Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Patients will have coverage, but no doc
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | March 27, 2010 | LOUIS J. GOODMAN AND TIMOTHY B. NORBECK

Posted on 03/28/2010 8:02:26 AM PDT by KeyLargo

Patients will have coverage, but no doc

March 27, 2010

BY LOUIS J. GOODMAN AND TIMOTHY B. NORBECK

Now that the health-care bill has passed and the smoke has cleared from the acrimonious debate -- if only for a little while -- it seems appropriate to reflect on how this significant legislation will impact our health-care system.

We don't know anyone who would oppose, on moral grounds, insuring everyone, and that includes us at the Physicians Foundation. Some have argued that the overall cost of the legislation may be prohibitive. While that argument goes beyond our expertise, we do believe that there is an important issue that has been ignored.

Many groups and think tanks seem to agree that there is a shortage of practicing physicians in the United States, especially those in primary care. These entities, including the Association of American Medical Colleges, point to what they see as serious shortages of as many as 100,000 physicians over the next 10 or 15 years.

The Physicians Foundation is a nonprofit organization created in 2003 to help physicians, in an increasingly difficult practice environment, to continue delivering high-quality health care. In 2008, the foundation, in collaboration with Merritt Hawkins & Associates, undertook a comprehensive survey of all primary care physicians in the U.S. The results were dramatic and distressing regarding difficulties they are encountering in sustaining their medical practices.

What was also telling and relevant to the discussion on the physician work force were the following:

• 63 percent said increasing paperwork has caused them to spend less time per patient.

• 76 percent said they were either at "full capacity" or are "overextended and overwhelmed."

• Less than 6 percent assessed their colleagues' morale as positive, and 78 percent reported that over the past five years, the practice of medicine has become less satisfying.

Because of these factors, 49 percent of physicians reported that, over the next one to three years, they intended to reduce the number of patients they see or to stop seeing patients entirely due to retirement, working part time or seeking non-medical jobs.

The entire survey is at www .physiciansfoundation.org. It is also available in a new book, In Their Own Words, in which physicians explain growing impediments to the delivery of patient care, including difficulty working with managed care organizations; liability insurance/defensive medicine; non-clinical paperwork; increasing demands on time; onerous government rules; declining reimburse- ments as their practice costs are escalating, and a shortage of primary care physicians. In view of the influx of 30 million more insured patients into our health-care system, these findings are sobering. How will there be enough doctors available to take care of everyone?

For the past 25 years, the number of physicians completing training in the U.S. has remained flat at about 24,000 a year. During that time, a handful of new medical schools has been added, and enrollment is gradually increasing. The Association of American Medical Colleges has initiated a plan to increase medical school enrollment 30 percent by 2015, but that won't help unless the number of medical residencies available for them, now fixed by law, is increased as well.

To its credit, Massachusetts attempted to insure all of its citizens in 2006. According to the Massachusetts Medical Society, the state is now suffering a critical shortage of primary care physicians." Not surprising is that expanded insurance coverage -- regardless of its noble objective -- has caused an increase in demand for medical services. But there hasn't been a corresponding increase in the number of doctors. Many Massachusetts residents now have insurance coverage but can't find a physician. The medical society also found in its 2009 survey that 56 percent of Massachusetts physicians in internal medicine aren't accepting new patients. And new patients fortunate enough to secure an appointment with a primary care doctor have an average waiting time of 44 days!

It is obvious that the U.S. physician work force and the number of medical residencies available must be increased -- and rather quickly -- in order for physicians to cope successfully with 30 million new patients. Washington has basically ignored an issue that will greatly affect patient care and that must be addressed now.

Louis J. Goodman is president and Timothy B. Norbeck is executive director of the Physicians Foundation, a Boston-based nonprofit that works with physicians to improve the health-care system.

http://www.physiciansfoundations.org/


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: doctor; obamacare; patients; romney; romney4obama; romneycare; shortage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

1 posted on 03/28/2010 8:02:26 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

(To its credit, Massachusetts attempted to insure all of its citizens in 2006.)
It’s the thought that counts, not reality. Typical lib-talk.


2 posted on 03/28/2010 8:08:02 AM PDT by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

What does Mitt Romney have to say about the condition of Massachussetts health care? About what he did?

I say Romney is a coward, and worse. He will attempt to slither out of this.


3 posted on 03/28/2010 8:09:24 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Show me one example where the results of Democrat policy are not the opposite of what they promise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winner3000

It’s typical of “LIBTOPIA.” Everything is equal, everyone is kind (except them), everyone is just (except them). . . because they have a cause.


4 posted on 03/28/2010 8:11:39 AM PDT by mia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Romney’s experiment backfired.


5 posted on 03/28/2010 8:12:31 AM PDT by mia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Look for “walmart clinics” in your future, staffed with RNs and PA’s instead of doctors.


6 posted on 03/28/2010 8:14:15 AM PDT by mylife (Opinions...$1 Halfbaked...50c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Wow, who could have seen that coming? Surely our lords and masters in D.C. Could Have anticipated that one. And as for the arguement that the SinTimes that no one could have a “moral arguement” against this law.....where to even begin.


7 posted on 03/28/2010 8:15:08 AM PDT by cyberstoic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
Doctors take note:

From the obamacare bill:

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.


8 posted on 03/28/2010 8:15:19 AM PDT by FrankR (Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
"We don't know anyone who would oppose, on moral grounds"

Giving people a right to a service that has to be produced by others is that same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will---whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent.

I guess if slavery is no longer immoral . . . .

9 posted on 03/28/2010 8:15:34 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Look for “walmart clinics” in your future, staffed with RNs and PA’s instead of doctors.

Think of the opportunities for the tort lawyers once people start being killed or maimed because of under-trained caregivers!

On the other hand, this could get us to actual reform of tort laws, because the problems can be blamed on Obamacare. Will we be smart enough to prepare for this dynamic?

10 posted on 03/28/2010 8:17:16 AM PDT by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mia

I hope he’s sorry he never took the time necessary to understand the truth of conservatism.


11 posted on 03/28/2010 8:20:46 AM PDT by reasonisfaith (Show me one example where the results of Democrat policy are not the opposite of what they promise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Its not just drs quitting and retiring on account of this bill but there will be less money and less perks as an incentive so probably fewer students.


12 posted on 03/28/2010 8:22:16 AM PDT by wiggen (Government owned slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom
Will we be smart enough to prepare for this dynamic?

Of course not.

13 posted on 03/28/2010 8:23:59 AM PDT by mylife (Opinions...$1 Halfbaked...50c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
I heard of one Obamaton doctor who got wind of this almost a year ago and was horriifed. his pricepoint for his speciality is 3 time the Obama rate and has huge student lones to pay. His speciality does not grow on trees...

I joked with another medical info-tech professional that it wouldn't suprise me if some of the doc's in her hospital were looking at bartending in the Keys as a new career, she said such conversations are occuring....

Welcome to a brave new socialist world....

14 posted on 03/28/2010 8:25:42 AM PDT by taildragger (Palin/Mulally 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mylife

“Look for “walmart clinics” in your future, staffed with RNs and PA’s instead of doctors.”

Quite frankly, I would not have a problem with this >>IF<< the staff at such facilities had a very serious mandate to refer any cases which exceeded their skill/competence level to a real doc. Now if you ask me how that would be achieved/enforced, I cannot answer you in detail because I don’t work in the industry. It is axiomatic that folks who don’t know, don’t know what they don’t know. But virtually all RN’s I have encountered have been pretty darn sharp.

I >>DO<< believe that something like 60-75% of doctor/emerg room visits could be handled efficiently by small, casual clinics.

If from this comment you would accuse me of acquiescing to our brave new world of healthcare, I’d have to plead guilty to some extent.


15 posted on 03/28/2010 8:29:40 AM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (Voters who thought their ship came in with 0bama are on their own Titanic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

WELCOME TO CUBA!

FREE HEALTH CARE TO ALL BUT NO DOCTORS, MEDICINES, AND HOSPITALS. PLEASE WAIT INLINE.


16 posted on 03/28/2010 8:29:42 AM PDT by ncfool (The new USSA - United Socialst States of AmeriKa. Welcome to Obummers world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

The Dr’s will simply move to the Caribbean area and open shop on an island that is not a commonwealth of the USA.


17 posted on 03/28/2010 8:31:46 AM PDT by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

“What does Mitt Romney have to say about the condition of Massachussetts health care? About what he did?

I say Romney is a coward, and worse. He will attempt to slither out of this.”

Romney attacks health care law similar to his own

March 28, 2010

BY GLEN JOHNSON,

Mitt Romney has a problem with Obamacare. It looks a lot like Romneycare.

The prospective Republican presidential candidate’s vulnerability on the issue was evident this week when he was interrupted during a tour for his new book by a woman upset with the Massachusetts health care law Romney signed as governor in 2006. That law has some of the same core features as the federal law President Barack Obama, a Democrat, signed Tuesday.

And that’s creating an uncomfortable straddle for Romney as his party makes attacking the new health care law its main message this midterm year.

“We are up to here with Republicans not being conservative enough,” Dr. Sharon Sikora, a Chicago dentist, said as she raised her hand over her head. “And with all due respect, governor, your health care in Massachusetts is not the be-all and end-all, and there are significant problems with that, and I wouldn’t embrace that today, either.”

Romney conceded the Massachusetts plan “isn’t perfect” and is “a work in progress,” but he put part of the blame on Democrats who overrode vetoes he believes would have improved the original plan.

And then, instead of dissociating himself from the plan as he did during his 2008 White House race, Romney complained the president didn’t tap his expertise while crafting the federal measure.

“No one came to talk to me,” Romney said. “It’s very clear that people thought they had the answer without getting the benefit of the experiment.”

Like the new federal law, the Massachusetts plan requires individuals to buy health insurance and imposes tax penalties on those who don’t. Both plans penalize small businesses above a certain size that don’t provide coverage to their employees. And both rely on new taxes for some of their financing.

“The Massachusetts plan serves as a template for federal reform,” said Richard Powers, spokesman for the state agency that sets standards for the mandatory private insurance plans individuals must buy. Obama’s plan “didn’t replicate everything that we have here, but it certainly drew from the important principles of it.”

Massachusetts has succeeded in raising the amount of insured residents to 97 percent, but the cost has strained the state treasury. Powers’ agency reported that 68 percent of the 407,000 who are newly insured got a partial or full subsidy for their coverage.

And because some of that subsidy money came from the federal government in the form of a Medicaid waiver, the state treasurer recently asked who was going to provide similar funding on the national level for Obama’s plan.

The Club for Growth, which raises campaign money for economically conservative candidates, ripped Romney this month when he declared the Massachusetts program “the ultimate conservative plan” because it requires individual responsibility. One of the group’s leaders said that if Romney believed that, “he’s in the wrong party.” Conservative columnists have been similarly critical.

The former governor dismisses his critics, saying, “You do what you think is right, and if people decide that that’s not something they’re happy with, so be it.”

Besides, he said, he hasn’t decided whether to run for president again.

Romney criticized the Obama law in a blistering posting on the conservative National Review’s Web site just hours after the House passed the bill late Sunday. But, notably, he attacked the process more than the substance.

“America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse of power,” he wrote, complaining that Obama used extreme tactics to pass a bill without any Republican support. “For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed.”

Alternatively, he suggested starving it of money.

Romney reiterated his position after signing nearly 1,000 copies of his book at a store near his vacation home in San Diego early this week.

“I like what we have in Massachusetts, despite some flaws,” Romney said. “But what I see in Obamacare is a very different piece of legislation - and one that followed a very different track. In our case, our bill was carried out in a bipartisan basis.”

Political analysts expect his rivals to gloss over such distinctions - and attack the general similarities - in any future campaign.

“He’s explaining the differences between Massachusetts and Washington in some very subtle and complex ways, and politics is about simple truths - particularly in party primaries,” said Jeffrey Berry, a political science professor at Tufts University in Massachusetts.

Berry noted both laws require that people get insurance coverage, and both impose new taxes and penalties - “anathema to mainstream Republicanism. And both involve a significant expansion of government. So, on all those counts, Mitt Romney is vulnerable.”

http://www.southtownstar.com/news/2124951,032810romney.article


18 posted on 03/28/2010 8:32:34 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder

Tha’ts fine for minor matters, but major matters could be easily misdiagnosed.


19 posted on 03/28/2010 8:35:07 AM PDT by mylife (Opinions...$1 Halfbaked...50c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ncfool

20 posted on 03/28/2010 8:35:19 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson