Overheard In The Lounge

Current Issue

Has Obamacare Arrived early?

Dr. Rosen:       Last week everyone seemed depressed over the happenings in medicine.

Dr. Milton:      We have had an influx of new welfare patients into our HMO. We’re adjusting.

Dr. Ruth:        We have not participated in accepting the MediCal patients who have been newly added to our HMO.

Dr. Edwards:  I’ve always had a base of 10-20% of my practice being welfare. We have accepted these with careful scrutiny.

Dr. Michelle:   How do you scrutinize MediCal or Welfare patients?

Dr. Edwards:  It isn’t easy. But we feel an obligation to the poorer members of our society. We can usually determine after the second visit whether they are the Dregs of Society and are “takers” and happy being “takers” or are they temporarily down and out and appreciate the American Freedom of opportunity and looking for a brighter day tomorrow. Look at the billionaires in our culture who came to America with very little cash in their pockets.

 Dr. Yancy:     I have a MediCal free practice and I intend to keep it that way. If I see a MediCal patient who really needs my surgical care, I may see one on an individual basis. But I don’t charge for my services. It’s charitable and free. I’m not going to deal with the state bureaucracy, hassles, condescending attitudes, such as let’s see a copy of your medical records or surgery reports within one week for one-third of my standard fee. My estimate is that the hassles and their costs frequently exceed the one-third fee they pay me. This means that I’m doing charity but not recognized as such. I’ll just do real charity in these cases.

Dr. Rosen.       Yancy brings up an excellent point. When we do MediCal which just barely covers our office cost but none of the doctors net fee, we get criticized for doing what amounts to charity. Why not do real charity and not charge anything for those in the MediCal ranks we see. Then control those ranks to say ten percent of our practice. Physicians would then be praised instead of constantly criticized.

Dr. Michelle:   Milton, how are you adjusting to your influx of MediCal patients into your HMO?

Dr. Milton:      It was a bigger eye opener than I would have ever thought. The very first day that those 500 welfare MediCal patients were place into our panel, we were deluged with unbelievable demands on our office.

Dr. Michelle:   What do you mean? Didn’t you just have a different type of office patient?

Dr. Milton:      If that were all there was to it, we would have been happy to service this population. But my wife, who runs my single employee office, normally came to work and had two or three phone messages and then she proceeded to the day’s work. The very first day, this increased to 60 messages. We hadn’t fully realized that these 500 patients don’t work, they all have cell phones, they called the office at all hours of day or night, and some even showed up expecting to be seen immediately. One even threatened to sue if we didn’t see him immediately. It took my wife three house to get through all these phone messages and then another two hours to process these requests. And mind you, these patients had not yet been seen or evaluated but that didn’t stop them from requesting prescriptions, lab work, x-rays, referrals before their first appointment.

Dr. Rosen:      And if you tried to explain to these folks that it would be a violation of the Medical Practice Act to do any one of those things without an exam, they would probably not understand this jeopardy of your license to practice Medicine or Surgery. And then add that would also eliminate your sole source of income would fall on deaf ears. They know that all doctors are rich and don’t need an income.

Dr. Edwards:  This reminds me of one patient that complained a lot about doctors making too much money. The rich just don’t want to pay taxes to help the poor folks. I asked him that perhaps the rich should pay 100%? He replied, “Certainly, they can well afford it.” I then suggested that perhaps the rich should pay 200% in taxes. He again replied, “Certainly, they can well afford it.”

Dr. Rosen:      That’s an excellent illustration of entitlements vs charity. Many of my TSR friends think that welfare is charity. But force charity or entitlement is not charity at all. With entitlement, people always want more. There never is enough. It brings out the worst in human beings. With charity from the heart, there is always thankfulness; it brings out the best in us.

Dr. Milton:      That probably characterizes the difference in these patients very well. The paying patient is always appreciative. All at once we have a whole slew of patients who are not only extremely demanding, but also very litigious. They report every little variance they are not use to, to their HMO and this brings a large amount of paper work to clear our name. Last week a patient asked me for some suggestions on reducing her weight. I pointed out to her that to maintain her weight, pointing with my hand, she had to be eating 2,000 calories per day. By reducing that by one-fourth or 500 calories would equal 3500 calories or one pound per week. She reported me to her HMO as saying that I insulted her by saying she was fat. I not only got letters from the HMO, but also the state agency overseeing HMO to explain my non-professional behavior and a copy of the medical chart. The HIPAA regulations essentially allow all government and insurance agencies access to a patient’s chart without the patient’s knowledge.

Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .

The Staff Lounge Is Where Unfiltered Opinions Are Heard.

 

Overheard In The Lounge

Previous Issue

Same song, same verse

There was not much new in the Staff Dining Room this month. Doctors are getting discourage and burned out because of the inability to practice quality medicine like they’ve been trained and dealing with the medically illiterate to justify routine treatments.

Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .

The Staff Lounge Is Where Unfiltered Opinions Are Heard.

 

Overheard In The Lounge

Past Issue

When doctors reach 65?

Dr. Rosen:      Most of us are nearly the same age having started to practice in the 1970s. We also have previously discussed that when we reached 65, we would work at least until age 72 since we would lose one dollar of SS benefits for every two dollars of income over the SS limit.

Dr. Edwards:  I agree. We would have to work equally hard for reduced income. Now ten years later, none of our peers have retired.

Dr. Milton:      I think most of us feel like we’re in our midlife at 65. People that retire usually die in three years. Those that keep on working will live seven years longer.

Dr. Edwards:  Just looking at the economics of the picture. If we made even $3600 a month after age 65, we would lose the entire $1800 a month in SS benefits.

Dr. Milton:      We live in better health longer. Many of our 80 year olds look like our sixty year olds when we started practice 30 years ago.

Dr. Edwards:  Just last week the stats came out. With the last census women’s life expectancy increased five years from 76 to 81. And men’s life expectancy increased six years from 72 to 78.

Dr. Milton:      That’s essentially living about 25 years longer than when SS was first implemented. That’s a long time to live off of other people’s money.

Dr. Rosen:      That’s why I felt when President Clinton gave us the entire benefits  regardless of our income as we approached 65, that was the wrong thing to do. He should have increased the full retirement benefits to age 72 since most of us would be productive into our 80s.

Dr. Patricia:    Just look at the doctors in our midst who are practicing into their late 80s and early 90s. Their medical decisions are accepted by their patients they’ve had for 40 years. I think their medical decisions are as good and most cost effective than most of the physician extenders we now have.

Dr. Paul:         Don’t you feel sorry for the union man who has put in 30 years of hard labor? He can’t work to age 72.

Dr. Rosen:      I still think there should be an early retirement age—but not 62. That should be moved up to 65 where our current full retirement age is.

Dr. Milton:      That’s an excellent idea. But will that create traction?

Dr. Rosen:       I think it could be if we sold it appropriately. Remember when SS benefits started at age 65, the average life expectancy was less than 65. So at that time one-half of all people would never live long enough to receive SS benefits. But now with life expectancy approaching 80, it’s unreasonable to expect that people should live off the public dole for an extra 15 to 20 years. There’s not enough money in the world to give out those kinds of benefits.

Dr. Ruth:        That goes for us women physicians also. Look at all the women in our medical society that continue to practice into their 70s. They have the full support of their families and they continue to add a perspective to the society’s approach.

Dr. Rosen:      Clinton may have missed the best opportunity to bring fiscal responsibility to the SS system. But the current economic crises may be the best back ground to make SS last for our children also.

Move Social Security Full Retirement to age 72 as life expectancy reaches 80. Move early retirement age from 62 to 65 with reduced benefits. This will keep Social Security viable for our children. Then index benefits to 8 years of life expectancy.

Feedback . . .
Subscribe MedicalTuesday . . .
Subscribe HealthPlanUSA . . .

The Staff Lounge Is Where Unfiltered Opinions Are Heard.

For other issues, please visit our archives.

We invite you to sign up for this biweekly newsletter.