- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why assume that paying providers/ hospitals at Medicare rates won’t be problematic?
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:32 am
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:32 am
the supply surve slopes upward. That’s a law of economics
In the long term, you could see a serious exodus out of the medical industry if incomes are cut across the board
That’s another issue Medicare for all advocates ignore.
You lower the price to zero, which spurs huge increase in demand
You lower payment rates, which reduces supply of docs, nurses, supplies, etc
Seems like a destabilizing combo
Just another reason it won’t sniff ever becoming law
In the long term, you could see a serious exodus out of the medical industry if incomes are cut across the board
That’s another issue Medicare for all advocates ignore.
You lower the price to zero, which spurs huge increase in demand
You lower payment rates, which reduces supply of docs, nurses, supplies, etc
Seems like a destabilizing combo
Just another reason it won’t sniff ever becoming law
14
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:33 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
problematic
I'm so sick of this word
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:34 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
If our media was ever honest about the problems the existing systems in Canada and Europe have, we wouldn't even be talking about this. But of course, they are the mouthpieces for the dems
This post was edited on 2/18/20 at 11:38 am
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:34 am to upgrayedd
quote:
problematic
quote:
I'm so sick of this word
Yeah I have a problem with it too
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:34 am to upgrayedd
quote:
problematic
I'm so sick of this word
True, that along with "troubling" just makes me eye roll anymore
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:39 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
You lower payment rates, which reduces supply of docs, nurses, supplies, etc
I think that only affects the independent clinics. Places like Ochsner, EJ, WJ would just force more appointments; therefore, reducing the quality of service because the doctor now needs to see 8, patients instead of 5, in an hour.
quote:
You lower the price to zero, which spurs huge increase in demand
True. But, what you will see is longer wait times to see doctors, especially specialists. Also, if I need to see a cardiologist, ortho...I can just call the office and schedule and my insurance will deal with it. Under a universal system, it would all have to be referral based by the GP, which means I need to schedule 2 appointments and spend twice as much time for the proper treatment.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:42 am to Weekend Warrior79
quote:
I think that only affects the independent clinics. Places like Ochsner, EJ, WJ would just force more appointments; therefore, reducing the quality of service because the doctor now needs to see 8, patients instead of 5, in an hour.
Massively increasing workload with no increase in take home income is equivalent to a cut in pay
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:43 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
The assumption is you are already taking care of a bunch of people for free because of emtala and the lower reimbursement will be made up for by actually getting paid for other cases.
I don’t know if that will shake out the way people think.
I don’t know if that will shake out the way people think.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:44 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
I head a CEO at a major private hospital speak of the issues with private insurance payouts vs government "insurance" payouts. they were getting a fraction of what they were billing back from government "insurance"
he said a lot of hospital's sustainability was teetering, and that only private insurance payments was keeping them floating. but hospitals in poorer markers were not going to make it as is because of the disproportional number on government rolls.
put all on those rolls, and the government will then need to take over hospitals that will start failing, which will open the next can of worms.
think high government inefficiencies, and a new, huge bureaucracy. Think DMV on super steroids
he said a lot of hospital's sustainability was teetering, and that only private insurance payments was keeping them floating. but hospitals in poorer markers were not going to make it as is because of the disproportional number on government rolls.
put all on those rolls, and the government will then need to take over hospitals that will start failing, which will open the next can of worms.
think high government inefficiencies, and a new, huge bureaucracy. Think DMV on super steroids
Posted on 2/18/20 at 11:50 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
IDK about Medicare reimbursements in any other healthcare sector, but with home health companies, Medicare patients are the only ones that make the company any money.
The only reason they even accept referrals of patients with private insurance, Medicaid or VA is to maintain good relationships with referral sources so you get the Medicare patients when they come along.
At least, that was the case in Louisiana for the 20 or so years I worked in home health.
Always found it interesting the way that reimbursement system worked, and how private insurers were able to negotiate contracts with home health agencies to provide services for their patients essentially at cost.
The only reason they even accept referrals of patients with private insurance, Medicaid or VA is to maintain good relationships with referral sources so you get the Medicare patients when they come along.
At least, that was the case in Louisiana for the 20 or so years I worked in home health.
Always found it interesting the way that reimbursement system worked, and how private insurers were able to negotiate contracts with home health agencies to provide services for their patients essentially at cost.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 12:00 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
medicare will pay more.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 12:01 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
fact 60% of all private doctors refuse to treat anyone who doesnt have private insurance.
if you are on a medicare or medicade they tell you to go to a charity hospital for care
if you are on a medicare or medicade they tell you to go to a charity hospital for care
Posted on 2/18/20 at 12:10 pm to tigeraddict
quote:
I head a CEO at a major private hospital speak of the issues with private insurance payouts vs government "insurance" payouts. they were getting a fraction of what they were billing back from government "insurance"
My last visit, I'm on Medicare, to my GP was $100. Medicare paid around $65. I paid no balance. So, either the doctor is jacking up an office visit price or he is losing 35 dollars a patient. Also, these free flu shots, something doesn't smell right about that either. The nurse told me if Joe Blow walks in without any coverage the shot is $55. So how do these clinics and drug stores offer these things for free at that price?
Posted on 2/18/20 at 12:39 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
which spurs huge increase in demand
Someone on here was arguing (citing “studies”) that UHC would barely increase demand (less that 10%). Which begs the question... why do we need it?
Posted on 2/18/20 at 12:55 pm to Homesick Tiger
Doctors can charge a million dollars per visit if they want, but will only collect the Medicare allowable rate. The doctor raises his rate so that when he negotiates with a private insurer he can get a better reimbursement rate.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 1:19 pm to CelticDog
quote:
medicare will pay more.
You have got to be fricking kidding me.
Posted on 2/18/20 at 1:22 pm to Weekend Warrior79
quote:
I think that only affects the independent clinics. Places like Ochsner, EJ, WJ would just force more appointments; therefore, reducing the quality of service because the doctor now needs to see 8, patients instead of 5, in an hour.
That would never happen. Under government run healthcare for all, quality incentives and productivity incentives would cease to exist. Physican pay would be drastically reduced. Why would any physician work harder and more efficiently to see more patients without a monetary incentive?
You all realize it would be Medicaid rates right, not Medicare?
Posted on 2/18/20 at 1:24 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Also, these free flu shots, something doesn't smell right about that either. The nurse told me if Joe Blow walks in without any coverage the shot is $55. So how do these clinics and drug stores offer these things for free at that price?
Because to third party insurers, it’s much cheaper for them to provide the flu shot than to pay for all the costs associated with you getting the actual flu
Posted on 2/18/20 at 1:40 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Bankrupt hospitals, physician groups, and clinics.
Medicare rates
That isn’t disputable.
Our hospital makes money off of the private industry.
Medicare/Medicaid results is losses across the board.
This post was edited on 2/18/20 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 2/18/20 at 1:45 pm to keakar
Maybe true of medicaid, but not really true of medicare unless the practice is strictly concierge.....withot medicare most private ophthamologists would be out of business since the average age of the patient is over 70
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News