Posted on 02/15/2014 10:16:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind
For me and many other doctors like me, taking care of you has never been about the money. I have always considered it an honor and a privilege to be allowed personal entrance into the private world of your mind and your body. It is very satisfying for me to be able to offer my medical knowledge and experience to help you, my patient. This is why no matter how much or how little you or your insurance company pay me to see you, I will continue to do so. I will not abandon you because the reimbursement I get for your office visit is constantly diminishing or because I will soon get a bundled or quality-of-care payment rather than a fee for the service. No matter what the insurance scheme, I will struggle to lower office overhead to compensate for continued loss of income.
But Obamacare may not allow me to continue taking care of you, no matter how altruistic I am. The real problem with Obamacare’s narrow networks on the state exchanges is not doctors like me dropping out; it is insurers deciding not to add us to their new networks in the first place. Don’t get me wrong. No doctor in his or her right mind is eager to accept the reduced fees that Obamacare offers, and there is every reason to believe that the new policies will cut our reimbursements to the bone. But the reason that I don’t participate in the individual market’s GHI, HIP, or Empire Blue Cross plans is that these insurers have decided not to include my university’s network of doctors.
The cost of keeping us connected to our patients is far too rich for Obamacare’s blood. And for those insurers, like Oxford, United, and Aetna, that do include me via my university plan, I worry that these networks won’t include the orthopedist or kidney specialist or brain surgeon I am used to referring to, further jeopardizing my patient’s quality of health care. Can you imagine searching unsuccessfully for a brain surgeon to remove a growing tumor? This is the hideous future of the state exchanges: limited care provided by limited networks of physicians. Remember the “capitated” HMOs of the 1990s? Obamacare is a reprise of this failed model. The word “capitated” should really be “decapitated.”
The individual market is just a taste of the future — the same problems are sure to surface when the Obamacare business exchanges are up and running. And as businesses drop employees’ health coverage or make them part-time, so that more individuals resort to the state exchanges, the numbers of patients who are used to seeing me but no longer can will increase dramatically.
Many of my fellow physicians are concerned that as Obamacare collapses without the good doctors to support it, the government will have no choice but to mandate that all doctors participate. There is already a precedent for this. With Medicare and Medicaid, you are either all the way in or all the way out. There is no middle ground. As a participating Medicare provider, I cannot refuse to see a Medicare patient, though I can certainly delay an elective visit when my office schedule is full. An AMA survey in 2010 found that 17 percent of doctors were restricting the number of Medicare patients in their practice. Can you blame them? With reimbursements falling and restrictions rising for performing complex procedures on elderly patients with multiple medical problems, what doctor would rush to see them?
Many of my brethren feel that the same problem will soon exist for Obamacare. This is many doctors’ worst nightmare. You see, Obamacare is a multi-headed beast — it involves too many insurers for such an across-the-board mandate to be effective or workable. Recently, I decided to drop out of an insurance network that was paying me only $25 per visit and was refusing to pay for flu vaccines.
I can’t imagine losing the right to drop out of a bad insurance network any more than I can imagine what would happen if the new Obamacare insurances could be forced to include the best doctors.
The health-insurance situation is bad enough without adding any more mandates.
— Marc Siegel, M.D., is an associate professor of medicine at the NYU Langone Medical Center and medical director of the center’s Doctor Radio. He is a member of the Fox News Medical A Team and the author of The Inner Pulse: Unlocking the Secret Code of Sickness and Health.
For the List.
A lot of doctors close to retirement or financially sound will probably quit. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
And people thought there was a doctor shortage before. Many of those who practice the healing arts for a handsome living, and even those who are only eking out a bare existence with the skill set, may just decide to chuck it all and raise chickens, where there is not nearly as much paperwork or personalities to deal with, or depart from the territory once known as the “United States of America” altogether, going to a distant land where they may exercise their healing arts in an unfettered and useful manner.
No way to run a railroad.
And if the Current Regime, in its wisdom, simply points a finger at someone and says, “Make a doctor out of him (or her)”, there is by no means any certainty that the candidate will ever be much of a healer, or even very good at carrying out the instructions of how to dispose of medical treatment problems.
IMOW...we're being robbed!!
Absolutely. Government can’t force me to do anything
Just like teachers, doctors will soon ALL be government bought and paid for....by us!!
They will quit first.
The paperwork requires massive staffs and complicated record keeping and data storage.
Unlimited liability requires huge insurance premiums.
The Docs I know love their work and their patients. But they will not bankrupt themselves and their families.
Any doc over 55 will just retire.
Marc Siegel, M.D.,
How dare you! You labor and work efforts are for the state to direct and not your own. It is the right of the people to have health services provided by you and your brethren regardless of your willingness to comply. Refusal to comply will result in your license being revoked. There is an IRS audit in your near future for your insolence. /sarc
Bookmark.
Another “Executive Order” in the making?
We really are moving towards a soviet union here where central planners decide what occupation a person will become - whether they are skilled at it or not.
And once assigned, you cannot refuse to serve.
-PJ
Slavery is alive and well in 21st Century America.
This should go a long way to drive more doctors out of the profession. When are we going to get education reform and stick it to the “perfessors”? It’s time they go through the Marxist BS that medical professionals are going through.
Captain Louis Rennault remains shocked, SHOCKED, at this potential development.
Involuntary servitude prohibited by 13th Amendment. Cases were going to Supreme Court when they halted the military draft. Licensing may require Docs to perform a percentage of “pro bono publico” work BUT cannot force them to accept a small portion of their going rate (paltry Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements) without running afoul of the Constitution.
13th Amendment:
“Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
- See more at: http://constitution.laws.com/13th-amendment#sthash.Wo5LJYm8.dpuf
Just fyi,
Not all doctors share this view.
Some doctors if not many are fully on-board with Obamacare, and the socialized medicine mentality.
Case in point... my own family has encountered doctors who will NOT see us presumably because we are self pay.
They would apparently rather take what they can get from insurance providers rather than risk not getting paid at all from the individual’s pocket.
Most health care professionals I’ve met are very benevolent people... even the ones who are misguided by Obama’s agenda.
I guess what many of them fail to understand is the benefits of a free market system which on the surface may appear to them as selfish in nature. As a result they may also be missing the underlying principle that benevolence is not something which can be forced.
RE: They would apparently rather take what they can get from insurance providers rather than risk not getting paid at all from the individual’s pocket.
What if someone can show them the money first? :)
It will also cause a lot of would be doctor college students to pursue a different career. I have little doubt it is already having that effect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.