting it, but **** everything about that person.
And that idiot's vote counts exactly as much as yours or mine.

EDIT: Actually, probably more, because people like us actually work on random Tuesday afternoons in November.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
here we go again..yet another gem by HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a former lobbyist for malpractice lawyers..we should post the link every time they come out with a new article about doctor reimbursement. Like I've been saying these articles are becoming more and more common--the set is being staged for DRASTIC cuts to physician reimbursement.

NYT did derm already so now it's AP's turn to go after ophthalmology and cancer doctors. There is nothing wrong with calling out the doctors abusing the system, but the way the government, insurance industry and media want to portray it as though it's all physicians. 300 out of nearly 1 million doctors are abusing the system is actually pretty low but as you can tell by the tone of the article and remakrs by Sebelius they're trying to use it to paint it out to be all physicians. Read the comments to get an idea of how the average person views physician salary. it ain't looking good..

http://news.yahoo.com/medicare-database-reveals-top-paid-doctors-040203220--politics.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Medicare paid a tiny group of doctors $3 million or more apiece in 2012. One got nearly $21 million. Those are among the findings of an Associated Press analysis of physician data released Wednesday by the Obama administration, part of a move to open the books on health care financing.

Topping Medicare's list was Florida ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen, whose relationship with Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., made headlines last year after news broke that the lawmaker used the doctor's personal jet for trips to the Dominican Republic.

Medicare paid Melgen $20.8 million. His lawyer said the doctor's billing conformed with Medicare rules and is a reflection of high drug costs.

AP's analysis found that a small sliver of the more than 825,000 individual physicians in Medicare's claims data base — just 344 physicians — took in top dollar, at least $3 million apiece for a total of nearly $1.5 billion.

AP picked the $3 million threshold because that was the figure used by the Health and Human Services inspector general in an audit last year that recommended Medicare automatically scrutinize total billings above a set level. Medicare says it's working on that recommendation.

About 1 in 4 of the top-paid doctors — 87 of them — practice in Florida, a state known both for high Medicare spending and widespread fraud. Rounding out the top five states were California with 38 doctors in the top group, New Jersey with 27, Texas with 23, and New York with 18.

In the $3 million-plus club, 151 ophthalmologists — eye specialists — accounted for nearly $658 million in Medicare payments, leading other disciplines. Cancer doctors rounded out the top four specialty groups, accounting for a combined total of more than $477 million in payments.

The high number of ophthalmologists in the top tier may reflect the doctors' choice of medications to treat patients with eye problems. Studies have shown that Lucentis, a pricey drug specially formulated for treating macular degeneration, works no better than a much cheaper one, Avastin. But lower-cost Avastin must be specially prepared for use in the eye, and problems with sterility have led many doctors to stick with Lucentis.

Overall, Medicare paid individual physicians nearly $64 billion in 2012.

The median payment — the point at which half the amounts are higher and half are lower — was $30,265.

AP's analysis focused on individual physicians, excluding about 55,000 organizations that also appear in the database, such as ambulance services. None of those entities was paid $3 million or more.

The Medicare claims database is considered the richest trove of information on doctors, surpassing what major insurance companies have in their files. Although Medicare is financed by taxpayers, the data have been off limits to the public for decades. Physician organizations went to court to block its release, arguing it would amount to an invasion of doctors' privacy.

Employers, insurers, consumer groups and media organizations pressed for release. Together with other sources of information, they argued that the data could help guide patients to doctors who provide quality, cost-effective care. A federal judge last year lifted the main legal obstacle to release, and the Obama administration recently informed the American Medical Association it would open up the claims data.

"It will allow us to start putting the pieces together," said Dianne Munevar, a top researcher at the health care data firm Avalare Health. "That is the basis of what payment delivery reform is about."

Doctors' decision-making patterns are of intense interest to researchers who study what drives the nation's $2.8-trillion-a-year health care system. Within the system, physicians act as the main representatives of patients, and their decisions about how to treat determine spending.

"Currently, consumers have limited information about how physicians and other health care professionals practice medicine," said HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "This data will help fill that gap."

The American Medical Association, which has long opposed release of the Medicare database, is warning it will do more harm than good.

The AMA says the files may contain inaccurate information. And even if the payment amounts are correct, the AMA says they do not provide meaningful insights into the quality of care.

"We believe that the broad data dump ... has significant shortcomings regarding the accuracy and value of the medical services rendered by physicians," AMA president Ardis Dee Hoven said. "Releasing the data without context will likely lead to inaccuracies, misinterpretations, false conclusions and other unintended consequences."

The AMA had asked the government to allow individual doctors to review their information prior to its release.

Over time, as researchers learn to mine the Medicare data, it could change the way medicine is practiced in the U.S. Doctor ratings, often based on the opinions of other physicians, would be driven by hard data, like statistics on baseball players. Consumers could become better educated about the doctors in their communities.

For example, if your father is about to undergo heart bypass, you could find out how many operations his surgeon has done in the last year. Research shows that for many procedures, patients are better off going to a surgeon who performs them frequently.

The data could also be used to spot fraud, such as doctors billing for seeing more patients in a day than their office could reasonably be expected to care for.

Medical practice would have to change to accommodate big data. Acting as intermediaries for employers and government programs, insurers could use the Medicare numbers to demand that low-performing doctors measure up. If the data indicated a particular doctor's diabetic patients were having unusually high rates of complications, that doctor might face questions.

Such oversight would probably accelerate trends toward large medical groups and doctors working as employees instead of in small practices.

Melgen, the top-paid physician in 2012, has already come under scrutiny. In addition to allowing the use of his jet, the eye specialist was the top political donor for Menendez as the New Jersey Democrat sought re-election to the Senate that year.

Menendez's relationship with Melgen prompted Senate Ethics and Justice Department investigations. Menendez reimbursed Melgen more than $70,000 for plane trips.

The issue exploded in late January 2013, after the FBI conducted a search of Melgen's West Palm Beach offices. Agents carted away evidence, but law enforcement officials have refused to say why. Authorities declined to comment on the open investigation.
 
Last edited:
Please start being pro-active and educating your family/friends/patients about physician reimbursement and how many hoops we have to go through to even get reimbursed.

Explain how insurance, government, pharma, and hospital administrations dictate prices/reimbursement not doctors. Don't let these stakeholders pin the blame on doctors when they're making billion of dollars every year. Explain that the hospital bill don't go directly to your pocket, that hospitals charge more for aspirin because they have to cover for loses they face from patients who don't pay, are unisured, or when insurance companies and government refuses to reimburse for services rendered. They're doing it for sustainability not to maximize profits.

No other industry has to go through so many hoops to get paid for services rendered. Majority of dentists in private practice/for-profit and make $160,000-$200,000/yr without the academic rigors or years of rigourous residency/fellowship that physicians have to go through (dentists don't have to do a residency), do you see a media campaign against them?

Discuss the fact that doctors have to pay a significant amount for high malpractice insurance/disability insurance.

Only 1% of all doctors will make decisions SOLELY for money at the expense of the patient's best interest while 100% of government and insurance industry will make decisions based only on their interest (government = saving money, insurance industry = profit).

Not all doctors are of equal quality. But never bash another specialty or say they make too much.

Explain over-head costs of operating a clinic and the need to hire staff (nurses, billing managers) because of the burearcacy imposed by the insurance industry and government.

Remind them of the amount of time/education/training/sacrifice/debt that we have to go through before we can be full-fledged doctors (12-15 years of education with hundreds of thousands of debt plus interest and then getting paid minimum wage per hour for several years during residency and fellowship working 60-80+ hrs/week without weekends off or much time off), etc.

Please educate the average person whenever you can. We have government, insurance industry, media, mid-levels all going against our profession. If the government drastically cut salaries for doctors today do you think there would be outrage by the average person? No, the average person has no sympathy for us. If the government hypothetically cut salaries of elementary school teachers would there be outrage? Yes. Ideally, that's the response we should be getting from the average person when it comes to our profession but we need to pro-actively educate them. Especially keep an eye out on nurses who are notorious for telling patients that doctors don't deserve their salaries or complaining of doctors to patients behind the doctors back, nurses have the most interaction with the patient and gain the trust of the patient..patients listen to nurses. So be pro-active if you want to protect your future profession.

Below are some nice comments from the above article by the average person regarding your future salary..

"Doctors are overpaid. The government needs to allow more doctors into the system. I'm not talking about easing standards, but they need to open hundreds of new medical schools and get more quality doctors out there. Today, there is NO competition for pricing. Prices are fixed by the doctors boards that determine reimbursable rates and they are just simply overpaid... Doctors in other countries make no where NEAR this much and the only reason they do hear is collusion and price fixing. "

"Not only the doctors but also whoever is suppose to oversee this fiasco should be prosecuted. "

"This is why doctors make more money than other professions because you got to go to a doctor for your medicine prescriptions. Until robots are perfected, healthcare costs might start going down. In the future, doctors job will be a little bit different. Engineers will be doing all the surgeries. "

"It is great to publish this and put transparency on the table. Many doctors are manipulating the system. The system is cracking, it is crumbling. We need to stop these cheaters. A classical "public goods" case."

probably a nurse:
"I work for a group of physicians in the Chicago area and the amount of Medicare fraud that goes on in these offices is sickening."

"It long past due to be able to address the true medical costs affecting Americans. We have been focusing on who pays (ACA) the bills and not how much we pay. Time to think and act like responsible and intelligent citizens when looking at medical costs. No more special interests guiding us."

"The waste, fraud and corruption in Medicare extends to all ranks. Here's my personal observation/story. My mother in law is in an assisted living facility in Michigan. When we moved her to the facility we were told that there is a doctor associated with the institution who is available for examinations and simple fee for service things that can be conducted on site. It sounded innocuous enough so we agreed that the doctor could look in on my mother in law. Before long, we figured out the following scam was being perpetrated. Once a month without request, invitation or notice, the doctor would go up and down the hallways stopping at each room. Weight, blood pressure and a stethoscope listen. Shortly after, when we reviewed the Medicare reimbursement paperwork, we noticed that each time the doctor conducted one of these five minute pit stops, he was reimbursed about $275 from Medicare. Do the math…75 residents being examined each month $20.625K a month or $247,500 a year. I suspect that the facility that my mother in law is in is not the only one on this doctors route. We were outraged and told the facility to never let this doctor knock on the door again. Others didn't seem to be upset about this. Their comments included ones like- "the government is paying for it so why should I care"? The +$1M annual billers are easy to ID and investigate. The real numbers are in the everyday lower, just below the radar doctors committing these egregious acts. This is why whenever a politician mentions that my taxes have to be raised to fund more government programs, my blood boils."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
We need to start keeping a list of each specialty that the NY Times attacks. Haven't seen them attack Orthopedic Surgery, but I'm sure that's coming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Please start being pro-active and educating your family/friends/patients about physician reimbursement and how many hoops we have to go through to even get reimbursed.

Explain how insurance, government, pharma, and hospital administrations dictate prices/reimbursement not doctors. Don't let these stakeholders pin the blame on doctors when they're making billion of dollars every year. Explain that the hospital bill don't go directly to your pocket, that hospitals charge more for aspirin because they have to cover for loses they face from patients who don't pay, are unisured, or when insurance companies and government refuses to reimburse for services rendered. They're doing it for sustainability not to maximize profits.

No other industry has to go through so many hoops to get paid for services rendered. Majority of dentists in private practice/for-profit and make $160,000-$200,000/yr without the academic rigors or years of rigourous residency/fellowship that physicians have to go through (dentists don't have to do a residency), do you see a media campaign against them?

Discuss the fact that doctors have to pay a significant amount for high malpractice insurance/disability insurance.

Only 1% of all doctors will make decisions SOLELY for money at the expense of the patient's best interest while 100% of government and insurance industry will make decisions based only on their interest (government = saving money, insurance industry = profit).

Not all doctors are of equal quality. But never bash another specialty or say they make too much.

Explain over-head costs of operating a clinic and the need to hire staff (nurses, billing managers) because of the burearcacy imposed by the insurance industry and government.

Remind them of the amount of time/education/training/sacrifice/debt that we have to go through before we can be full-fledged doctors (12-15 years of education with hundreds of thousands of debt plus interest and then getting paid minimum wage per hour for several years during residency and fellowship working 60-80+ hrs/week without weekends off or much time off), etc.

Please educate the average person whenever you can. We have government, insurance industry, media, mid-levels all going against our profession. If the government drastically cut salaries for doctors today do you think there would be outrage by the average person? No, the average person has no sympathy for us. If the government hypothetically cut salaries of elementary school teachers would there be outrage? Yes. Ideally, that's the response we should be getting from the average person when it comes to our profession but we need to pro-actively educate them. Especially keep an eye out on nurses who are notorious for telling patients that doctors don't deserve their salaries or complaining of doctors to patients behind the doctors back, nurses have the most interaction with the patient and gain the trust of the patient..patients listen to nurses. So be pro-active if you want to protect your future profession.

Below are some nice comments from the above article by the average person regarding your future salary..

"Doctors are overpaid. The government needs to allow more doctors into the system. I'm not talking about easing standards, but they need to open hundreds of new medical schools and get more quality doctors out there. Today, there is NO competition for pricing. Prices are fixed by the doctors boards that determine reimbursable rates and they are just simply overpaid... Doctors in other countries make no where NEAR this much and the only reason they do hear is collusion and price fixing. "

"Not only the doctors but also whoever is suppose to oversee this fiasco should be prosecuted. "

"This is why doctors make more money than other professions because you got to go to a doctor for your medicine prescriptions. Until robots are perfected, healthcare costs might start going down. In the future, doctors job will be a little bit different. Engineers will be doing all the surgeries. "

"It is great to publish this and put transparency on the table. Many doctors are manipulating the system. The system is cracking, it is crumbling. We need to stop these cheaters. A classical "public goods" case."

probably a nurse:
"I work for a group of physicians in the Chicago area and the amount of Medicare fraud that goes on in these offices is sickening."

"It long past due to be able to address the true medical costs affecting Americans. We have been focusing on who pays (ACA) the bills and not how much we pay. Time to think and act like responsible and intelligent citizens when looking at medical costs. No more special interests guiding us."

"The waste, fraud and corruption in Medicare extends to all ranks. Here's my personal observation/story. My mother in law is in an assisted living facility in Michigan. When we moved her to the facility we were told that there is a doctor associated with the institution who is available for examinations and simple fee for service things that can be conducted on site. It sounded innocuous enough so we agreed that the doctor could look in on my mother in law. Before long, we figured out the following scam was being perpetrated. Once a month without request, invitation or notice, the doctor would go up and down the hallways stopping at each room. Weight, blood pressure and a stethoscope listen. Shortly after, when we reviewed the Medicare reimbursement paperwork, we noticed that each time the doctor conducted one of these five minute pit stops, he was reimbursed about $275 from Medicare. Do the math…75 residents being examined each month $20.625K a month or $247,500 a year. I suspect that the facility that my mother in law is in is not the only one on this doctors route. We were outraged and told the facility to never let this doctor knock on the door again. Others didn't seem to be upset about this. Their comments included ones like- "the government is paying for it so why should I care"? The +$1M annual billers are easy to ID and investigate. The real numbers are in the everyday lower, just below the radar doctors committing these egregious acts. This is why whenever a politician mentions that my taxes have to be raised to fund more government programs, my blood boils."

The reason I have little respect for our government: They lie.

From the AMA press release (key quotes in red):
__________________________________________
CMS releases Medicare payment data.
CMS’ release of data on Medicare payments was covered by most major US newspapers, with at least five of them placing the story on their front pages, and across the web. Many of the sources point to the debate surrounding the release of the data, and discuss some of the potential ways the data will be put to use, including its potential to help identify fraud. Most sources quote American Medical Association President Dr. Ardis Dee Hoven.

On its front page, the Los Angeles Times (4/9, A1, Terhune, Levey, Smith) reports, “Ending decades of secrecy, Medicare is showing what the giant healthcare program for seniors pays individual” physicians. The Times points out that several physician groups, including the AMA, have been opposed to the release of the data. Dr. Hoven “said the group remained concerned that inaccuracies in the data or misinterpretation might unfairly tar some physicians.” Dr. Hoven “said some individual physicians might appear to be billing huge amounts to Medicare when in fact it is their entire practice that bills under a single physician’s name.”

In a front-page article, the Washington Post (4/9, A1, Whoriskey, Keating, Somashekhar) reports that “Medicare officials said they hope the data will expose fraud, inform consumers and lead to improvements in care.”

USA Today (4/9, Hoyer, Kennedy) reports that the data show “wide variances in reimbursements, procedure costs and what services are provided to Medicare beneficiaries.”

In a 1,200-word front-page story, the New York Times (4/9, A1, Abelson, Cohen, Subscription Publication) reports, “The Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services” issued “a report” last year “recommending greater scrutiny of those physicians who were Medicare’s highest billers.” That “report recommended that Medicare establish a threshold to look more closely at the high billers.” Additionally, “regulators have...said they are scrutinizing the use of high-paying codes in places including the emergency” department.

According to a separate USA Today (4/9, Hoyer, Kennedy) article, CMS spokesman Aaron Albright said, “Deterring improper payments is a top priority of CMS in order to protect beneficiaries and taxpayers.”

Bloomberg News (4/9, Chen, Pearson) reports that Albright added that CMS “is working with our contractors to develop an appropriate cumulative payment threshold that considers costs, as well as potential benefits in determining which claims and providers should be selected for further scrutiny.”

An 1,100-word article on the front page of the Wall Street Journal (4/9, A1, Weaver, McGinty, Radnofsky, Subscription Publication) reports that Jonathan Blum, principal deputy administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, recently said, “We look forward to making this important, new information available so that consumers, Medicare and other payers can get the best value for their health-care dollar.” The article also quotes Dr. Hoven.

The AP (4/9, Alonso-zaldivar, Tumgoren) reports that Dr. Hoven said, “We believe that the broad data dump ... has significant shortcomings regarding the accuracy and value of the medical services rendered by physicians.”

In a separate article, Bloomberg News (4/9, Pettypiece, Wayne) reports that Dr. Hoven said, “We are bracing for some significant unintended consequences.” Dr. Hoven added, “Patients may not get the right data and the outliers are going to have to stop what they are doing and be replying to folks day after day when nothing is out of kilter and they are just doing their jobs.”

In a Los Angeles Times (4/9) op-ed, Charles Ornstein, a senior reporter at ProPublica, writes that “Medicare should be applauded for its new release of data, and it should continue to do more.” Ornstein argues that “it should also encourage private insurers and other public programs to follow suit.”

A Bloomberg View (4/8) editorial praises the release of the data, arguing that it will help to spot instances of fraud. According to the editorial, “Medicare money is public money, and it must be vigorously safeguarded.” Bloomberg View adds, “For too long, criminals have been able to find both opportunity and anonymity within the system’s labyrinth.”

The AMA Wire (4/9) reports that the AMA has “released guidance (4/8) outlining the data set’s nine primary limitations that people need to consider when evaluating physicians’ information.” Also covering the story are Modern Healthcare (4/9, Carlson, Subscription Publication), Bloomberg BusinessWeek (4/8, Waldman), Reuters (4/9, Begley, Pell), and the Tennessean (4/8, DuBois).
______________________________________________


The government is stating they are just releasing all the data to protect everyone and to prevent fraud. 100% Grade A BS. Everyone knew the media would just focus on those billing millions of dollars (a few hundred doctors). How in the world does this help the government prevent fraud. They already know the 300 or so physicians with exorbitant billing totals. Furthermore, you don't need to bill millions to commit fraud. You can do that billing only $100,000.

A corollary would be to break into the dean's office of a university and then release everyone's test scores and grades. Then ask the public to figure out which students are cheaters.

This is the dumbest stunt ever. The government knows it and they are just playing a game of bad public relations. It's pretty sad that our government behaves like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Yup. Wish they could get someone to examine that military spending so vigilantly. That would be a laughing stock.
 
Yup. Wish they could get someone to examine that military spending so vigilantly. That would be a laughing stock.

Oh, you mean this?

The United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined in 2011.
4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/


Being transparent or frugal with military spending is unpatriotic and threatens our safety!:hungover:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Knowing the Obama administration, this is probably the prelude to some gigantic push to slash physician reimbursements lol. One wonders why the government hates us so much...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Knowing the Obama administration, this is probably the prelude to some gigantic push to slash physician reimbursements lol. One wonders why the government hates us so much...

cause we are easy targets and we don't do anything to fight back? they aren't going to target the big business kids cause they support their campaign w donations. they dont target lawyers b/c they can fight back since they are lawyers.. doctors? nope. can't do anything.
 
900000 doctors earning $200 billion dollars have a lot of power. We just harness it. At all.

Physicians have some weird schadenfreude satisfaction if their coworkers suffer. Primary care loves seeing cuts to specialists and specialists don't care if PCPs can't keep their lights on.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Physicians have some weird schadenfreude satisfaction if their coworkers suffer. Primary care loves seeing cuts to specialists and specialists don't care if PCPs can't keep their lights on.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
I don't think the word satisfaction is required in your sentence. :p
 
It would have been required if my autocorrect hadn't changed schadenfreudian to schadenfreude.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Physicians have some weird schadenfreude satisfaction if their coworkers suffer. Primary care loves seeing cuts to specialists and specialists don't care if PCPs can't keep their lights on.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Go into med mal and screw them all.
 
Physicians have some weird schadenfreude satisfaction if their coworkers suffer. Primary care loves seeing cuts to specialists and specialists don't care if PCPs can't keep their lights on.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I remember an old post on SDN from a medical student saying he/she "can't wait when the money [reimbursement] is gone" for surgery, because of a "malignant" surgery rotation. That student is a resident or attending now. And his example has probably been repeated thousands of times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Physicians have some weird schadenfreude satisfaction if their coworkers suffer. Primary care loves seeing cuts to specialists and specialists don't care if PCPs can't keep their lights on.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I think both relationships feed off eachother, honestly. It's a vicious cycle.
 
I remember an old post on SDN from a medical student saying he/she "can't wait when the money [reimbursement] is gone" for surgery, because of a "malignant" surgery rotation. That student is a resident or attending now. And his example has probably been repeated thousands of times.

Yup, MS-3 can definitely color your view of a specialty. The reason is bc the norms in Surgery are very different from the norms on IM vs. Peds vs. Psych, etc. I knew a guy who was so angry after his MS-3 experience, after his MD he went to law school, got his JD, and now sues doctors for malpractice for a living. He thoroughly enjoys it deep down, esp. due to his former experience. Perfect revenge, I think, IMHO.
 
Yup, MS-3 can definitely color your view of a specialty. The reason is bc the norms in Surgery are very different from the norms on IM vs. Peds vs. Psych, etc. I knew a guy who was so angry after his MS-3 experience, after his MD he went to law school, got his JD, and now sues doctors for malpractice for a living. He thoroughly enjoys it deep down, esp. due to his former experience. Perfect revenge, I think, IMHO.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
Top