Sunday, April 29, 2012

Physicians cannot give even give thier practices away!



“All right, deep breaths,” Dr. Sroka said. It was only 10 a.m., but Dr. Sroka was already behind schedule, with patients backed up in the waiting room like planes waiting to take off at La Guardia Airport. Too many stories; too little time.

“Talking too much is the kind of thing that gets me behind,” Dr. Sroka said with a shrug. “But it’s the only part of the job I like.”

A former president of the Maryland State Medical Society, Dr. Sroka has practiced family medicine for 32 years in a small, red-brick building just six miles from his childhood home, treating fishing buddies, neighbors and even his elementary school principal much the way doctors have practiced medicine for centuries. He likes to chat, but with costs going up and reimbursements down, that extra time has hurt his income. So Dr. Sroka, 62, thought about retiring.

He tried to sell his once highly profitable practice. No luck. He tried giving it away. No luck.

Dr. Sroka’s fate is emblematic of a transformation in American medicine. He once provided for nearly all of his patients’ medical needs — stitching up the injured, directing care for the hospitalized and keeping vigil for the dying. But doctors like him are increasingly being replaced by teams of rotating doctors and nurses who do not know their patients nearly as well. A centuries-old intimacy between doctor and patient is being lost, and patients who visit the doctor are often kept guessing about who will appear in the white coat.

The share of solo practices among members of the American Academy of Family Physicians fell to 18 percent by 2008 from 44 percent in 1986. And census figures show that in 2007, just 28 percent of doctors described themselves as self-employed, compared with 58 percent in 1970. Many of the provisions of the new health care law are likely to accelerate these trends.

“There’s not going to be any of us left,” Dr. Sroka said.

Indeed, younger doctors — half of whom are now women — are refusing to take over these small practices. They want better lifestyles, shorter work days, and weekends free of the beepers, cellphones and patient emergencies that have long defined doctors’ lives. Weighed down with debt, they want regular paychecks instead of shopkeeper risks. And even if they wanted such practices, banks — attuned to the growing uncertainties — are far less likely to lend the money needed.

For patients, the transition away from small private practices is not all bad. While larger practices tend to be less intimate, the care offered tends to be better — with more preventive services, better cardiac advice and fewer unnecessary tests. And the new policies that may finally put Dr. Sroka out of business are almost universally embraced — including wholesale adoption of electronic medical records and bundled payments from the federal Medicare program that encourage coordinated care.

“Those of us who think about medical errors and cost have no nostalgia — in fact, we have outright disdain — for the single practitioner like Marcus Welby,” David J. Rothman, president of the Institute on Medicine as a Profession at Columbia University, said of the 1970s TV doctor.

Dr. Sroka has not taken a sick day in 32 years. After his latest partner left in September, he was unable for five months to schedule any time off until another local doctor volunteered to cover for him. His income and patients depend upon his daily presence. This resiliency is part of a tough-minded medical culture — forged in round-the-clock residency shifts, constant on-call schedules, and workplaces in which revered doctors made decisions and staff members followed orders — that is fast disappearing.

Had he left a decade ago, Dr. Sroka might have been able to persuade a doctor to pay $500,000 or more for his roster of 4,000 patients. That he cannot give his practice away results not only from the unattractiveness of its inflexible schedule but also because large group practices can negotiate higher fees from insurers, which translates into more money for doctors.

Building Relationships

Handsome, silver-haired and likable, Dr. Sroka is indeed a modern-day Marcus Welby, his idol. He holds ailing patients’ hands, pats their thickening bellies, and has a talent for diagnosing and explaining complex health problems.

Many of his patients adore him.

One of them, Alicia Beall, 53, came in for a consultation after a pain in her foot grew worrisome. She has been seeing Dr. Sroka for 30 years, and he quickly guessed that she was suffering plantar fasciitis, a painful inflammation.

“So take off your shoe,” Dr. Sroka said. She did, and Dr. Sroka lifted her foot.

“If it’s plantar fasciitis, it’s usually right there,” Dr. Sroka said and pressed his thumb into her heel.

“Ow! Don’t do that,” Ms. Beall said and smacked him with a magazine. They both laughed.

They discussed possible treatments for her foot and for swekking in a hand, including steroid injections. But he settled on a prescription for diclofenac, an aspirinlike pain pill. While writing his notes, Dr. Sroka asked Ms. Beall how her husband liked his new job. He told her to return if the pills failed.

“We’ll do the steroid injections another time,” Dr. Sroka said. “We never would have gotten the insurance company to pay for them all. When you bill for both a medical and a surgical visit, they always deny one.”

Patients and doctors often complain that appointments are rushed, but the time that doctors spend with each patient — 16 to 20 minutes, on average — Has remained Largely unchanged for years.

Instead, patients have gotten sicker and treatments more complex. Half of Americans have a chronic disease like high blood pressure or diabetes, and a quarter have two or more such conditions. For diabetes alone, the American Diabetes Association’s recommendations for basic medical care extend for nine single-spaced pages. For many of their patients, doctors must increasingly rush through a blizzard of questions and tests, leaving little time for the kind of intimate chit-chat for which doctors and patients alike yearn. Some patients must schedule two or three office visits to have all of their medical issues addressed.

In a later interview, Ms. Beall said that Dr. Sroka “has real conversations with you, and he remembers what’s going on in your personal life. I really like that.” At appointments, she is assured of seeing him and not a colleague she does not know. Even his assistants know her on sight.

“At some medical offices, you feel like you should pull a number like at the deli,” she said. “But Dr. Sroka’s office is small-town medicine, and I like that. I’m dreading the day when he retires. I know it’s coming.”

Two Paths

Dr. Tim Biddle, 43, worked with Dr. Sroka between 2001 and 2005, making about $120,000 annually. Born and raised in Eastern Maryland, Dr. Biddle had intended to become a country doctor. But more than $100,000 in school debt and a desire to attend his four children’s soccer games led him to reconsider. Doctors in less populated areas tend to work longer hours seeing patients than doctors in more populated areas, according to government studies.

“Ron was working his butt off during the day seeing patients, and then he has the business of the practice to run at night,” Dr. Biddle said. “He’s got to balance the books, pay his employees and negotiate the reimbursement rates.” Like many doctors who own small practices, Dr. Sroka relies on his wife, Nancy Sroka, for much of his bookkeeping.

Instead of taking over the practice, Dr. Biddle left for a job as a physician at the Defense Department, where his salary is higher, his hours fewer and his vacations more frequent.

“I don’t work nights, weekends or holidays,” he said. “I get all the government holidays, and whether I see 3 or 30 patients a day, I get paid the same thing. And I never get stuck at the office because I’ve got too many patients, too much paperwork or because I have to go to the E.R. to see a patient.”

Dr. Biddle said that he missed the intimacy he once had with patients but suspected that he provided better care now because he practiced near other doctors, many of them specialists, whom he can consult on difficult cases. “When I was with Ron, we didn’t have 10 other doctors pulling the charts and providing the level of peer review that we have here,” he said.

Dr. Sroka was once deeply idealistic about his profession and used to speak with great feeling about a higher purpose to his work. He still fondly recalls standing on his front porch and stitching up neighborhood kids injured in evening ball games. But when insurers stopped paying extra for after-hours care, he started telling those kids to go to nearby emergency rooms. Like so many in his generation of doctors, the nickel-and-dime efforts of insurers have left him deeply bitter.

Dr. Sroka estimated that he was making about $250,000 annually in the 1990s — high for a primary care doctor — because he practices in an affluent region and his patients had generous insurance plans. Even as late as 2006, his income was $324,000, according to records he provided for this article — double the median income for family practice doctors that year.

But in 2008, his income dropped to $97,000. It rose last year to $130,000, but only because he worked about a third more hours. Growing practice expenses played a significant role in this decline.

Walking into Dr. Sroka’s practice, it is easy to see why. On most days, visitors are greeted by Betty Alt, a sweet 68-year-old who knows many patients intimately. Patients’ medical folders — many bulging with decades of aches and test results — are retrieved by Jennifer Simmons, a 41-year-old office assistant who spends much of her day faxing. Before appointments, patients often give a urine sample to Chris Minner, 58, a medical technician.

Altogether, Dr. Sroka employs 10 part-time employees, or the equivalent of five full-time workers. He does not provide his staff members with health insurance. His expenses amounted to $420,000 last year, or about $200 an hour. Most of his patients have either Medicare or CareFirst, the local Blue Cross Blue Shield plan, which pays him $69 (including a $20 co-pay) for most consultations. At that rate, he breaks even at three visits an hour and needs a fourth to turn a profit.

While Medicare reimbursements have been unchanged for 10 years, private reimbursements have declined twice in that period while his costs — and those of family practices across the country — rose steadily.

Keenly aware of these numbers, Dr. Sroka is decidedly cheap. When the toilet in his office broke recently, he went to Home Depot to get the replacement parts himself. When his office flooded, he spent the weekend mucking it out. His weight scale for patients is a battered, ancient disk that he kicks out from under his desk. The posters lining the walls are yard-sale Norman Rockwell reproductions.

Dr. Sroka said that he did not deserve anyone’s sympathy. Frugality and wise investments have left him with a net worth of about $5 million, which includes his office building, he said. He cannot bring himself to join a large group practice or work for a hospital because he opposes their growing use of nurse practices for primary care.

His eldest son, Ron Jr., sells group health insurance plans — the kind of product that is putting his father out of business.

“My dad’s way of delivering medicine is going to be extinct very soon,” Ron Sroka Jr. said in an interview. “He’s a dinosaur.” The money and time needed to buy and master an electronic health record system will alone be too much for his father, he said.

“My honest opinion is that one day he is going to lose it and just walk off the job,” Ron Sroka Jr. said. “There will be a final straw, a new mandate, and he’ll just say, ‘I’ve got to close my doors.’ He wants to maintain contact with his patient base because they’re like family to him, but he’s not going to be able to do it.”

The Personal Touch

Mary Pat Dorsey, 64, came in for an appointment after having heart palpitations, a pain in her jaw and a bad headache. A friend was concerned that she might be suffering a heart attack, so she called Dr. Sroka. He told her to come to his office instead of going to the emergency room.

Dr. Sroka gave her an electrocardiogram, took her pulse and blood pressure, and listened to her heart with his stethoscope. After a series of questions (was she at rest or active, sweaty, light-headed, fatigued or still taking estrogen replacement therapy?), he learned that she had been taking Excedrin for migraines.

“That has caffeine in it. It helps with the headache problems, but can bring on heart ones. That may be the thing that’s setting this off,” Dr. Sroka said. Still, he insisted that she soon get a stress test “because in this day and age, we’ve been ignoring too many women with symptoms of ischemic heart disease.”

He counseled her to go to the hospital in the future if she got chest pains with drenching sweat, light-headedness, or nausea and fatigue. “But I think you’re good for another 100,000 miles,” a line he used countless times that day.

In a later interview, Mrs. Dorsey said that she passed the stress test “with flying colors” and that Dr. Sroka had on several occasions over the previous 32 years saved her from unnecessary trips to the emergency room and thousands of dollars in medical bills “because he knows me.”

“I’m having trouble with menopause and having weird things happen to me, and he knows that,” she said. “He takes the time with me. He knows my family. He talks about fishing, and that makes me comfortable. He lives around the corner from my daughter. He grew up and came right back and did his practice around everybody he knows.”

“He’s just special.”

A version of this article appeared in print on April 23, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Family Physician Can’t Give Away Solo Practice.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Veterans Administration has major backlog in regards to seeing wounded Veterans! Wait until you see what Obamacare does to John Q Public!


The VA is a looking glass into how Obamacare would work! Lots of back-ups, frustrated patients, frustrated Physicians, Frustrated healthcare workers, and Bureaucrats controlling everything (and I mean everything)! 



VA's Disability Claims Backlog Pushes 900,000

By Bob Brewin, Nextgov.com

The Veterans Affairs Department faces a "staggering" backlog of 897,566 disability claims with more than 65 percent pending for more than 125 days, a problem compounded by an error rate of 16 percent, representatives of veterans' services organizations told lawmakers on the House Veterans Affairs Committee on Wednesday.

The department has seen a 48 percent increase in claims since 2008. Officials expect the backlog will grow to 1.2 million claims this year and another 50,000 will accrue in 2013 as veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars flood the system, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki told the Senate Veterans affairs Committee in March. He vowed to process all claims in fewer than 125 days with a 98 percent accuracy standard by 2015.

Jeffrey Hall, assistant national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, an advocacy group, told House lawmakers on Wednesday that "while the elimination of the backlog will be a welcome milestone, we must remember that eliminating the backlog is not necessarily the same goal as reforming the claims processing system, nor does it guarantee that veterans are better served."

James Wear, assistant director for veteran’s benefits policy for the group Veterans of Foreign Wars, testified that the high error rate and the poor quality of VA's rating decisions, which determine the financial benefits veterans receive, are a serious problem.

"Quality of decision-making is problematic.... The national average [error rate] has remained nearly stationary at 16 percent for months," Wear said, adding that the Veterans Benefits Administration's Baltimore regional office has the worst claims error rate in the country -- 29 percent, which is a slight improvement over its error rate of 33 percent just a few months ago.

Randall Fisher, the American Legion's service officer for Kentucky, told lawmakers that in order to improve the claims process, VA must make training a priority and hire more veterans whose experience would prove beneficial. Hall said due to budget constraints, VA has cut back on training, conducting it locally rather than using its national training academy.

"We have concerns that this change was made strictly for short-term financial considerations rather than to achieve the long-term goal of reforming the claims processing system," he said.

Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., the ranking member on the committee, said, "There's no shortcut of getting around the basics -- of having well-trained employees who are empowered with the right tools and the right systems to get the job done right the first time."

Shinseki promised earlier this month that VA will roll out its paperless Veterans Benefit Management System to 16 regional offices by September, with installation in all 56 regional offices in 2013. Hall said he was concerned that budget constraints could impede the national rollout of VBMS, and urged the committee to provide full funding for the system. VA requested $92.3 million for VBMS in 2013, and spent a total of $343.6 million on the system in 2011 and 2012.

Even as it moves to a paperless claims system, Hall said VA still will face older paper claims and it has yet to determine when or how those would be converted to digital files. A majority of claims processed each year are for reopened or appealed claims, which can remain active for decades. "Until all legacy claims are converted to digital data files, VBA could be forced to continue paper processing for decades," Hall said.

Paul Sullivan, managing director for public affairs and veteran outreach at Bergmann & Moore LLC, a law firm based in Bethesda, Md., said veterans service organizations or lawyers representing veterans cannot gain access to VBMS, something he urged the committee to change.

On Monday, VA announced plans to streamline and speed up disability claims processing by segmenting claims so those that can be more easily rated can be moved quickly through the system; more complex claims would be handled by more experienced and skilled employees.

Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, said VA's track record of making changes to its claims processing system has been "substandard." He added that VA needs to ensure that the much-touted VBMS system is set up correctly and used efficiently.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Obamacare is closing private practices, and hurting those that need to see the doctor!

Obamacare is forcing (even before it is inacted) Americans to seek Government approved health systems for care!
Virginia Senator Jim Webb, a Democrat who is not running for reelection, said at a Washington, D.C. breakfast that Obamacare would be President Barack Obama’s “biggest downside politically.” The legislation, he continued, “cost Obama a lot of credibility as a leader.”


On the same day as Senator Webb's remarks, the real-world consequences of Obamacare came to light, as a South Carolina website flagged a letter that a Spartanburg, SC private practice wrote to its patients, telling them that the practice would close its doors next month.

Boiling Springs Family Medicine wrote to their patients that, presumably because of the regulations they would have to comply with under Obamacare, they would “no longer be able to provide you with medical care,” and “it is with a heavy heart that we have to inform you” of the closing.

The private practice wrote that “the challenges of practicing primary care medicine independently in today’s world and economy are too great” and “new guidelines and regulations have made the practice of medicine as we know it impossible as independent practitioners.”

Of course, those who espoused Obamacare had to know that private practices such as Boiling Springs Family Medicine would close, forcing more citizens to be dependent on government for their health care.

Nikki Haley, South Carolina’s governor, has repeatedly said that if Mitt Romney defeats Obama in the fall, she would immediately ask for Obamacare waivers for her state’s private practices.

One can only that will happen.

But unfortunately, private practices like Boiling Springs Family Medicine -- and their patients -- will not get such waivers because Obamacare has made them inoperable before the election.

Obamacare in Action? Private Practice Shuts Down Citing 'New Regulations'


Print Article
18 hours ago

Virginia Senator Jim Webb, a Democrat who is not running for reelection, said at at a Washington, D.C. breakfast that Obamacare would be President Barack Obama’s “biggest downside politically.” The legislation, he continued, “cost Obama a lot of credibility as a leader.”

On the same day as Senator Webb's remarks, the real-world consequences of Obamacare came to light, as a conservative South Carolina website, The Conservatist, flagged a letter that a Spartanburg, SC private practice wrote to its patients, telling them that the practice would close its doors next month.Boiling Springs Family Medicine wrote to their patients that, presumably because of the regulations they would have to comply with under Obamacare, they would “no longer be able to provide you with medical care,” and “it is with a heavy heart that we have to inform you” of the closing.
The private practice wrote that “the challenges of practicing primary care medicine independently in today’s world and economy are too great” and “new guidelines and regulations have made the practice of medicine as we know it impossible as independent practitioners.”
Of course, liberals who espoused Obamacare had to know that private practices such as Boiling Springs Family Medicine would close, forcing more citizens to be dependent on government for their health care.
Nikki Haley, South Carolina’s governor, has repeatedly said that if Mitt Romney defeats Obama in the fall, she would immediately ask for Obamacare waivers for her state’s private practices.
One can only that will happen.
But unfortunately, private practices like Boiling Springs Family Medicine -- and their patients -- will not get such waivers because Obamacare has made them inoperable before the election.

Monday, April 16, 2012

If Obamacare is sruck down...Physician salaries will rise!


'Accountable care' apt to grow even if Obamacare is struck down


The New York Times

CHICAGO — Even as she struggled to manage her diabetes, Fannie Cline's condition sank. It was not uncommon for the 69-year-old retiree to have dizzy spells, some so bad they landed her in an emergency room.
But last May, she began to receive extra attention from Gwlie Lloyd, a registered nurse at Advocate Health Care, which runs a number of Chicago hospitals and clinics. Lloyd often phones to check on Cline. She offers advice on diet and exercise, schedules appointments, orders meals for delivery.
As a result, Cline's health has improved. She is more active, the dizzy spells have subsided and she has not been hospitalized since May. Now she spends her days visiting friends.

"It is nice to have someone call you in between your visits to the doctor's office to see how you are," she said. "If my blood sugar is elevated and I feel off balance, she will ask me what I have been eating lately. She might say, 'Maybe you need more oatmeal or fruit.'"

This extra attention is part of a new trend, called "accountable care," a radical departure from traditional fee-for-service medicine. It's gaining momentum partly because of Obama- care and is likely to keep growing even if the U.S. Supreme Court, after hearing arguments last week, strikes down the health care law in June.
Accountable care organizations, or ACOs, as they are known, are medical providers who band together under one business umbrella. It may include primary care doctors, specialists, social workers, pharmacists and nurses.

The big difference is in how they are paid: Instead of an insurance company or the government reimbursing each provider for each service provided to each patient, the ACO is paid simply to care for a group of patients.

If the organization can reduce the cost of caring for the patients while keeping them healthy, it gets to keep some of the savings — a powerful incentive to do things differently, experts hope.
On the other hand, if the ACO can't keep the patients healthy and costs rise, the providers might well get less money.

The ACO strikes some critics as a worrisome repackaging of the early HMOs. But there is little doubt more Americans will be enrolled in these groups in coming years.
"ACOs are coming, and it will change the way we pay for health care," said Dr. Michael Cryer of the employee benefits consultancy Aon Hewitt. "Providers are doing things in a positive way rather than a reactive way. We are seeing the beginnings of a tsunami."
For the past year, Advocate, one of the nation's first ACOs, has cared for more than 200,000 patients insured by Illinois Blue Cross. So far it has managed to reduce hospital stays and overall costs for patients, said Steve Hamman, a Blue Cross spokesman. It achieves this mainly by hiring people like Lloyd, who's called a care manager, to better coordinate the way patients are treated.
Care managers keep patients out of expensive hospitals by reminding them to take their medications, for instance, and by helping them eat properly and by troubleshooting the logistical problems that the elderly and sick often encounter.

"A care manager may care for up to 150 patients, and the savings from keeping these patients healthy, and potentially out of the hospital, pays for their salary several times over," said Dr. Lee Sacks, chief medical officer at Advocate. "But it's more than just the economics. It's the right thing to do."
The trend may have the biggest effect on Medicare. Starting this month, ACOs will begin accepting some Medicare patients. By year's end, the government estimates, 2 million will be enrolled.

Still, some experts worry about the rise of an untested model of care, which is expensive and complicated to put in place. The ACO, they argue, seems similar to the much-criticized practices of HMOs 20 years ago, when doctors were paid fixed monthly fees in hopes they could provide all the care a patient needed. Politicians and news media feasted on horrific stories of patients denied care by their HMOs. And many doctors' practices went bankrupt or out of business.
The ACO structure places even more of the financial risk on providers, said Dr. Joseph Golbus, president of NorthShore University HealthSystem in Chicago.

Although many hospitals nationwide are snapping up local practices in hope of transforming themselves into ACOs, others are hesitating because of the financial risk and fear of more bureaucracy.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Physician pay to decrease 30% under ObamaCare! And that's just the start!


ObamaCare's Most Frightening Consequence: Not Enough Doctors

By John Rossomando

08/02/2011

ObamaCare’s defenders promised the law would increase patient access to care, but a closer look shows that increased regulations combined with higher demand for health services could cause many physicians to give up practicing medicine.

“You are seeing a change that I haven’t seen in my over 30 years in the practice of medicine,” said Tennessee GOP Rep. Phil Roe, who worked as an OB/GYN before getting into politics. “I think what you are going to see is people going in to see a nurse practitioner, not a medical doctor, as has been the case for decades.”

According to Roe, Medicare will pay doctors less than Medicaid by 2020 should ObamaCare remain in place, which means that doctor who runs a solo practice with three employees and who grosses $300,000 could see a 30% cut in his reimbursements.

Doctor who use approximately half of their gross receipts on paying overhead costs would still have to do so even when their reimbursements are cut.

“His cut will be $50,000, meaning instead of making $150,000, he will only be making 50 or less,” Roe said. “It only takes a year or less of that to see why they are terrified of this.

“They have bills to pay. They have mortgages. They have school loans.”

Georgia GOP Rep. Tom Price, a fellow physician in the House Republican caucus, warns regulations will also cause doctors to change their minds about staying in medicine because they will make doctor-patient interactions more difficult.

“There will be limitations on medications that will be available, and shortages of medications through the FDA,” Price said. “Surgeries will have to postponed because of a lack of medications needed to put patients to sleep, damaging the quality of the care that is received.”

Price complains the regulations even come between patients and doctors when it comes to things as routine as how a doctor has to fill out paperwork to order oxygen tanks for patients who need them.

A November 2010 Physicians Foundation Survey underscored this when it found that 56% of doctors it surveyed anticipate the health care law will diminish the quality of care they can give their patients. A further 40% of physicians said they planned to retire, seek a nonclinical job in the health care field or leave the medical profession altogether.

A Galen Institute Study also found that ObamaCare’s regulations likely would force countless aspiring doctors to forgo entering the profession at a time when demand for care is on the rise.

“PPACA [ObamaCare] will strip away physician autonomy, drown doctors in bureaucracy and drain job satisfaction,” Dr. Jason Fodeman wrote in an April 2011 study for the Galen Institute. “As the profession deteriorates, older doctors will retire while younger doctors will look to switch careers.

“Many students considering a career in medicine will pursue other opportunities.”

According to Roe, only 4% of the nation’s students are getting into primary care fields.

A survey by the Associations of American Medical Colleges found the nation’s doctor shortage likely will increase the project shortfall of 62,900 doctors in 2016 to 91,500 in 2020.

“When these older doctors who are used to working 70 or 80 hours quit, I don’t know what we are going to do for internists and primary care,” Roe said.

The Galen Institute Study reports that Massachusetts, which many believe to be a precursor to ObamaCare, has seen a big reduction in doctor willingness to take on new patients. In 2007, the state’s Division of Health Care Finance and Policy Reported that 70% of general practitioners were willing to accept new patients in 2007, but that has declined to 60%. And today only 44% of internal medicine practitioners in the Bay State have indicated a willingness to take on new patients—down from 66% in 2005, before the state’s health care law took effect.

“Waiting times have increased even more since RomneyCare was passed,” said Cato Institute health care expert Michael Cannon. “And since government has inflated demand even more, it hasn’t done anything more to meet that quantity demanded versus the supply. Therefore, you get that sort of shortage.”

The Massachusetts Medical Society’s 2009 Physician Workforce Study found that the time needed to recruit physicians into specialties such as internal medicine, family medicine, orthopedics and neurosurgery had significantly increased in the three years following the implementation of the state’s health care reform law.

“It remains to be seen how the federal government will deal with this imminent fiasco on the national level,” Fodeman wrote. “Obviously the administration can’t make doctors practice, nor can it make people attend medical school.

“The likely solution will be a combination of rationing and an increased reliance on mid-level providers such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants.”

And the law’s defenders can only counter that the law provides for an increase of the number of graduate medical training positions, increases scholarships available for teaching centers in rural areas and provides state grants to increase access to care in rural areas.

Monday, April 2, 2012

Doctors are worried Obamacare will ruin their practice of medicine!


What a doctor knows about ObamaCare

By  Dr. Marc Siegel

Published March 30, 2012

At the heart of the multi-headed abominable creature known as Affordable Care Act aka ObamaCare, there resides a singular deceit. It is too easy for lawyers and even U.S. Supreme Court Justices to miss this deceit in the process of arguing abstractions, but I and other doctors experience this reality every day our offices:

Insurance does not equal care. One patient’s needs can get in the way of another’s needs. My waiting room is like so many others in America, and when it is clogged with several patients with low-paying highly-regulated insurance, the waiting time goes up and the access to quality medical care goes down.

With all due respect to Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, though it is true that everyone will get sick and need health care eventually, it is not true that health insurance automatically provides you with that care.

I can tell you as a practicing physician that the regulations and restrictions and red tape of health insurance (all increasing under ObamaCare) hamstring my office staff and interfere with my ability to take care of you.

What does provide an uninsured patient access to health care are laws that mandate that a hospital emergency room can’t turn you away when you are sick.

A false premise of ObamaCare is that mandating insurance for all somehow enables the ERs take care of all comers. In fact, studies show that Medicaid patients are much more likely to use the ER unnecessarily than are the uninsured. This clogs the ER and interferes with life-saving treatments for other patients.

Plus, the states, overburdened with administering the Medicaid expansion, will inevitably cut reimbursements to the hospitals, lowering the bottom line payments a hospital receives even as its volume increases.

Though politicians may even have the best of intentions when they compel you -- in defiance of the Constitution, in my opinion -- to purchase a product known as health insurance, in fact they are not even achieving their stated goal of providing for the public good, since this insurance doesn't equal care.

There wouldn’t even be a case before the Supreme Court if Congress and the president had stayed within their roles and expanded the National Health Services Corp and federal clinics expressly designed to care for the underserved. If there is a public health care need then let's get our government to provide for it directly.

In my office, and doctors’ offices across the country, the response to ObamaCare has changed.

Two years ago, when the law was passed, there was a pocket of patients who worked part time, had no health insurance, and looked forward to the day when they would be covered. But that early group of optimists has given way to a much larger group who worry that they will lose the employer-provided coverage they now have, and end up being forced to the state exchanges where they will be compelled to purchase (if the mandate survives) a policy they can’t afford with an inadequate federal subsidy.

Most of my patients are rooting for the Affordable Care Act to unravel especially if the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional. -- Transcripts and audiotape from the court this week make this possibility appear likely.

If ObamaCare somehow survives with or without the mandate, 16 million new Medicaid patients will quickly find out what current Medicaid patients already know; that it is very tough to find a doctor or network of doctors who will work with your insurance.

ObamaCare’s Independent Medicare Advisory Board and other regulatory committees and mandates will make it more and more difficult for doctors like me to practice and to order the tests and treatments we feel our patients need. We will require more staff hours to deal with all the red tape. As more of us drop out and no longer accept insurance, another unconstitutional mandate will become necessary to compel doctors to participate again.

Doctors everywhere are hoping and praying that dreaded day never comes. Even though the individual mandate and perhaps all of ObamaCare now appears to be in serious jeopardy thanks to the Supreme Court, doctors and their patients are not yet starting to breathe easier.

Marc Siegel, M.D. is a professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Medical Center. He is a member of the Fox News Medical A team and author of several books. His latest book is "The Inner Pulse; Unlocking the Secret Code of Sickness and Health."