Recs

31

Your Doctor Is Killing You ... Financially

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

Health care costs are too high. Solving that problem is complex, but I do know one person who controls a lot of what's spent -- someone who might be able to alleviate some financial pain. I speak, of course, of your doctor.

A prescription for trouble
In the comments of an article I wrote yesterday, Fool reader Walker6464 pretty much nails the main problem: "Doctors get paid by the test, by the operation, by the procedure. Thus they have an incentive to do more tests and procedure, not provide better health care."

Can you imagine if the mechanics -- car "doctors" -- who work at the Ford (NYSE: F  ) , Toyota (NYSE: TM  ) , or Honda (NYSE: HMC  ) dealership worked in the same fashion? You'd go in for a simple repair, and they'd want to run a few tests "just in case."

There are a couple of reasons why your mechanic isn't killing you financially, and why Washington isn't abuzz about car-care reform. (Do you support the "public carburetor option?") First, as Whole Foods Market (Nasdaq: WFMI  ) CEO John Mackey explained, most people don't know the true cost of their health care. This leads to a simple, "Whatever you say, doc" when doctors order additional services. If they followed their mechanics' lead and handed out estimates, we might see patients responding differently to requests to perform additional services.

The other difference is who's footing the bill. Customers pay for their mechanic's services, but with health insurance, you're basically on the all-you-can-eat plan once you've paid your co-pay and deductible. If Medicare and health insurers like UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH  ) , WellPoint (NYSE: WLP  ) , and Aetna (NYSE: AET  ) paid doctors flat fees for treating medical problems, rather than paying them for a smorgasbord of procedures and actions, doctors' desire to cut costs would be aligned with their patients'.

Asking doctors to take on the financial risk for the inevitable patients who will be more difficult to treat won't be an easy sell, however, and it won't solve the other major problem that leads to high health care costs.

You're paying two insurance bills
Part of the charges from your doctor that you pay through your health insurance premiums go toward covering the doctor's malpractice insurance premiums. That high cost is linked to the chance of the doctor being sued, and the amount that the insurance company might be on the hook for.

If we lower the likelihood of winning a case against doctors, or the potential damages through tort reform, malpractice insurance costs will likely come down, reducing costs to the patient.

How much we could save, and whether the savings are worth the effort to restrict awards to patients who've been wronged by a doctor's mistake, is certainly up for debate. (Feel free to express yourself in the comment box at the bottom of the article.) However, it's clear that limiting lawsuits would reduce overall costs, if the savings from less expensive malpractice insurance and claims are passed onto consumers. Pair that with improving best practices, and the regulation of malpractice insurance, and some serious savings could result.

The government isn't helping
Perhaps the biggest health-care "waste" doesn't even come from the tests and services that benefit you. Instead, you're indirectly paying for costs incurred by Medicare and the uninsured.

Medicare pays doctors at a lower rate than private health insurers, and it continues to try and shrink that cost. Doctors were slated to take a 21% cut in Medicare reimbursement this fiscal year. But doctors have fixed costs no matter who is paying the bills, so doctors who take Medicare patients need to make up the difference in payments by charging health insurers at higher levels. The same holds true for the uninsured patients whom hospitals are required to treat. Those people may be visiting the hospital without paying a bill, but someone is covering the costs the hospital incurs.

The solution here is mandated health insurance. As our neighbors across the pond have learned, sharing the cost between the sick and the relatively healthy can average out the costs, although it's unlikely that it'll lower society's total health care bill all that much.

What do you think? Are doctors the problem, or is there a better way to solve the health-care crisis? Let us know in the comments section, below.

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

UnitedHealth and Whole Foods are Motley Fool Stock Advisor recommendations. UnitedHealth and WellPoint are Inside Value recommendations. Try any of our Foolish newsletters today, free for 30 days.

Fool contributor Brian Orelli, Ph.D., doesn't own shares of any company mentioned in this article. The Fool owns shares of UnitedHealth and has a disclosure policy.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 4:43 PM, brewfool760 wrote:

    There are limits to damages in California relative to workers compensation injuries. That is one of the tools used to control costs. This is foolishly similar. Given proper time and analysis, we should limit damages that can be recovered from victims of true malpractice. That is not to say that the price of the life of a 25 year-old college educated female is truly worth say $10 million for example, but I would rather have the dollar costs of damages controled by the people's representatives that a judge or jury. Having that in place will surely go a long way in driving down malpractice costs. The competitive market will eventually drive those savings down to the consumers and have the added benefit of not forcing doctors to feel like they have prescribe potentially unncessary procedures and drugs.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 5:07 PM, TxTom wrote:

    I really don't understand. My "car doctor" runs tests and then charges only for work that absolutely needs to be done.

    I'm not saying that all auto mechanics are honest, and of course neither are all doctors. But they could all be, and still make very good wages. Greed rules in our society.

    Oh well, that is a bit like "honest politicians", isn't it? Another oxymoron...

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 5:12 PM, carlsz wrote:

    Tort reform has a two fold effect. One mentioned above is the direct benefit, reduced liability insurance premiums, but don't discount the massive out lay that Defensive Medicine imposes.

    Why do you think Doctors order so many tests? Maybe they are worried about the rare malady that is missed. Needless to say, this number is hard to define and hence you end up with misinformed federal officials claiming tort reform would not have a large effect on health care expenditures. That is quite simply pandering to their largest contributors (med malpractice lawyers)!

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 5:41 PM, narmer71 wrote:

    In most parts of the country docs are salaried employees of University medical centers, hospitals or insurance companies. Of the 880,000 docs in the US about half actually treat patients. The number of docs willing to do difficult and dangerous things is small and shrinking rapidly. As I retired surgeon, I can tell you that about 50% of the tests that I ordered were for medicolegal reasons. When I asked for an ultrasound, the radiologist (salaried by the hospital) had to protect herself. Thus the reports were vague raising more questions then suppling answers. The report would strongly suggest that a CT or MRI be ordered.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 5:46 PM, narmer71 wrote:

    The docs are not afraid of missing some rare problem. They know that in court a picture counts alot more than their history and physical exam. They are afraid that years later the patient is going to have a problem that the experts will testify would have been discovered if the surgeon had just ordered one more test.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 5:55 PM, djdd11 wrote:

    I think the above issues are the symptoms. In my opinion, the root cause is the issue of moral hazard for all parties. Patients and doctors are less concern with costs when the insurancce company is footing the bill, while the insurance company is also less concern because they will ultimate get their money eventually.

    We can look to the education system for answers to resolve this issue. Education comes in all shape and sizes too, but the costs and quality (performance) of different schools or colleges are public knowledge. Although education costs are high too, they are manageable unlike healthcare.

    If only every patient knows the successes/failures (as well as costs) of each patient care by all doctors, clinics, and hospitals. This information will provide us a simple basis for us to differentiate the rotten egg from the good, and if the costs are justified, and nail the costs. That could help pin down the responsible party and avoid the moral hazard to manage the healthcare costs.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Coreygranny wrote:

    The other half of this equation is the pharmaceutial companies. Drug costs are rising faster than any other facet of health care, and drugs don't cure disease - they merely mask symptoms and create other problems with their side effects. We should eliminate the HMOs (along with their administrative costs) and go back to the insurance model of 80/20 - the insurance pays 80% and the insured pays 20% of all procedures and office visits. That should simplify insurance claims and dramatically reduce administrative costs. Then doctors should eliminate the cause of the problem instead of masking it.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 6:04 PM, afleetfeet wrote:

    Are you seriously comparing my body to a Chevy? If a car's engine quits working because I wouldn't have a test done, so what? If my heart stops working because I wouldn't get a test done...I DIE.

    No wonder you are called fools.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 6:05 PM, BenLMoon wrote:

    I think it's clear that for-profit insurance companies are at the root of many of our health care costs and imbalances; they should be converted to pools of regulated non-profit insurers, such that savings go back into the common funding pool rather than to dividends or executive pay. It's also clear that allowing the healthy to opt out of healthcare coverage causes the burden to fall only on those who choose to buy insurance; universal coverage should be mandated and subsidized where necessary. Physicians should be self-policing, carrying reasonable insurance to compensate medical mistakes without litigation. Competitive shopping for procedures and prescription drugs should be mandated, and uniform physician charges and drug charges should be posted. I'm pessimistic--none of our fearless leaders have either the vision or the courage to even broach those subjects, much less debate them.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 6:12 PM, driller101 wrote:

    News Flash: Health care and car repair are not the same.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 6:20 PM, md4god wrote:

    Okay, good points about malpractice and tort reform. You do not want to prevent a person who is truly injured because of negligence by a healthcare professional -doctor, nurse ,dentist,etc., to obtain compensation for the error. But the costs should be limited to actual costs with a limit on the "pain and suffering" Tort reform has reduced significantly the cost of malpractice insurance. An Obstetrician on Long Island pays over $200,000.00 per year (no tort reform in NY) while the same doctor will pay in a tort reform state (Texas) only about $80,000.00 per year. How about passing tort reform nationally and consider all the money not paid to insurance companies to protect against lawsuits (most of which are not valid). Let's take just 20% of that money saved by the Doctor and have them give it to an expense fund to help pay for the uninsured. Consider $20k times all the OB docs in NY. How much is that and just considering the OB docs.

    What about the corporate liability expenses that are passed off on to the doctors and hospitals who need equipment. That too is driving up costs as more income is needed to pay expenses. The lawyers are not helping us here are they?

    Now about the testing by doctors, yes the risk of being sued for exorbitant amounts does play a role in decision making so as not to miss a rare problem. And there are trends in the medical community to limit tests that have shown to be unecessary. For example chest xrays prior to an operation have been ordered on a regular basis for a long time. However, this test has had very little impact on discovering new diseses or changing the way a patient would be treated. So those tests have been cut back as routine, but not everywhere and it takes time and education to get that across.

    However, what happens if your mechanic make a mistake? You bring the car back and they try again. Is that how you want your life to be handled. "Well lets try this and then if that's not it just come back, if your still alive." No, we want to find out what is wrong with us and so do the doctors. For some reason the perception of these people who have spent at least 11- 15 years of their lives in education and training while working grueling hours is one of greedy, heartless monsters. How synical can we get?Most doctors do not get paid more for doing tests and the main incentive for all the doctors I know is to take care of their patients to help them stay or get healthy.

    Also, the mechanic is dealing with a machine, the doctor is dealing with a biological system that is very complicated and does not always respond the same way with each individual. Therefore, the mechanic comparison is rather poor in my opinion.

    Oh, let's not forget the insurance companies. Why are there billions of dollars of profit in an industry that is in so much trouble financially. Well, think about it. The CEO's take huge salaries and bonuses while the hospitals can't meet budget, this is wrong and needs to be fixed. Maybe the money is out there but in the wrong pockets?

    Let's not blame the dedicated professionals who work diligently to improve your health. Instead let's look at the system that puts the money in the hands of the people that are exploiting the lives of the people of our country with ridiculous insurance premiums and frivolous lawsuits.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 6:30 PM, opinioned wrote:

    Let's reorganize the health care system, and base it on townships, a governmental area of 36 square miles in most states, for taxing purposes. In metropolitan areas there are about 250,000 people living in a township, so it becomes manageable with respect to administration and collections. Everyone would be taxed to pay for health care (whether they used it or not, just as everyone, through taxes, pays for public schools, whether they use them or not) instead of paying insurance premiums. In exchange for a virtual monopoly for a determined number of years, at a bidded and contractual rate, the winning insurance company as prime contractor has to provide coverage for all living persons in that township. Said insurance company pays for the hospital, doctors etc., and a dissenting individual always has the right to acquire privately-provided health care, just as he has the right to send his kids to private schools instead of "the public option."

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 6:36 PM, ettenib wrote:

    Good article. Well thought out. But please let me add my 20 cents worth. I am a physician. I work in an Emergency Room. I get paid by the hour ... just like the car doctor. I get paid the same weather I see 1 patient or 10. The same if I order 1 test or 10. So why do I order 10 tests for a minor problem that doesn't need a single test at all? Because I have a target on my back. I'm a lottery ticket. A mexican illegal might sue me and spend the rest of his illegal life living it up on the money I worked hard all my life to save!! And why am I treating non-American speaking illegals anyways? Shouldn't I be calling the INS to come get them and haul them back to the border? They are illegal, committing a crime, and their punishment (reward) is free (American taxpayer sponsored) healthcare!! And maybe a winning, multimillion dollar, lottery ticket if I don't order enough test to cover my assets!! Furthermore, when a doctor orders another test, it is not because the revenue comes to him (please read up on the Stark Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_Law), but rather that he/she does not become another victim of malpractice. I know a lot of physicians and I don't know of one that pockets extra money by ordering more tests ... except maybe one, but she's just weird anyways!!! That's my 20 cents worth.

    ettenib

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 6:40 PM, mrlly wrote:

    I love how there is so much comment about doctors by NON physicians! Very few of you ask or even really take the time to LISTEN to the doctors. I am a nurse practitioner and my husband is a rural family practice physician. Rural means that most of our clients are Medicare and Medicaid or CHOOSE not to have insurance.

    Believe me, we do not get any kind of kick back for the tests we order. The way my husband and I practice is we give the patient our differential diagnosis and we try to inform our patients and they are usually offered as many options as we can safely offer them. The decision is ultimately up to them...YET they can always sue if ANYTHING goes wrong. You bet we practice defensive medicine! Luckily, we know most all of our patients and our patients know us and that we truly are trying to look out for their best interests and yet try to give them the most cost-effective care as possible.

    We live in a state where there is a limit to how much a person can sue. Our neighboring state, Missouri, does not have torte reform. It is amazing how there is such disparity just across the state line because of this difference in torte limits.

    Medicine is an art...there are often different options with different outcomes. The problem is that people have developed this sense of entitlement and truly believe that doctors and hospitals have deep pockets. I have to say, it is the people who are not required to be responsible with their spending that are the worst. It is Medicaid that is killing us. Although I am happy to see people use the medical card when they need it, there unfortunately are some MAJOR problems. Often these people do not even know how much they are spending. Here in KS there is a $2 co-pay for Medicaid to see their primary care physician at the office, yet it costs nothing to go to the ER. Where do most people show up? In the ER--the most expensive point of care.

    I don't think that it should cost alot of money but maybe there should be a $6 charge for an ER visit. Maybe people would think about if it is truly an emergency then it would be worth the $6--rather than seeing the child who coughed ONCE at MIDNIGHT! This is not true of every medical card user, but unfortunately is actually has become the norm and NOT the exception. It is these people who DEMAND the antibiotic despite the fact that we just told them that it is most likely a viral illness and antibiotics are not appropriate. These are the ones who DEMAND alot of unnecessary procedures and treatments.

    The largest amount of our health care dollars go to the area of health care where there is the least amount of reimbursement. A level 3 office visit is $70. Someone without insurance would pay that $70. Someone with Blue Cross or private pay would pay their co-pay and then the insurance company would decide if the office visit was worth $70. Medicare will pay only 80% and me being a nurse practitioner, I get only 80% of that 80%. So, for an office visit where I might spend 20 minutes with a patient I would get paid about $44.80 and my husband would get paid $56. That sounds like a lot? Well, ok now we have to pay staff and utilities and supplies out of that as well as insurance and benefits for our staff as well as proficiency testing for our lab--which is of course in the thousands of dollars. Medicaid on the other hand pays significantly less. Medicaid pays about $18 for that same visit.

    So, now you see it is everyone else who is paying for the Medicaid visits.

    Now there is legislation to limit payment to the doctors/health care providers depending on outcome of their patients. Sounds good on the surface, but so many times we try and counsel our patients on good, healthy lifestyles and yet it is ultimately up to them to choose. Time after time I see them back in the clinic and they have not exercised. (Heck! I do not exercise and eat every time like I instruct my patients.) All too often it is like we are standing on a bridge and we are pulling on a rope that our patient has tied around their waist and they are hanging there wanting us to pull them up. We pull and pull and struggle and work and try to help them out financially and socially as well has physically as much as we can and yet they hang there with their ropes around their waist. Sometimes we even get them up to the edge of the bridge after much pulling but then they throw themselves off again!

    Believe me, most of us are definitely not in medicine for the money. It is for those times when we really can help someone. The problem is that there are more regulations, more people who are throwing themselves off that bridge, more people with a sense of entitlement that do not want to take any self-responsibility, and generally more frustration.

    Believe me, with Obama care, we are going to see our local hospital fold...We just will not be able to keep it open--even tho it is critical access. Working through the numbers our clinic will close as well.

    People will spend thousands of dollars on unregulated herbs and yet refuse to take their blood pressure medicine that we have painstakingly tried to get them the cheapest price for. People still choose to smoke and yet do not want to pay for the consequences, where as they could smoke 1/2 a pack less and put that money away in an account that could be used later for their chest x-ray because of a suspicious cough.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 7:22 PM, DDHv wrote:

    The thing that best proves the current health care legislation is about control, rather than health, is the part where it FORBIDS patients to pay for better health care with their own money. Come on - mass production means the rich are guinea pigs for the rest of us, once something is proved out many work to make it less costly. mrily and husband are not the only skilled medical people out there. But they can't do their best work with one hand tied behind their back.

    I'd start any real health reform with tort reform. But lawyers are major factors in the laws we get today.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 7:33 PM, bs1934 wrote:

    I guess it depends on what specialty you are in. A dermatologist makes out like a bandit if my uncle's bill is a valid example. Time spent in doctor's office for skin biopsy, then back to have it removed. 1 hour max. Bill$ over 3K. #2 my mother in law had a severe stroke. The "end of life" consultation was to allow her to pass as she was 85 and the doc said she would never speak or walk again. 5 days in the hospital lying in bed with only fluids on IVs. The bill was over 60K. Whadda we care? We only got stuck with $800. What a deal if you have insurance. I raised so much caine the hospital called and explained to me that one insurer would only pay 6K and another 12K. If you don't have insurance, well you better not have any assets. I guess if everybody had insurance, this problem, at least, would go away. The dermatologist? He's over paid anyway. He has his Carerra parked in the car port. Things can't be too bad.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 7:48 PM, hbolourchi wrote:

    The real cost imposed by the lawyers in not just higher premium. It is the "defensive" practice of medicine which really raises the cost. Doctors have to prove and document that everything they do is right without any doubt. So instead of a simple $20 x-ray a $1000 CAT scan is ordered or if patient needs blood test once a year it's ordered 3 times a year to show that the doctor "was innocent beyond reasonable doubt" instead of him being innocent until "proved otherwise".

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 8:12 PM, Wyvern437 wrote:

    mrily - right on! You definitely have it nailed. Our doctors are killing us? Certainly there are crooked, greedy doctors. We aren't holograms like on Star Trek. We're human and have human failings. I have a friend who is an ENT and plastic surgeon. His training after college lasted 15 years or more. While he was in the Army, he was not allowed to be stationed outside the USA because he was too valuable to risk. His request to serve in Afghanistan or Iraq was denied. He rebuilt any number of soldiers' faces blown to hell.

    Let me tell you, he loves money. Now that he's out, he works like mad earning it. However, he will do life-threatening surgeries on children with cancer that almost no one else will touch because he's that good, that compassionate, and that brave. If you take care of kids and there's a bad outcome, you're almost certain to be sued and ANY jury is going to nail you because it was a child. It doesn't matter that the surgery was the child's only chance to live and that the parents were briefed in detail on all the risks and that they signed a stack of legal documents saying that they understood the risks.

    Like narmer71 wrote above, the number of doctors willing to difficult, dangerous things is dropping rapidly.

    My friend likes money so he does all kinds of cosmetic procedures for people more interested in being pretty than in keeping their money. He also rebuilds the faces of people horribly injured and disfigured in accidents of all kinds. He loves money; however, if you need someone to save your child from a cancer in his area of surgical expertise or if one of your loved ones has had their face destroyed by some calamity, you want him. You do not want someone who is mediocre or merely good and doing it out of the goodness of his heart for a minimal fee.

    He'll probably die poor because he spends that money. He helps keep a lot of people employed. He likes his big house and can't stop with the renovations/add-ons. He loves his boats, his cars, his vacations, etc. Dr. Trickle Down is one of my nicknames for him. He makes a lot of money, but it is nowhere near as much as most professional ball players who are merely entertainers. Who is actually worth more to our society, anyway?

    As you can tell this is one of my favorite soapboxes. Yes, our healthcare system has problems. It needs reform. Rounding up the doctors and paying them $75,000 per year won't fix it. Cleaning up the fraud, waste and abuse will help but it's only a start. There are answers but they have to be found, thought through and instituted wisely.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 8:59 PM, DrCoolD wrote:

    Ettinib, who works in an ER, talks about the Stark laws prohibiting self-referral for imaging, but when the Stark laws (I and II) were enacted, several specialty societies managed to get an "in-office ancillary" exception to the law, the rationale being that an x-ray is so fundamental to the practice of orthopedics, for example, that orthopods should be allowed to have it in their office. Because the law did not specify what KINDS of imaging are permitted under the in-office exception, orthopedic surgeons have taken full advantage and installed MRI scanners in their offices, often cheap 3rd hand scanners, as a way to "capture their ancillaries". The same thing has happened with nuclear cardiology ("stress tests") and echocardiography, and is happening with oncologists and PET and CT scanners. There have been numerous academic articles proving that once these high tech machines are installed in a self-referring practice, utlization (number of scans per patient seen) goes up many-fold. In most cases, there is no quality control, patients are told that they will be scanned "in house" and of course want to believe in their doctor's integrity so they go along, and the reimbursement is the same whether your capital cost for a scanner is $10,000 or a million. The situation is about as anti-competitive as you can possibly imagine. Why is this happening? Some do it out of pure greed. Many or most feel so deeply aggrieved at cuts in reimbursement over the last 20 years that they feel installing these scanners is the only way to maintain (or improve!) their income and lifestyle. An update to the Stark laws should absolutely be part of the current healthcare legislation, but the government is afraid of jeopardizing the fragile support they have from the AMA.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 9:13 PM, majudd wrote:

    As a doctor, I am quite insulted at one of the basic premises of your article - that I would order tests or do procedures just to make money. Our wonderful president has suggested the same thing, so maybe you are just buying into his rhetoric. Most of the time tests and procedures are done by OTHER facilites that have no connection to me.

    Deal with this: Most doctors order tests for one of two reasons. One, because the standard of care tells us to. Or two, because we are afraid of being sued, because the "standard of care" is no guarantee from being sued for millions. Ever wondered what it is like to interact with 40 people a day always wondering if one is going to take you for everything you own?

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 10:03 PM, DrCoolD wrote:

    I fully understand majudd's indignation, and it is true that most doctors do not benefit financially from the tests that they order, and that protection from lawsuits drives a lot of testing, as does patient expectation ("if you don't order that MRI for my sore back you are a bad doctor"). However, if you have seen what goes on with in-office high-tech imaging, you will know what I am talking about. Sure, few unneeded x-rays are ordered when they only pay $10-20, but if you've got an MRI machine that gets reimbursed $500-1000 per scan, and your patients think you're a good doctor when you order lots of MRIs, what do you think happens? If business is slow this month and the lease payment on that machine is coming due, why not order an MRI on that fracture, just to be sure there is nothing else going on? Why do you think cardiologists have by and large stopped doing nuclear cardiology in hospitals and put them in their offices? Because they can make more money off of that machine than they can by seeing patients - $1000-$2500 is typical range. It's just human nature. I've personally seen it happen, and although I sympathize with the economic pressures faced by specialists it saddens me to see how ethically compromised they have become.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2009, at 11:59 PM, yahsure2 wrote:

    Are you kidding me? As an emergency physician I completely agree with majudd. I get paid hourly so there is absolutely no increase in my pay for ordering tests. Further, the suggestion that we do this routinely to increase our pay is insulting, especially in my environment.

    However, there is a third reason for doing testing and that's patients want their tests. I work in a system that compensates a portion of my pay based on customer satisfaction. How satisfied do you think patients are when I try to do only the tests I feel are medically indicated but ones they really want/believe they need? Not very.

    Regarding malpractice -- I have first hand experience with tort reform. Practicing in Texas in 2000 my malpractice was $16k/year. By 2002 it was $64k/year. I do not have any malpractice claims/suits against me. Tort reform occurred in 2004 and my insurance dropped back to $24k/year. Tort reform works.

    Finally, the comment above by Dr.CoolD about cardiologists bringing their studies to their offices. I feel that some of the pressure to do this is related to the decreasing reimbursement from payors for care. This is the specialists attempt at evening out these losses.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 12:14 AM, mullinkay wrote:

    We, I am afraid, have given the key to the chicken coop away to the fox. The legal profession makes a great deal of money from suits against doctors, hospitals, and the drug company. About 80 percent of the people sitting in congress are lawyers. There would be nothing wrong with this, if they had the moral fibre to put the welfare of the nation ahead of personal interests. They have, or should have, the knowledge required to deal with law making.

    However, it would seem that far too many of them are self-serving weasels, more interested in fathering illegitimate children, or in the persuit of a good bottle of Scotch as anything else. The sum of money that ends up in the tort lawer's pocket each year is huge.

    The worst part is that is but the tip of the iceburg. There are countless tests ordered by doctors every day in an attempt to avoid a law suit.

    Add to this the huge premiums paid for liability insurance and you have a mind-boggling sum, all of it spent to cure little or nothing.

    To rub salt into the wound, an illegal alien walks into an emergency room. He recieves treatment, but the doctor misses something. A tort lawyer takes it to court. They each have two million after the four million settlement. Both enjoy a good laugh at tax payer expense. Why is the illegal entiled to anything? He was breaking the law by being there, and was stealing just like a man who walked in and pointed a gun at the cashier. Instead of an award, the illegal should get a year or two of making small rocks out of big ones twelve hours a day in a hot sun, and deported to wherever he came from.

    Congress can not solve the health care problem, because they are a very big part of it.

    Farm Boy

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 5:34 AM, FarmBoy2CityBoy wrote:

    I once had a teacher who said the country would survive as long as the good people outnumbered the bad. Unfortunately, I am beginning to believe this is not true. It seems that it does not take too many bad people to create a disproportionate amount of harm. I am not hopeful. I see America in decline. Greed and corruption seem to be triumphing, and wise and good people are defeated at every turn.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 9:18 AM, DrCoolD wrote:

    I am in complete agreement with yahsure about the issues in emergency medicine. I may even agree that specialists were initially motivated to move imaging into their offices as a way to offset declining reimbursement for cognitive work - talking to patients and developing treatment plans. However, the temptation to overutilize is so great that I fear most specialists can't help themselves - that's why we need laws to prevent this practice. Maryland actually has such a law on their books for high-tech imaging services, but it has mostly not been enforced and is being challenged by the specialty societies who stand to have these lucrative sidelines cut off.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 10:52 AM, kellan45 wrote:

    when you read the mottlyfool and most it seems of it's sucriber...just the BIG GOV LIB !!!!

    thats all you need to now!

    if these people and ideas win goodby liberty

    thank you for your time

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 11:42 AM, Bubbalooey wrote:

    Brian, unfortunately, you lost me on the first two paragraphs. Unfortunately, that doesn't bode well in an article that attempts to persuade. Walker6464, unfortunately does not nail the problem, and my guess is that he must have a pretty sore thumb. The suggestion that the profit motive is the primary driver behind physician behavior is, for the vast majority of physicians, insulting (again, not a good idea in a persuasive paper) and wrong. And comparing a physician to a mechanic is simplistic and absurd in the extreme. I am a slow typist and have neither the time or the energy to address that in detail, but let me just make a couple of points. The mechanic does not take a Hippocratic oath. A mechanic does not train for 11- 18 years after high school or work 80 - 120 hours a week for 3-10 years during residency. A mechanic has no personal relationship with, or responsibility to a car. The car is not going to sue him. A mechanic's liability for a mistake approaches zero when compared with a physician's. Mechanics work from 8-5. Most physican's hours are not quite so easy. The anguish a physician feels when he or she makes a serious mistake is probably two to three orders of magnitude worse than when a mechanic replaces the wrong part or doesn't fix the noise or the leak.

    I hope you are starting to get my drift. I would agree with most of what the other docs above have to say.

    That is not to say that there are not serious problems with the current system. In my opinion, removing any profit motive from medical care is the place to start. The book, Money Driven Medicine, by Maggie Mahar, is a nice introduction to the problem. There has been a movie based on the book as well. The for-profit insurers and for-profit hospital chains are far more interested in the needs of their shareholders than they are in the needs of their patients and their employees.

    Capitalism is great, except when the profit motive is at odds with what is best for the patients and those who care for them.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 1:28 PM, stonebusted wrote:

    Get the lawyers and unions out of it and all will work out. Omly the greedy will compain.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Roth100 wrote:

    I am a nurse practitioner and have had the wonderful experience of working in the VA system. The VA gets bargains on prescription drugs, pays providers fixed salaries, has had electronic medical records for more than 10 years and requires providers to offer preventive services. The VA does look at outcomes in regard to the management of chronic illness too.

    Diabetes control and high blood pressure control

    are much better than in the private sector. These are just a few of the reasons why I do not fear a government run program. We need to ask ourselves, how many health care consumers turn down medicare? How many doctors and hospitals turn away medicare clients? We have government run health care, but only for a few and they are fortunate. If the insurance companies are really worried about the competition why don't they quit stacking the odds in favor of their profit and insure some people who really need it?

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 3:50 PM, TheDoctorEd7 wrote:

    A friend of mine once commented that "none of us are getting out of here alive!" He is 100% right.

    My friend had a bad heart from birth, but that didn't stop him from living. His doctors wanted him to take it easy and maintain a treatment regimen that included, among other things, frequent testing.

    Instead, he raced bicycles as a means of exercise and recreation. He was fond of century rides (100 miles). He was not fond of doctor's offices, hospitals, tests or prescriptions.

    In the end, his lifestyle choices probably killed him sooner than perhaps he might have otherwise lasted had he engaged in long term treatments and not put such a constant strain on his defective heart. But he certainly lived the life he loved, right up until that fatal moment when he died from heart failure while riding his bicycle!

    Too many of us want to cling to the notion that we can avoid the grim reaper. We are willing to undergo long term treatment regimens and spend vast sums of other people's money to achieve our goal. The medical industry is all too willing to accommodate us in this futile effort. We are fundamentally (and for sound evolutionary reasons) afraid of dying.

    However, there is a big difference between a patient who needs insulin in order to have a life at all and one who wants to reduce their apparent risk of heart disease by taking prescriptions to offset their lifestyle (poor diet & lack of exercise).

    As it turns out, too much of our health care spending is aimed at reducing the risk of our eventual demise. Huh?

    Consider cholesterol and blood pressure. If these physiological parameters are causing you and your doctor concern, you could be looking at some very expensive long term care in an attempt to reduce the risk of dying from one of the diseases that researchers believe these parameters are linked to. At the same time, you might "feel" just fine. In fact, many have reported they "felt" worse once the prescriptions were started.

    So, why should we have to contribute our hard earned income to help some people lower their cholesterol or blood pressure just so they can reduce their "risk" of inevitably succumbing?

    And this brings me back to my friend's comment, "none of us are getting out of here alive!"

    Wouldn't it be better for doctors to help their patients focus on living a better life instead of just a longer one? And, if a patient chooses to follow a doctor's advice and spend large sums of money in an attempt to live a longer life, why shouldn't they pay for that themselves?

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 7:01 PM, PsycheDaddy wrote:

    Tort refomr is needed but nobody can decide on the value of life. I would go for a value of $500,000 maximum. The rick will not like this figure because their life is worth more than that. The poor won't go for it because if they have a shot at winable case. They want to get all they can. Too much greed in this country. Tort claims need to capped.

    But no one can agree on the maximum damages to be awarded. I think there has to be a cap, all other equations are won't work. Would a financial networth of a person be fair? No Everybody wants tort reform but no one will attack the problem.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 9:35 PM, ET69 wrote:

    Its not true that doctors get paid by the "test'. Nonsense. The reason we run so many tests is more often so we don't get SUED. Every MD I know is looking over their shoulder and has lawyer-ITIS.So no matter how ridiculous the demand of some family member or patient we usually order it.

    Having been in the medical field for 20+ years I am convinced that the only way to have a RATIONAL health care system is to take every cent of PROFIT OUT of the system regarding health care. Doctors, Hospitals, Insurance Companies, Big Pharma, Research Companies...all of them need to be nationalised. Tough medicine but that is what this doctor would order!

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 9:55 PM, handguy wrote:

    I think the only thing in this article that makes any sense is the part which discusses tort reform. The threat of malpractice is THE major problem with health care today. As a physician working in a hospital, I get NO increase in pay for tests ordered. However, if I don't often order tests which I feel are low yield, I risk losing a substantial amount of my hard-earned net worth. Joe Dirt can mangle his leg after ramping over his trailor on a 4-wheeler, and I can spend countless hours trying to salvage his leg. If he is unhappy with the end result, there is no doubt that he can find a lawyer looking to inflate his or her bottom line. Even if the lawsuit is frivolous and is dropped before going to court, malpractice premiums will rise. What does good ol' Mr. Dirt have to lose? A malpractice case may be his lifetime meal ticket.

    Sure there are unethical physicians, just as there are unethical individuals in every field (politicians, school teachers, priests, lawyers, etc.). However, they are the exception and not the rule. I think you are barking up the wrong tree by pointing the finger at physicians as the underlying problem. Lawyers, insurance companies, and patient expectations have done more damage to the system than any group of doctors could ever do. Unfortunately, several of our congressmen have made their fortunes from suing doctors, and they want to make sure there cronies can do the same. This article is based largely on assumptions (which are incorrect) from someone who I suspect has not seen the day-to-day issues which the physician faces. Realize that what Mr. Obama is preaching concerning physicians is largely false.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 10:23 PM, DownEscalator wrote:

    This article is misinformed, slanderous of a profession, and downright stupid.

    Very, very few doctors order "unneeded tests." Why would they? Most nursing and tech staffs, like the ones at the hospital I used to work at, are already overburdened.

    The biggest factor in health care costs - and you should pay attention, Brian, because apparently you're in the majority who doesn't get this - is that high quality health care really does cost a lot of money, and doctors now have to rule out everything or risk litigation later on. You and President Obama can claim all you want your doctors are ordering unnecessary MRIs and X-Rays and bloodwork. If you continue to believe that, I'll diagnose you with delusion and prescribe 100 ccs of reality.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 11:14 PM, motleychang wrote:

    make the lawyers have little or no incentives in these deals

    'brian

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2009, at 11:47 PM, wtatm wrote:

    Although the tort issue is not the only place where there is waste in the medical care field, it is probably the most wasteful area. As the government appears unwilling to address tort reform as part of the healthcare debate (could they be beholden to the ABA lobby?)... and many in Washington want a public option for healthcare... I have a proposal that I haven't seen before.

    Let the government take over the ownership and administration of malpractice insurance.

    It would work like this (I haven't got all the details worked out, so feel free to add your thoughts). Malpractice insurance... which really has little to do with medicine... would be separated out from health insurance. The government would underwite and issue all malpractice insurance policies (i.e. there is only a "public option".). The government could create as many types of policies as they like... from reimbursement of costs only... up to "lottery ticket" types of awards. All Americans could purchase any policy offered... or no policy at all... on an annual basis. Those choosing to purchase no policy at all give up the right to sue for malpractice for that year.

    Any medical provider could be sued... but their sole responsibility would be to co-operate with any investigation that goes on. The government, as the sole provider of malpractice insurance, would be liable for all legal defenses, payments and awards.

    As I see it... it's a win-win for almost everyone. 1) Doctors could focus more on what they went to school for... practicing medicine. They would not have to be constantly looking over their shoulder for the lawyer around the corner. They could also lower their fees accordingly, as they would no longer have to pay malpractice insurance. 2) The biggest "non-medical" cost in medicine... legal fees and settlements... would be stripped out of the medical process. 3) No one gives up their right to sue... but those who do not have any intention of suing... are relieved of the obligation of having to pay for others' litigation. 4) Those legislators in Washington who want the public option... get their wish (One caveat. In order for this to work, the government cannot be permitted to dip into public revenues to play settlements. Just like an insurance company, the premiums they collect must be sufficient for settlements and fees). As a health insurance actuary, I suggest the government employ better actuaries than the ones who calculated the funding for Social Security and Medicare! 5) Health insurance companies can lower health care premiums by 1/4 to 1/3. With these types of reductions, I believe all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or ability to pay, could be insured by health insurance companies for medical care.

    My guess is... when most American see how much of their healthcare premiums... currently 1/4 to 1/3 of the total bill... based on state and type of coverage... is going to malpractice insurance... they would opt to give up the right to sue.

    Just my 2 cents.

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 12:20 AM, drburdi wrote:

    Whenever patient stops being in control of what is done and cost, more tests are run to cover someones butt. Even paying 20% becomes a strong incentive for patient to question the need for extra tests and to take part in the decision making. Then maybe we can educate the public to doing wellness care rather than waiting to need sick care, especially when they are shown the savings to practicing wellness care. These savings in preventive care should be encouraged, maybe with reduced premiums to those who show efforts to wellness.

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 12:27 AM, m0j0m0j0 wrote:

    lets see this site is for trying to make money by buying and selling pieces of paper a doctor spends years and 1,090's of dollars in school in case you forgot there is no limit on the amount of money you can earn here excess profits are not even mentioned in the constitution you want cheeper medicine try 1901 i'll take 21st century medicine in the usa for $100,000 alex ever hear of anyone with polio tetanus smallpox only in history class i hope to hell someone finds a cure for cancer heart disease whatever and makes billions of $ i'm very tired of hearing about canada or british people like their system i'm not waiting a week or 6 months for a ct scan i want mine today my grandson thinks a cardboard box is the greatest toy ever invented but he's 2 i know better the rest of the world gets a free ride because american heath care is private just ask a vet about the va i really think it's a very bad idea to turn over our medicine to the government that still buys the most vacuum tubes in the world every year remember they where replaced by transistors 50 years ago government is always the mostly costly way to do anything yeah they will save money if you die before your appointment they save you lose

    they spend $9 to give out $1 in welfare

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 1:43 AM, billyjoeh2000 wrote:

    Am I the only one who heard President Obama say

    in at least 3 of his speeches that he wanted more

    Preventative medicine?

    Maybe what we really need is the government to hire

    every Naturopathic,MD to give seminars in every major city and on tv (Public Broadcasting Network)

    educating people on how to Prevent most heart disease, cancer, diabetes and numerous other chronic health conditions?

    Too bad Naturopathic MD's are legal in only 12 states.

    Maybe we could convince all MD's that they need to

    start practicing Preventative medicine. In just a few

    short years we could be the healthiest country in the world instead of the sickest.

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 9:07 AM, aeneas2009 wrote:

    Hmmm? Buy a new carburetor, buy a new life? Seems like a poor analogy to me, and it has distorted your whole understanding of what the word "profession" means to us who choose a profession and not an occupation. Signed, a teacher.

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 9:32 AM, doohnibor7 wrote:

    Boarded Internist now an Anesthesiology Resident's Point of View:

    1. Primary care: should be the foundation of a nation's health care system.

    What are the problems with America's primary care system? Our nation is getting more obese & not exercising. This leads to worsening conditions such as Hypertension, Diabetes mellitus, strokes, myocardial infarctions, malignancy etc. This is where the biggest troubles lie for America. That being said, how can a PCP properly see 30-40 patient's in a day as they are essentially forced to do by insurance companies? Why aren't they fully reimbursed for many of the tasks they do? Why do PCP's have to hire extra staff just to complete insurance and pharmaceutical forms? Emergency rooms should not be used as primary care offices, i.e. going to the ER for prenatal care or URI symptoms or utilizing an ambulance simply for convenience. There should be ramifications for routine lack of patient compliance leading to wasted office visits, imaging, etc.

    2. Malpractice:

    Physicians do frequenly practice defensively by ordering extra tests, imaging, & invasive procedures. Many of which WILL NOT change patient outcome but are ordered so that no stone is left unturned for legal purposes. How could this be solved? National tort reform. Alternatively, society could set standards. For example, if society said, 'well, Mr/Ms. Doctor if you have a post-test probability of some serious condition being less than 3%, no further work-up is indicated'....in accordance with Bayes' Theorem.

    3. Our perceptions as American's

    No one in America dies. Hello, everyone in America dies. Why are we spending a vast portion of our dollars (~20% of Medicare) on the last year of people's lives? Let's say grandpa, who is 85 years old and just had a huge MI, is on a ventilator, on blood pressure medications, on dialysis and has a <10% survival, not to mention and even less likelihood of any quality of life. Why are we as a society spending so much money here? We should focus the efforts on preventitive care, vaccinations, control of blood pressure...etc.

    4. Other waste: Lack of electronic medical records, big pharma, those running insurance companies.

    Finally, while I may be bias, I think it is a mistake to percieve the glut residing with the physicians. If reimbursements decline, this may lead to a lesser quality of applicants to medical schools and definitely a continued shift toward subspecialization, rather than primary care. Finally, tell me how many mechanics went to school for 11 years post-high school and incurred $150K in debt to do their job? But anyways, back to epidurals. Let me know what you think!

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 9:38 AM, thisislabor wrote:

    carburator, 250$. heart, 250,000$. ....

    huh. new wheels for my car 2k$. new left knee joint because of bad cartilage 12k$.

    ...

    seems like a fair comparison to me.

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 9:48 AM, thisislabor wrote:

    doohnibor7, I agree with everything you stated up there.

    also, the comment about: "If reimbursements decline, this may lead to a lesser quality of applicants to medical schools and definitely a continued shift toward subspecialization, rather than primary care." totally hit home for me.

    I got as far as taking my MCATs 4 years ago and did really well and decided not to go to a medical school.

    im not willing to trade my 20's for a couple hundred thousand. - and I decided I'm simply not willing to work that hard to specialize into a field where money would definately come at a couple extra million.

    payout ratio to work input doesn't seem to be worth it to me to go into medicine. I probably would have made a hell of a good doctor, but most doctors I've talked to in primary care just aren't happy with their choices and wouldn't do it a second time. what more do you need to know?

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 11:21 AM, patrickjamesonei wrote:

    I am a practicing surgeon. When on call for the emergency room I care for any and all patients who come in and need my attention regardless of the hour of day. Some are insured some are not. Some can pay and some cannot. I trained for 14 years after college to have the capability and judgement to provide the best level of care possible. It is true that many tests are ordered in order to "cover all the bases" either due to fear of litigation or patient demand. With health care reform we will not have the access to competent physicians and tests that we are used to in the U.S. Be careful for what you ask for because you just might get it.

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 1:41 PM, IIcx wrote:

    This article is insulting -- ever hear of the Hippocratic Oath?

    If doctors had been allowed to fix the health-care system it would be the best in the world and at a fraction of the cost.

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 1:59 PM, freemarketfool wrote:

    As a Medical Biller working for a physician group I am appalled and disgusted at the complete ignorance splashed all over this article. When you see your physician and he gives you orders to have a blood test drawn from a lab or to go to the hospital or other facility to get a CT or MRI, he is not being paid for that. He is paid only for services he provides directly to you. The place you have these tests done is the place charging you for their services, and kickbacks are, to my knowledge, illegal.

    For those of you for whom your doctor did perform some procedure directly, I have great news. Those procedures and tests will only pay for certain diagnoses, so unless your doctor has evidence that you already have or may well have a particular problem, he is not motivated to provide that service. Think he's making it all up? I'm sure there are fraud doctors, just as their are frauds in every profession, but those medical records of yours can and do get audited by your insurance company if they have any reason to believe you doctor is being untruthful, and as that insurance company's entire goal is to take your premium without paying for services as much as possible, they are very motivated to keep an eye out.

    I've seen the human body/automobile comparison worked very effectively in an article on how insurance works once, but this comparison is detestable. Plenty of other posts have addressed this admirably, so I will only leave my digust here. I will say, however, that no government nor insurance company cares a whit for your health and welfare. They only care about their financial bottom line. I routinely appeal claims denied for patently false reasons, very frequently from Medicare and Medicaid, for those of you who trust your government, and some of these claims take months to pay.

    As a final note, I saw a statistic two years ago in an industry article stating that physicians' pay has increased only 3% in the last ten years, but their costs have increased 25%. Do you think congress will somehow stop trying to cut funding to another public insurance any more than they do to Medicare now? Physicians are already going out of business over this, and going into other fields of work, and there is already evidence in Massachusetts that national health care will make it much, much worse. Instead of complaining to the government to take care of you, make healthcare expenses a routine part of your own budget. Trying putting it's priority somewhere up there with shelter and food, rather than somewhere underneath a new car and entertainments, where I find most people putting it, even in this bad economy.

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 5:13 PM, mjones3006 wrote:

    As a physician, I work primarily in the hospital in my speciallty. However, I empathize with my office based colleagues. People act as though we are personally getting that which is paid to us. The cost of running an office (ie personnel) or, in my case, an OR with nurse anesthetists is not cheap and continues to rise. The public expects us to be available 24/7. Few other professions have that expectation and 60 hour weeks get tiring. Also, the medical profession is not perfect. Try as we might, things occur beyond our control such as infections and other complications. To expect the physician to pick up all expenses for complications (which frequently occur due to poor patient compliance because they, for example, won't follow intstructions to control their blood sugar) is unrealistic. We are going to drive young people (who are frequently in debt $150-250,000 for a medical school education) away from the medical profession and will wonder why we can't get in to see a physician.

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 9:24 PM, bobmurcie wrote:

    they only care about the presidents.

    on the face of the bills

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2009, at 10:54 PM, marckhway wrote:

    As a practicing physician , I too feel obligated to stand up for my profession. Although there may be bad apples in any profession, believe me, there are a lot easier ways to make a living then 13 years of higher education, 100-150K of debt, and a personal life filled with delayed gratification. You must be confusing us with politicians when you accuse us of getting kickbacks and augmenting our salary by ordering unnecessary tests. The real reason why healthcare costs are out of control is two-fold. Trial lawyers and insurance companies. As long as the foxes run the hen house, we will never see tort reform. The same lawmakers that indict pharmaceutical sponsored physician programs flaunt junkets and accept largess from lobbyists. Such stellar examples as John Edwards

    whose holier than thou attitude and disgusting legal tactics (speaking as the voice of a birth injured child)

    have forced us to practice defensive medicine. They also play into this country's general sense of entitlement, looking for the next big payday. Medicine is not like car repair- sometimes despite the best intentions, bad outcomes occur. This needs to be differentiated from true malpractice which should be defended against. In terms of insurance companies, can there be any greater conflict of interest than a for profit health insurance company with hundreds of millions in reserve and bloated CEO salaries? Pre-existing conditions?-sorry, that will cut into our profits. Go ahead, trash the medical profession, but you are barking up the wrong tree and showing your ignorance.

  • Report this Comment On August 31, 2009, at 8:08 AM, crenichila wrote:

    Seriously?

    Do you get paid by the burger you flip? And you have the audacity to make a claim that a doctor doesn't deserve to get paid for what they do?

    While I agree that there may be excessive tests ordered, doctors don't "get paid" for them. The reason doctors order these tests is because people, probably like the idiot writing this article, demand instant gratification, no pain, and no risk of bad outcome service from their doctor.

    Eventually, future doctors will have no economic incentvie to go to school for years on end. You will be the first to compalin about the shortage, I am sure. So have the gumption to continue writing garbage like this and see what happens.

    Obnoxious article. Thanks for voting Democrat and for the higher taxes.

  • Report this Comment On August 31, 2009, at 9:00 AM, mikepir wrote:

    Finally someone who says it like it is. All insurance plans - medicare, medicaid, private - basically pay what the providers charge and tack something on for overhead (and profit if they are private). The true cost driver is the provider (doctors, hospitals, test facilities, etc). I just recently went to the hospital and was charged almost $30,000 for a 3 day stay. Justify that! Price out any procedure here in the USA and compare to going completely private in an advanced country overseas, and you will see a factor of 10x for cost in the USA... one of the reasons that people are starting to view going to singapore for hip replacements as a viable option.

    Solve the exorbitant charge issue and you solve the real problem. Dont kill the messenger - the insurance companies that pay and often negotiate lower prices.

  • Report this Comment On August 31, 2009, at 9:26 AM, harviau wrote:

    I think the government should supply medical malpractice insurance for all medical professionals in exchange for a lowering of fees. The maximum payout could also be limited by the government ... this will in no way impact amount to a 'government takover' as the far right bogey men like to proclaim. We could then work on how to make medical care proactive instead of reactive which is where the biggest improvement could occur in my opinion.

  • Report this Comment On August 31, 2009, at 9:30 AM, crenichila wrote:

    This is the real problem. Who claimed that health care is free? I must have missed that somewhere.

    You had surgery; if it was elective then you made the decision to have it and need to pay the bill as you agreed to the price by having the surgery. If it was emergent then you still decided to have the surgery and need to pay the bill. The alternative (i.e. dying) obviously sucks, but hundreds of years ago... it may have just been your time my friend.

    In the near future, your surgey may not get authorized by a government official with a GED or high school diploma. Enjoy Obamunism!

    Obviously, mikepir works for an insurance company! If you don't think doctors deserve to get paid for their work (capitalism), why are you on an investment website? Pot calling the kettle, huh?

  • Report this Comment On August 31, 2009, at 10:03 AM, crenichila wrote:

    Bravo harviau. I admire people who offer solutions and don't just complain. I also think your idea is quite good. My partners and I will gladly take a significant pay-cut if I have no risk of being sued frivolously!

  • Report this Comment On August 31, 2009, at 10:04 AM, thebest12211 wrote:

    This is a very complex subject that has recently defied rational thought and discourse. We have learned to talk around issues rather than discuss the hard choices that need to be made.

    Why are our health costs so high? Because we have become unreasonable as a society. We eat too much and have become fat and we refuse to take responsibilty for the consequences of being fat.

    It used to be said that 90% of health care dollars went to treat the very old and very young. Is this what our society wants? If yes, then we need to be willing to pay for heroic treatment and stop complaining about it. Should we be doing hip replacements on a patient with advanced Alzheimer's Disease at 86 years old? We need to talk about that as a society. Do we save one pound babies at a cost of $1 million along with the life long medical/ educational costs? Yes or no and who wants to pay for it? Tough questions and tough choices.

    A medical school education now costs more than $300,000. Who should pay for that? The country or the individual and if the individual then what is a reasonable return on investment?

    You can not get a baseball play to step onto a field for what the majority of doctors are paid. Or have Elton John sing sings for you.

    Like tooth decay, many of our illness are completely preventable and therefore what responsibility does society have to pay for those illnesses? I don't know the answer but should we have some rational and reasonable discourse rather than shouting at each other?

  • Report this Comment On August 31, 2009, at 10:21 AM, Bamafan68 wrote:

    The comments made by the MDs on this thread are spot on, so I won't add much to the discussion other than the following:

    Auto repair is not a fair comparison to health care. People generally take better care of their cars. Most people change the oil, filters, belts, etc. Why? Because their car won't run if these basic needs aren't met. But people are more than happy to eat crap, smoke and not exercise, then complain about the costs of dealing with their bodies breaking down.

  • Report this Comment On August 31, 2009, at 2:37 PM, lualhati wrote:

    I am a physician and have worked several clinics, hospitals and public health clinics.

    There are several mistakes that are in your article" Doctors killing you...financially". In the first place - we are the only industry that is paid at a discount already before we even offer our services. We are also paid as a "bundled service" or DRG's. If I work in a clinic,as a primary care physician services beyond what the insurance are allowed, we have to get the OK of the insurance(this can add another 20 mins to even 1/2 a day- we sometimes have to hire another person just to get approval from the insurance companies." Some of the procedures, I try to disuade patients which takes up more of my time.

    I have to see 28 patients to break even( that means to pay for my office, my staff, my malpractice.

    If I was working at the hospital, I have to use the patient's DRG - prepaid bundled services per diagnosis. If I sent a patient early, the money not spent for another day of hospital stay goes to the "pool to pay for the patients without insurance". The hospitals have to pay for people that can't pay- where do you think the hospitals get those moneys.

    There are other misinformation. ie the President states that Medicare patients can go to any doctor they wish what he doesn't say is that not a lot of doctors will accept Medicare because medicare does not pay for services that are paid by other insurance and they only pay 45 cents to a $1.00 charge. That is if they pay at all. For instance, I submit a bill, they deny charges, I have90 days to resubmit that bill from the time of the initial visit. If we do not get the rejection till the 89th day, we caN NO LONGER BILL

  • Report this Comment On August 31, 2009, at 2:51 PM, lualhati wrote:

    MEDICARE AND THE CLINIC EATS UP THE COST.

    Also per medicare rules we can't give free medical care to medicare patients. Some of the tests that medicare will not cover- ie x-ray if you come in and think you have a broken bone- doctors do not have x-ray vision.

    Pres Obama wants a National Health Care ran by the government.ALL the government run/ involved health care are failed systems- Medicare, Medicaid, DSHS, Indian Health Care System,Veteran's Administration- I have worked for all of them. Most physicians won;t work or accept these patients.

    Canadian Health Care system - if you are healthy it's OK but if you are not - the question is " what is the benefit to the society for treating you". You can always cross the US Border for more complicated care. I live in WA state and we get several complicated Canadian pregnancies because they do not have a Neonatal ICU in the haopitals in Canada.

    Pres Obama should make the Health Reform read like what he expects the credit card companies to do with their credit contracts. The problem is that most of the people who are writing the reform has an agenda.

    Keep it simple:

    1. catastrophic insurance for everyone

    2. 2 preventive care covered by the insurance per year

    3. generic drugs when called for

    4. allow only standard of care procedures and tests- not "for defensive medications or because the patient wants one- ie MRI for back pain without neurological changes, back pain resolves with or without treatment after 6 mos- whether you get an MRI or not the treatment is the same"

    5. for complicated diagnosis or chronic disease- if patient's don't comply with the treatment plan- have them pay extra- if you want to smoke, extra treatment for COPD or asthma or respiratory illness should come out of pocket, etc

    6. $ 2000 per year per person credit for medical care. Credits can add up yearley and at the end of 5 -10 yrs the patients can wither cash it out or invest it as a bond to the hospitals or clinics of their choice

    7. NO ILLEGAL DRUGS added to the OBAMA Health care reform- just to make money- ie legalizing marijuana, coccaine and "euthenasia" drugs

    8. Profits by insurance company should be placed in " bond form" back to the health care system, whether to hospitals, drug companies for research and development.

    ETC, etc.

  • Report this Comment On August 31, 2009, at 6:26 PM, projectchris wrote:

    "The same thing has happened with nuclear cardiology ("stress tests") and echocardiography, and is happening with oncologists and PET and CT scanners. There have been numerous academic articles proving that once these high tech machines are installed in a self-referring practice, utlization (number of scans per patient seen) goes up many-fold. In most cases, there is no quality control, patients are told that they will be scanned "in house" and of course want to believe in their doctor's integrity so they go along, and the reimbursement is the same whether your capital cost for a scanner is $10,000 or a million. The situation is about as anti-competitive as you can possibly imagine."

    I agree wholeheartedly. For instance a Cardiology practice will perform approx. 12 nuclear stresses in the day on one camera. A patient or multiple patients don't show up for the scheduled appointment. So not to burn the doses that have already been delivered, the cardiologist will take a patient appointment, and suggest they need a Nuclear stress. Or a particular patient that is coming in for an Echo. No way does the Cardiologist want to lose money on the doses. And for the patient who didn't show. Well, we tell them in advance that we will charge them if they don't show up. In reality, we really can't charge.

  • Report this Comment On August 31, 2009, at 6:35 PM, projectchris wrote:

    When I worked in San Jose, about 50% of the patients didn't speak english. The hospital used an interpreter through an intercom, that cost around $200 an hour. There was a traveler who spoke spanish. The funny thing is, he was told not to speak his native tongue to patients until he took the hospital's spanish speaking test. Most of us techs were travelers, and about died laughing over the politics involved there. Sometimes a little common sense is in order. The hospital was county, and was unable to refuse anyone, so you can imagine the government subsidies involved in those situations. I would venture to guess more than half of the patients were nonpayers. I run into the same situation in Gary, IN as well.

  • Report this Comment On September 01, 2009, at 12:49 AM, hsit0101 wrote:

    I think if you don't know what you're talking about, get an expert, but quoting some random person (Walker6464) in your article is not the best source material. For a real understanding of the complexities of health care and reform, you should speak with at least one or two doctors before putting this out there. This article contains the same crap and misinformation on "news" shows. It's obvious that people don't have any idea what it's like to be in health care, trying to provide the best care for every person that walks through our door. We do NOT get paid by each test, CT, MRI or lab we order. Surgeons do need to be paid for each operation they do because how else will you reimburse surgeons?? The majority of doctors are NOT cashing in on patients. There are a VERY small group of doctors that abuse the system but most of us want to do what is best for our patients and pay back our enormous student loan debt.

    I don't go around spouting off financial advice to people because it's not my specialty, I think you should do the same.

  • Report this Comment On September 01, 2009, at 1:48 PM, KWT8011 wrote:

    "Regarding malpractice -- I have first hand experience with tort reform. Practicing in Texas in 2000 my malpractice was $16k/year. By 2002 it was $64k/year. I do not have any malpractice claims/suits against me. Tort reform occurred in 2004 and my insurance dropped back to $24k/year. Tort reform works.

    Finally, the comment above by Dr.CoolD about cardiologists bringing their studies to their offices. I feel that some of the pressure to do this is related to the decreasing reimbursement from payors for care. This is the specialists attempt at evening out these losses."

    These two statements lead me to believe that tort reform isn't the MAJOR answer to our problems as I've read here or elsewhere. When your insurance dropped in price, did you accept less reimbursement? How can you show that people paid less money for healthcare because of it?

    I buy that it is more expensive to operate in a state w/o tort reform. I don't buy that doctors will start charging less if a major overhaul was done. My guess is most would just consider it a beneficial impact to their expenses. I'm not saying that is mutually exclusive to being a nice person or a good physician, but its to be expected in our society.

  • Report this Comment On September 01, 2009, at 3:55 PM, joeinkc wrote:

    As an emergency room doctor and urgent care clinic owner, I would like to make a brief comment regarding the cost of healthcare. I've been following the fool for a few years now, and this is my first comment on anything.

    Falsehood #1: I get paid extra by ordering more tests, which increases my bottom line.

    When I work in the ER, I get paid whether I sleep or see more than the 2.4 patients per hour recommended by my board specialty as a maximum for safety reasons. Most of the extra tests I order are due to patient satisfaction. If you already paid a $100 ED visit copay, and don't really need that CT of the head for little jimmy who got his head whacked on the playground, my "head injury precautions for returning for a CT if XYZ happens" is a really hard sell. I try, by (over)emphasizing the consequences of ionizing radiation to the brain, but usually, it is in soccer-mom's best interest to go ahead and insist on a CT--as opposed to the possibility of a 2nd copay of $100 in the very unlikely event the condition worsens///etc. I can't afford to lose my job over the complaint.... so I order the damn unnecessary CT.

    I could go on and on about other aspects of the financial repercussions of healthcare as it stands, but nobody would read it.

  • Report this Comment On September 01, 2009, at 4:02 PM, jkklm wrote:

    Imagine if you went shopping at a local mall. You were met at the door by a salesperson. She was an excellent salesperson-very familiar with the merchandise, and she cared very much about the outcome of your shopping experience. After telling her about your shopping needs your salesperson told you to wait at the door. She came back a short time later with several bags, sent you on your way without finding out whether your purchases fit or were appropriate, and then told you that you would know how much you had spent when your bill arrived in your mailbox-no returns or exchanges allowed, and aggressive collections would ensure for nonpayment. It would be outrageous, and yet that is how we are expected to accept health care. No, a dress is not the same as open heart surgery. However, from a consumer point of view it is a highly inefficient way of buying anything. The strangeness is further compounded by the fact that a relationship is supposed to be built between patients and doctors that makes comparison shopping feel somehow wrong. Not to mention that insurance companies will not pay for repeat tests from different doctors and doctors, understandably, do not want to simply take someone's word for granted. This is the first thing I would fix, if I had a say in the whole thing. Patients should know how much they will be charged, what their financial options are, and it should be relatively easy to compare prices. We should not be asked to walk out the door with an unknown looming bill, and very little or no say in how our money was spent.

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2009, at 6:46 PM, Estrogen wrote:

    what a timely and interesting topic. I remember my economics professor 20 years ago bringing up the same issues that Jkklm brings up. Never been able to reconcile that one. Nonetheless, I do believe that most doctors are honest, incredible intelligent, hard working individuals.

    Whether it is cya tort driven over testing, insurance costs, greedy health care companies, paranoid moms (or dads) running to urgent care every time their baby sneezes, the system needs adjusting to the point that Americans are getting a quality product at a quality price.

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2009, at 11:12 PM, julcion wrote:

    When people allow themselves to get out-of-shape as they get older they are unable to recapture the energy of their youthfulness and strength. Becoming less active their world of activities and contacts shrinks until they have nothing left to do but go to numerous doctors for tests and procedures that can't really reverse the decline because they don't make an effort to do more to benefit their health. The lost vitality makes them isolated from family and friends who mostly don't feel comfortable around them anymore. So the most meaningful contact these people have is w/ the doctors and care givers.

  • Report this Comment On September 03, 2009, at 11:24 AM, rcshuman wrote:

    the reason chas krauthammer said preventive health was more expensive than the usual kind is because he is an MD and "thinks" that the absence of disease can only be established by tests which prove that normalcy exists and if no disease is found you simply did not look well enough. in other words he is a non-fool trained to think as all the medical schools train the graduates to "think". that is the reason they are called medical schools and not health schools.

  • Report this Comment On September 03, 2009, at 7:15 PM, jasonmark1993 wrote:

    As a father of a two year old girl that has spent many months in a hospital, I have lots of questions that maybe one of the doctors here can answer.

    What exactly are you doing to my daughter's blood sample that costs $3000.00? Mixing it with gold?

    Why is someone admitted to the hospital for 5 days for $50k, only to have a leaky G tube button replaced? A procedure that took five minutes and that I have since taught myself to do.

    Don't tell me it is to cover your bases. We drove her four hours round trip two days in a row prior to being admitted for the same problem.

    The entire field is full of wasteful practices.

  • Report this Comment On September 03, 2009, at 7:25 PM, jasonmark1993 wrote:

    ....and as a former automotive technician, I learned real quick that if I screwed up on a repair I was fixing it for free and the customer would not pay again.

    On the other hand, doctors screw up a procedure and feel justified in charging you for it the second time.

  • Report this Comment On September 03, 2009, at 7:51 PM, nemaline wrote:

    OK, now this article pisses me off! I don't post that much, but this article is publishing inaccurate information. First of all, a physician does not get paid every time they order a test. Some test are self-referral, like a cardiac catheterization. But the majority of testing is a) required to evaluate a patient, like a lab test, in which the physician has no financial interest--these are the majority of tests an average patient has to succumb to, and constitutes a majority of the expense of testing during hospitalization. This can also be affected by tort reform. b) more advanced and requiring a procedure other than a simple blood test.

    The article hypes that physicians who order the tests directly profit from the billing related to that testing...NOT TRUE! The author needs to do a little more research...

  • Report this Comment On September 03, 2009, at 7:53 PM, beachlvr0804 wrote:

    Malpractice insurance is the price they pay to "practice" medicine. They are not infallible. That's why they call it malpractice insurance. If they screw up and it were to cause me or a loved one an early death....I or my survivors would go after them....there has to be something in place to hold them accountable for their actions. I had a son in the emergency room a few weeks ago.....had a knot on his leg.......infection. The numb nut didn't completely drain the area.....he still has the lump and will probably have to go back. Some of these quacks need the insurance just to cover their butts for lack of knowledge. He was the only doctor in the whole emergency room. When my son was ready to leave the ER the nurse didn't even put gauze and tape on it. She left it to oooozzzzeee all the way home. I sent him back in and made her place a sterile bandage on it..........

  • Report this Comment On September 03, 2009, at 7:56 PM, nemaline wrote:

    And you think the govt has the answers to cost containment. Yeah, right....tell me about ANY government program that is More efficient than private industry. No one I've known is able to accept that challenge.

  • Report this Comment On September 04, 2009, at 1:01 AM, bernpow wrote:

    This is a huge problem and the focus on paying for insurance premiums and the language that we use to describe what is important in health care only makes us see it in a "fuzzy" way.

    1. It is unrealistic to suggest that there is a universal right to health care, but we should claim a right to a health care system which is fair. Simple standard pricing would be a start. Someone who is uninsured should not be further penalized with higher cost because he does not have an insurer to act as an intermediary discounter.

    2. 'Preventive" services and "medical necessity" are invoked as if they stood for some absolute truth. They don't. Nothing can guarantee abolute prevention and necessity can only be established retrospectively and even then it is a relative concept. What doctors can and do offer is advice. We should adopt a standard of evaluating medical services according to how advisable they are for each individual.

    3. Best way to control costs in health care would be to have an honest marketplace for those patients interested and intelligent enough to make the best decisions based on their doctor's advice (and motivated to do so based on some meaningful personal copay). But we still need to consider those who lack this interest, ability or opportunity (think of an unconscious victim) and make good decisions on their behalf.

    Complex...and maybe it is too much to dream that we can have our cake and eat it too, but we are already spending more than we can afford on health care.

  • Report this Comment On September 04, 2009, at 10:09 AM, jojo20092009 wrote:

    I don't think the cost of insurance will ever come down if left to the insurance companies. My reply to "How much we could save, and whether the savings are worth the effort to restrict awards to patients who've been wronged by a doctor's mistake, is certainly up for debate."

    In my state they sold the government on tort reform lowering insurance costs. As soon as it passed, the rates went UP 40%.

  • Report this Comment On September 04, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Aphexwolf wrote:

    There are 2 reasons doctors run all of those tests that most people deem unnecessary. 1.) Look at any known disease... evidence based practice suggests that prevention and/or early identification of the disease process greatly increases the chance of treatment and/or recovery. The best way to identify diseases early are by running diagnostic tests and labs. 2.) Doctors want to avoid lawsuits. Health care is the most regulated and litigious industry we have. If a patient comes in and has several disorders occurring (the majority of people have more than one medical diagnosis) and the doctor misses one of them he/she can be held accountable for a lawsuit, and might lose their license or be put on probation.

    As far as comparing personal health care to a car...if your car breaks down and dies you can either buy a new one or find some other means of transportation. If your health breaks down and you die, well that's it. You're done, you're gone, you're finished, no alternatives. You only have one life.

    It's only natural that health care costs so much. Health is the most precious, the most valuable, and the most irreplaceable commodity we have. It's the closest thing that keeps us alive, and people want to live forever. The longer health care is keeping you alive though, the larger the cost is going to be. When people say everyone has the right to free health care, they might as well be saying everyone has a right to have a free tonne of gold in their backyard. The fact is we can't live forever. We don't have the resources for that, just as we don't have the resources to allow 300 million tonnes of free gold. We as a society like to think that we have the right to life and that we'll live forever, but we often forget that nature can and will take us out of this world just as easily as she allowed us into it. Just because you are born into this world doesn't mean the rest of the world has to spend time and resources taking care of you. Take care of yourself. Health care begins with patient responsibility. If you want to live a long and healthy life, stop smoking, stop drinking, stop eating fast food 4 times a day, get off the couch and exercise. If you absolutely love those things and can't live without them, that's fine, just know that it comes at a tradeoff for a shorter life...and don't complain about your hospital bill when you have your first heart attack at 45, because nobody else wants to pay for your irresponsibility.

  • Report this Comment On September 04, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Moyel wrote:

    You name the problem: Your doctor and all the elments he manipulates -- hospitals, pharmas, MRI labs, etc. -- is killing you, financially, But you arrive at a screwy conclusion: add more insured patients to the mix. Why not concentrate on the problem you see and cut into those elements which motivate the doctor: unnecessary tests, unnecessary pharmaceuticals, unnecessary hospital stays, innovation for innovation's sake. Your "solution" only further cements these elements in place. Your doctor MAY kill you as noted by David Goldhill in his recent article in "Atlantic" and the two-part article in "The New Yorker last month showed.

  • Report this Comment On September 04, 2009, at 5:12 PM, WillieWilmette wrote:

    1) Before we change the system for everyone lets test it out in California or New York.

    2) No subsidies for those that can afford it but choose not to.

    3) Different plans for different people. I have never used a Chinese herbalist or a chiropractor so I should not have to pay for them if I am not going to use them. If I do not want to wait in line, I should be able to get fast service for a price.

    4) Liability insurance should be paid by the doctor or the company that hires him. Then the bad doctors will have an incentive to drop out.

    5) Courts should not pay punitive damages to the patient. This will take some of the incentive to sue and still allow those that have injuries to be made whole. Also, courts should not pay patients for the same injury more than once. Chicago had a bus driver who hurt his back, took a settlement, miraculously got better, the union got him his old job back, I think this happened 21 times for the same driver.

    6) If I choose not to smoke(eat too much/drink/..), I should not have to pay for other that do not refrain.

  • Report this Comment On September 04, 2009, at 7:02 PM, CHRIS73DAVIS wrote:

    Medicare actuarial liabilty soared from $6tn in 2000 to $34tn in 2007, while GNP only $14tn. 23 out of 24 OECD nations have already addressed longevity issue by mandating rationing of health care for seniors. Braindead American electorate really believes as Baby Boomers age and actuarial deficit goes to $80tn, Medicare will deliver for them.

    Conclusion: short the dollar; buy gold.

  • Report this Comment On September 04, 2009, at 8:12 PM, keninden wrote:

    Wow. Doubt anyone's still reading anymore, but the mechanic analogy is terribly lame, for some of the reasons already pointed out. In addition, even if you knew that early detection of a carburetor flaw would prevent the destruction of the entire vehicle in 12 years, would you care?

    Regarding suits - I'm a doc, spend a fair amount of time in critical care, and have not been sued or even named in 29 yrs of practice, so I have no emotional baggage here. But, few lawsuits are about real malpractice, and little real malpractice gets sued. Its a very unfortunate and dysfunctional system (and legal industry).

  • Report this Comment On September 04, 2009, at 8:23 PM, drrtc2 wrote:

    "Fool reader Walker6464 pretty much nails the main problem: "Doctors get paid by the test, by the operation, by the procedure. Thus they have an incentive to do more tests and procedure, not provide better health care."--I don't know where he (Walker6464) practices medicine, but we sure don't get any incentive in California for ordering tests (illegal to take kickbacks), using a particular hospital (again, illegal), or doing a procedure that is not justified by the diagnosis (won't get reimbursed by anyone, Medicare included). We don''t have any monetary incentives for any of the above.

    However, if we went to the New Zealand model, we would not allow physicians to be sued for performing their duties by anyone, period. If they do malpractice, they lose their license and privileges, end of story.

  • Report this Comment On September 04, 2009, at 8:27 PM, farmerfloyd wrote:

    I am 67 yrs old from Florida and have had bad mistakes here. Put airtight bandgage on operation lost skin graft in 8 hrs,etc put cast on cracked elbow

    ball. at emergency hospital, You put in sling etc.

    I started going to Thailand for some teeth work and

    found out one of best hospitals in world Bumrungrad,

    in Bangkok does most operations in world in a year.

    costs run about 20% of US costs and Have not had one bad experience. Why doesnt medicare let

    me go there and save 80 cents on dollar. I promise

    not to sue anybody, I never sued any of mistakes here in Fl but sure had my chance. I am going to move there just pay cash tired of watching US go downhill. Thanks ,

  • Report this Comment On September 04, 2009, at 9:33 PM, xetn wrote:

    How about we try a real free-market idea and get the major cost component out of the formula, government.

    Have a look at this idea, take 2 aspirin and tell all politicians to take a hike:

    http://mises.org/story/3643

  • Report this Comment On September 04, 2009, at 11:12 PM, GStricklan wrote:

    As a physician, I know what the truth is regarding health care delivery in America today. I also know who is lying and who is greedy. Believe me, the doctors are not your enemy. Americans are about to get screwed with Obamacare. Americans are about to lose access to doctors worth waiting to see. Be very careful for what you wish for. I hope this article, as poorly as it was written and with an astonishing lack of insight, does not reflect the quality of the financial information delivered by the Fool. It certainly has given me pause about reading anything else on this website.

  • Report this Comment On September 04, 2009, at 11:39 PM, cuteface wrote:

    I find your article to be uninformed and insulting. I question how many physicians, in different specialties, in private practice, you have interviewed. After 30 years in private practice as a surgeon, I have finally had to restrict the patients on Medicare that I accept because the financial reimbursement is not equal to the immense amount of time I spend in their treatment. I pride myself on meticulous attention to detail of these patients who usually have at least 3 major diagnosis and are on an enormous amount of medications, with a high rate of complications. These issues used to be a challenge I enjoyed but with litigation, ridiculous media misinformation that makes patients an "expert" in what treatment to ask for, and now insurance payments that are reduced every year, I can no longer financially justify the cost of the Medicare patient.

    You say "if Medicare paid doctors flat fees for treating medical problems"...well they do pay a flat fee based on the code of treatment I provide. I can charge whatever I want but the payment remains the same!

    "Doctors get paid by the test"...excuse me, but what test? I don't get paid for any test or xray or laboratory. Outside services are paid to outside agencies, not me.

    "Paid by the procedure"...are you aware of the fact that procedures are "bundled" and Medicare and other insurances follow the codes one bills with to make certain that you aren't overcharging, or using a particular code to frequently? Are you aware of the fact that preoperative visits and surgeries are linked into one code, that post operative visits are not paid for, that if one performs many procedures in one surgery that the first is paid at a given rate, the second at 50% of the charge, the third at 25%,etc. And that is IF they agree that you should be paid at all!!

    To add insult to the entire process is the note on the Explantion of Benefits that the patient receives from the insurance company to report any fraudulant activity in the physicians billing. I pride myself in doing honest, caring work...and this makes one feel like the wolves are at the door. The great majority of physicians, like most people in general, are honest people doing an honest days work.

    Did you know that anyone can make an anonymous complaint against a physician for any reason and it is pursued by the medical board? You can literally have your career ruined by anyone who has any type of issues with you or your office, and even if cleared of any wrong doing, it is an emotionally draining process to even be investigated.

    And your comment, "asking doctors to take on the fianacial risk for the inevitable patients who will be more difficult to treat won't be an easy sell"...excuse me, but isn't that the way medicine has always been? When I was a kid my doctor took a chicken for payment for immunizations...I now write off over 50% of my charges as uncollectable and provide significantly reduced fees to those who have no insurance. Risk? Where did you ever get your information???

    The practice of medicine has changed and the career I began years ago, while still wonderful in my direct patient contact, is more than difficult in all other realms. I would not recommend the practice of medicine to my children and it has deeply saddened me to see the changes, many of which are shown in your article, in a place where I have respected you comments as accurate, I now see even there exists significant misinformation presented as fact. It becomes an impossible battle to fight.

  • Report this Comment On September 05, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Romrammohan wrote:

    Physicians' total cost to health-care is less than 10 %. 90 % of lab tests done in the doctor's offices are not covered if billed by the doctor. the few tests that the insurance pays for like glucose , Pro.time is only $ 5 to $6 which will hardly cover the costs. SO, how is the doctor becoming rich by doing tests !

    United Healthcare chairman got One Billion dollars ( yes, $ One billion) as compensation last year. Leonard Abramson got also One Billion Dollars way back in 1999. Either of these two people's compensation would have taken care all the uninsured in most of the states .

    Why would we allow Non Profit Blue Cross/ Blue shield turn into profit companies?

    Why can't there be a Public run Company give competition to United Healthcare?

    Who do you think is determining the medicine that a patient needs. Not the doctor anymore. Some bureocrat of the Insurance company decides.

    Why would every pharmaceutical company would advertise to the General public about their medicines ? It puts lot of pressure on the doctor to defend his own choice rather than the patient's TV ad query ?

  • Report this Comment On September 05, 2009, at 12:54 AM, DOCRAMESH wrote:

    I AGREE WITH ALL THE PHYSICIANS WHO WROTE HERE.MAJORITY OF OUR HEALTHCARE COST COMES FROM THE FEAR OF BEING SUED.UNTIL THIS PROBLEM IS ADDRESSED,HEALTH CARE COST WILL REMAIN VERY HIGH.OBAMA IS A NICE GUY BUT HE APPARANTLY HAS NO IDEA WHAT IS DRIVING THE COST OF HEALTH CARE.WE NEED TO GET A NON LAWYER NON BUSINESS PERSON IN THE WHIREHOUSE.

    THANKS.

  • Report this Comment On September 05, 2009, at 1:36 AM, marymack1 wrote:

    I am 56 and was diagnosed with a chronic illness 5 years ago. I take a medication that is like a miracle drug for me, it is harmless and non-narcotic. I also take high blood pressure medication.

    In May I was informed by my doctor that he will no longer treat me because I have no insurance. I had made arrangements with the business end that I would pay off any balance ( it's about $ 300 ) when my disability settlement comes in. Despite being very ill during the year, I didn't go to the doctor because I didn't want to rack up bills.

    Along with not seeing me, he will no longer prescribe the meds I so desparately need. I did call the clinic his receptionist suggested to find a year waiting list.

    A recent trip to the hospital showed my blood pressure at 198/ 110. They won't treat my chronic illness saying I need a general practioner to prescribe my meds.

    I am now in bed most of the day due to my illness and with a blood pressure so high I could have a heart attack or stroke at any time. And no one will help.

    Is my doctor killing me ? Yes, but until he sees some insurance or $$ , he doesn't give a rats azz what my current condition is.

  • Report this Comment On September 05, 2009, at 1:44 AM, FoolDoc904 wrote:

    Cuteface wrote: "Did you know that anyone can make an anonymous complaint against a physician for any reason and it is pursued by the medical board? You can literally have your career ruined by anyone who has any type of issues with you or your office, and even if cleared of any wrong doing, it is an emotionally draining process to even be investigated."

    Been there done that. It is a harrowing experience and the same thing happens in malpractice as well.

    Bear with me while I "set the table" here so you can understand. Have been in practice for 14 years as an Internist. Pride myself on diagnostic ability. Always learned, do a good H&P and the "patient will tell you what is wrong with him" and have found that to be true.

    Have never been sued, never paid a judgement, and never commited malpractice. Patient of mine suffered a vertebral artery dissection while out of town and saw me many days later. He never sought care at any point, until he saw me at his regularly scheduled 6-month followup for HTN and hyperlipidemia. Long story short, he did very well and died more than 2 years later from an intracerebral hemorrhage and was found dead at home by his daughter.

    Wife of the deceased got a copy of my chart for her attorney, obviously hoping to sue me for some kind of failure, which did not exist. SHE ALTERED THE CHART in numerous ways. Despite this, her attorney refused to sue, for there was no malpractice.

    She then filed a complaint with the state medical board, using this ALTERED CHART (ALTERATIONS SHE HAD MADE) as "evidence of my incompetence" to practice medicine.

    The medical board then turned over this altered chart to their "expert" to review my care. He of course assumed the chart was proper, and wrote a report condemning me as incompetent.

    All this took many months to weave its way through the system, and it was all happening without my knowledge. I had, with my attorney, "responded" to her original complaint and thought it was a resolved issue.

    Months later I received a letter from the medical board telling me they had concluded I was a danger to the population, and they had sufficient reason to believe I violated state statutes with regard to the practice of medicine.

    I was given 7-days to prepare for a "Probably Cause Panel Hearing" at which they would determine my punishment, most likely being that they would take away my license to practice medicine.

    They gave me only 7-days to prepare, and though the law allows for an extension to prepare for such hearings, they felt I was such a danger to the public that they refused to give me an extension on the hearing date.

    The "in-house" attorney at the medical board told me: "You should simply surrender your license and stop practicing medicine, because we are going to take your license from you at the hearing!"

    It was at this time I was FINALLY given all of their records they had used to come to find "probably cause." In this pile of papers I find a copy of my chart ALTERED BY THE COMPLAINANT. My attorney raises this issue and they still refuse to extend the hearing date.

    Imagine if I had been out of the country on vacation (which we commonly do and for more than 7 days at a time when we do) when that letter arrived giving me only 7-days to respond to the "Probably Cause Panel'!!! I would have lost my license.

    We beat them at the "Probable Cause Hearing"... but this was no easy task. The wife of the deceased of course had been receiving "updates" (probably weekly) from the medical board throughout this process, and she was certain she was going to get my license revoked. Imagine her surprise when we overcame those odds and I continue to practice today. There was no discipline or punishment from the board, because there was no probably cause, and there was no malpractice.

    If I, as a physician, altered a chart it would be the end of my career. This lunatic altered my chart and nearly ended my career. Did she get any kind of punishment? Of course not. How fair is that?

    This was finished about 18 months ago. This lunatic woman to this day continues to send me nasty cards on Christmas, her dead husbands birthday, and also on the date of their wedding anniversary, and writes all kinds of horrible things. There is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

    This kind of thing happens in malpractice cases as well. Think of the millions and millions wasted on this. Think of all the doctors who decide to get out of the practice of medicine because of malpractice, and things like this.

    I could write pages and pages about the waste in medicine, including the scam called LTAC Hospitals, and the waste keeping people alive "at all cost" because the family demands it and we don't want to be sued for letting someone die. Imagine the wasted money spent by physicians on defensive medicine after they go through what I went through just so that it does not happen again. And defensive medicine after a frivolous (or successful) lawsuit "just so I don't have to go through that again" and all sorts of things.

    The system is dysfunctional. And the doctors have only miniscule influence on the overall system. But this system destroys those of us who are good diagnosticians with crap like this.

    A Neurologist once said to me: "I used to be proud of my ability to diagnose the difficult cases. You know, I found out it is not better for me to be better, it gets you sued. The best thing to do is give the same diagnosis that everyone else gives, then you are not an outlier!"

    Well, learned that lesson in a very difficult way. Will always now practice defensive medicine to the max, and will rarely every disagree with another doctor, even if I have evidence that an incorrect diagnosis has been made. Why, because I have a career to protect, a family to support, and the lunatics can take you down with very little effort and they can alter your chart with no repercussions, all while you have no defense against their complaints or their behavior.

  • Report this Comment On September 05, 2009, at 10:50 AM, mfscheer wrote:

    I typically do not post comments in this fashion and although I agree with your statement that tort reform will result in lower costs to patients I am surprised that you did not add the caveat that individual physicians are likely to be the greatest beneficiary thus robbing patients again. Most of the rest of the article is pure drivel and portrays physicians as greedy, unethical auto mechanics. How ridiculous. Several points to emphasize this...Doctors do not get paid by the test! Doctors receive a fixed, negotiated payment from an insurance company or Medicare or Medicaid for providing a certain level of care. This may involve obtaining tests but Stark laws prevent physicians from referring patients for these tests to a place where they have a financial interest. For primary care physicians these payments are quite low making it diffcult for them to make any money. Therefore when discussing physicians and their income there should be a distinction made between primary care providers and specialists. Specialist such as surgeons also receive a fixed, negotiated amount for providing services and cannot by law balance bill a patient. I think that the general public would be interested to know this. If I remove an infected appendix, fairly major emergency surgery performed under general anesthesia in laparoscopic fashion my fee is $2400. I would be interested to know from the general public whether they feel this is reasonable, justified given that patient's life is in my hands and my years of training have culminated in my ability to provide this service in a safe and successful fashion. Then I would be interested to know from the general public their opinion regarding the actual payment I receive from Medicare and private insurance between $500 and $600. And this is the TOTAL payment for my care of that patient for that problem for 90 days! If the patient goes home in one day because the surgery was a huge success, the payment is still ~$500. If the patient remains in the hospital for two weeks on antibiotics or has a complication such as a wound infection that does not heal for two months, I am still payed ~$500.

    As a surgeon I make a good living because I am good and I am busy and I fall above the "rich" line of Obama ($250,000) but I do not consider myself "rich" in money terms. I still have to worry about how I will be able to afford college tuition for my four children and whether I will be able to save enough for retirement and if I have to worry about this how do you think the primary care doctors are getting by when they are well below the "rich" line. So the next time you think it would be good idea to bash doctors remember that physicians are not independently wealthy these days and they have to be good businessmen in order to do well and that the current economic climate may result in fewer doctors entering the field and you may not be able to find a good family physician and you may not be able to find a specialist or surgeon when you need one because we decided to leave practice for greener pastures where we have to work fewer hours with less liability where we can set our own fees and refuse to provide services if we do not receive the fees upfront and we can change the rules to benefit us in the future. Perhaps law?

    Michael F. Scheer, MD, FACS

  • Report this Comment On September 05, 2009, at 9:25 PM, drdbarry wrote:

    The system needs to be changed so that I can bill like a lawyer. I see you in my office...I bill. I call you on the phone....I bill. I review your lab tests....I bill.

    Right now I only get paid for the face to face time at our appointment. If I got paid for all the other time I spend on your 'account' I would feel adequately compensated.

  • Report this Comment On September 11, 2009, at 11:43 AM, steve7749 wrote:

    The statement that Medicare pays less than private insurers is simply a falsehood in most cases. Until I retired seven years ago, I was a healthcare provider in my hometown of Louisville, KY, which also is the home of Humana. Humana sent me the greatest number of patients of any private insurer; however, their reimbursement rates for eye exams was in most cases less than 1/4th of what I received from Medicare or Medicaid (Unysis). Presently, there is a huge squabble in Louisville between Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield and Norton hospitals. The five area Norton hospitals are refusing to renew their contract with Anthem because of low reimbursement rates. However, Norton is happy to continue treating Medicare patients. So the statement that Medicare is an inadequate payor is simply not true.

  • Report this Comment On September 12, 2009, at 11:57 PM, DrDiva wrote:

    First of all, I'm delighted to see all the medical professionals on the Fool boards... I salute you, and thank you for what you do.

    I'm of two views on this issue - on one side, my brother is a pancreatic surgeon, and quite often his patients die sooner rather than later. (If you're a doc reading this, you understand. If you're not, all I can say is pray for a healthy pancreas.) His malpractice insurance is insane. I've never understood why a surgeon who is willing to step in and try to save a patient who has an otherwise guaranteed death sentence -and a quick one - is penalized financially for it. The psychological toll of working in a field where the odds are stacked so badly against you should be penalty enough.

    On the other side of the coin, I'm a PhD scientist working in medical imaging R&D. I see every day what is possible in imaging and diagnosis, on a level that your local clinic probably won't have for another ten years. Imaging, and individual therapy at the molecular level, have been advancing at an incredible rate, and sometimes I think it's not so much a problem of doctors ordering too many tests as a problem of doctors behind the technology curve not ordering the right tests or enough of them. Think Atari vs iPod - but many of the doctors out there were trained before Atari, and have no idea what imaging circa 2009 can do. Take home message: please don't tar and feather all imaging modalities and requests for tests just because some are defensive.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 973824, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/25/2012 7:34:42 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 4:03 PM
UNH $56.12 Down -0.10 -0.18%
UnitedHealth Group CAPS Rating: *****
WFM $87.27 Up +0.85 +0.98%
Whole Foods Market CAPS Rating: ****
WLP $67.90 Up +0.08 +0.12%
WellPoint, Inc. CAPS Rating: *****
TM $76.80 Down -0.40 -0.52%
Toyota Motor Corp… CAPS Rating: ****
AET $41.20 Up +0.07 +0.17%
Aetna, Inc. CAPS Rating: ****
F $10.60 Up +0.01 +0.09%
Ford CAPS Rating: ****
HMC $31.92 Down -0.28 -0.87%
Honda Motor Co., L… CAPS Rating: ****

Advertisement