Unsettling trend in dermpath and non-dermpath

[dermpathlover]

I have been hearing about more and more instances where dermatology, urology and GI groups are setting up arrangements with pathologists where basically they split the fee for the pathologist's services. In other words the derm group bills for the pathology services and then gives the pathologist half of that or 70% of whatever the agreement is. They know that the pathology market is so cut-throat that they can find some path group that will take the smallest precentage possible. This is reportedly going on in Radiology also.

This basically means that dermies, uros and gastros are getting a fee for a service they aren't providing. Doesn't that seem unethical? Shouldn't state medical boards be putting a stop to this? What is the CAP doing to remedy this?

Pathologists should stand united and all say F-off, and say this is our territory, this is what we do, we read the f'n slides, and we should get 100% of whatever compensation we are legally entitled to.

I swear it will be just a matter of time before dermies and uros start telepathing the stuff over to India and paying them a couple bucks to read out the routine cases while they pocket the $50 or whatever the insurance companies pay for a histologic diagnosis. In fact, if we were smart we would start trying to set that up and market it to the uros and dermies and Gastros. Basically they could add the salary of a pathologist to their already nice salaries.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LADoc00]

I have been hearing about more and more instances where dermatology, urology and GI groups are setting up arrangements with pathologists where basically they split the fee for the pathologist's services. In other words the derm group bills for the pathology services and then gives the pathologist half of that or 70% of whatever the agreement is. They know that the pathology market is so cut-throat that they can find some path group that will take the smallest precentage possible. This is reportedly going on in Radiology also.

This basically means that dermies, uros and gastros are getting a fee for a service they aren't providing. Doesn't that seem unethical? Shouldn't state medical boards be putting a stop to this? What is the CAP doing to remedy this?

Pathologists should stand united and all say F-off, and say this is our territory, this is what we do, we read the f'n slides, and we should get 100% of whatever compensation we are legally entitled to.

I swear it will be just a matter of time before dermies and uros start telepathing the stuff over to India and paying them a couple bucks to read out the routine cases while they pocket the $50 or whatever the insurance companies pay for a histologic diagnosis. In fact, if we were smart we would start trying to set that up and market it to the uros and dermies and Gastros. Basically they could add the salary of a pathologist to their already nice salaries.

Ive already thought long and hard about this. Its all about: {"Total medicine". Meaning FNA clinic, health spa, clinical dermatology with biopsies, f-ck it throw in laser hair removal and dermabrasion/photonic therapies.

Then you tell the local docs:

 

[juddson]

This is a crime, no? As I understand it, doctors are not permitted to split fees unless the work was also apportioned. Likewise, I'm pretty sure that "referral fees" are also illegal in medicine. The arrangement you describe also sounds suspiciously like insurance fraud. I cannot image any pathologist who would be willing to split he fee (in any proportion) with a clinician.

Judd

 

[dermpathlover]

This is a crime, no? As I understand it, doctors are not permitted to split fees unless the work was also apportioned. Likewise, I'm pretty sure that "referral fees" are also illegal in medicine. The arrangement you describe also sounds suspiciously like insurance fraud. I cannot image any pathologist who would be willing to split he fee (in any proportion) with a clinician.

Judd

I thought so too, but it goes on all the time.

It happens in rads too. I heard a story about a group of neurosurgeons who opened their own back surgery hospital that had its own MRI. Previously, for years they had the local radiologist group read the radiology and asked them if they would give them a cut to read it at their new boutique hospital. The radiologists said no, so the neurosurgeons found a group of radiologists in another state that would do it and give up a percentage to the neurosurgeons. So now the neurosurgeons are making money off the surgeries, and by owning their own surgery center, and by performing the MRI, and getting a percentage of the reading of the MRI. Such greed.

We really need state medical boards to put a stop to this.