Quantcast

Posts Tagged ‘healthcare’

October 24th, 2009

North Dakota Doctors Express Concern Over Public Option

Irving

Dr. Kimberly Krohn  is a family practitioner in Minot, ND.  Dr. Robert Thompson is an allergist & immunologist in Grand Forks, ND. Dr. Michael Booth is a thoracic surgeon in Bismarck, ND.

Dr. Krohn, Dr. Thompson and Dr. Booth are members in the North Dakota Medical Association and they have voiced their strong feelings on a public option and the disastorous effects it would have to medical care in rural North Dakota.

The NDMA put out the following statement:

Very few states have a higher combination of high quality and cost-effective medical care than North Dakota. Yet, while North Dakotans contribute equally to Medicare, they have some of the lowest Medicare reimbursement rates in the country simply because we are a rural state.

For example, an average office visit in a North Dakota clinic in 2010 will result in a much lower Medicare reimbursement ($47.84) than a physician treating a similar patient in San Francisco ($66) — 31 percent less. A Medicare payment for a mammogram screening in North Dakota will be reimbursed at $49.92, while that same screening in San Francisco is reimbursed at $73.82 — more than 32 percent less for North Dakota. These are just two examples of how federal “geographic adjusters” impact North Dakota.

North Dakota does not receive Medicare reimbursement that fully covers the costs involved with diagnosing and treating patients. In addition, if people currently insured by Blue Cross Blue Shield North Dakota shift to a public option at Medicare rates, our largest hospitals will experience a decrease in funding by millions of dollars that would not be offset by new payments for people previously uninsured.

Resources are needed from all our payor sources — both government and private insurers — to ensure that we in North Dakota can recruit and keep good doctors and nurses and make sure we have the medical technology, available facility space and support needed to provide safe and efficient care for patients. We need to ensure that good medical care is available when and where it’s needed, and ensure that patients can choose their physician and health plan.

A public option tied to Medicare reimbursement will only make an already unfair situation worse for North Dakota, and would dismantle some of our nation’s most successful but vulnerable delivery systems which have produced higher-value, more cost-effective care. The promise of universal coverage could be dashed by just such a reduction in access.

NDMA is also advocating for reforms that provide the greatest possible access to medical care for patients at an affordable cost and provide incentives for better “value” that can actually reduce costs. Some examples are to encourage better preventive care and keep patients with chronic diseases healthier and out of the hospital. Promoting higher quality and more cost-effective care will reduce health care costs, as will good wellness and prevention initiatives.

We need support to implement patient-centered medical homes to improve care coordination, including increased funding for primary care services that does not come at the expense of good access to specialty care. We need to expand our healthcare workforce, including more support for medical education and residency programs.

We need health insurance reforms that eliminate barriers to competition, eliminate exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and assist people who cannot afford private insurance to purchase coverage.

We need meaningful medical liability reform that reduces the waste of resources cause by the “defensive” practice of medicine.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need each and every citizen of North Dakota to do what you can to live a healthy lifestyle. Let’s reduce tobacco use through cessation and prevention and encourage each other in ways that decrease the incidence of obesity through good diet and exercise choices.

The current debate offers a major opportunity for North Dakota to address the unfair reduction in health care resources by the federal government, and to embrace what is best for North Dakota patients.
 

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [LinkedIn] [Mixx] [MySpace] [Sphere] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]
VN:F [1.7.4_987]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.4_987]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

2 Comments » Post a Comment »

October 18th, 2009

Dr. Tracy Pfeifer Wearing Richard on the Glenn Beck Show

Irving

Why was Dr. Tracy Pfeifer wearing a lab coat that read Richard on the Glenn Beck show? On Reddit.com, there is a suggestion that Glenn Beck asked the medical professionals to throw on lab coats just to make it look more professional. Perhaps he got his queue from the Obama talk on the rose lawn with doctors in lab coats.

Obama and Doctors in the Rose Garden (nypost.com)

Obama and Doctors in the Rose Garden (nypost.com)

 Back to Dr. Pfeifer, she declares herself one of the few elite plastic surgeons on her own web site. She is the recipient of numerous academic achiements and leadership awards and has authored book chapters in medical journals. She is a guest lecturer on cosmetic surgery and was recenlty featured in Allure, Glamour, and Newsday.

Bottom line, she is an accomplished doctor, so it does not really matter she was wearing the Richard tag for the photo-op. Lab coats don’t make the doctor.

Dr. Tracy Pfeifer is listed as being certified in surgery and plastic surgery.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [LinkedIn] [Mixx] [MySpace] [Sphere] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]
VN:F [1.7.4_987]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.4_987]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

1 Comment » Post a Comment »

September 8th, 2009

Dr. Richard Rafal Giving Lawyers a Taste of Their own Medicine - Instituting Socialized Legal Care

diane
Obama Care (stolaf.edu)

Obama Care (stolaf.edu)

President Obama is preparing to address the nation on Wednesday, clarifying healthcare reform yet again. An issue that looms large for physicians is the exorbitant cost of malpractice, which has lead to the expensive practice of ordering unnecessary tests for their patients.

The Wall Street Journal has estimated that malpractice litigation costs have crept up to 30 billion dollars a year. The Massachusetts Medical Society and UConn Health Center did a study of over 900 physicians in Massachusetts and found that 83 percent reported practicing defensive medicine and that 18-28 percent of tests was ordered to protect them from malpractice. The cost incurred in the state of Massachusetts was estimated at 1.4 billion dollars a year.

The response from litigators is that if doctors would make fewer errors then fewer cases would end up in court.

This type of rhetoric from the legal profession has gotten under the skin of physicians everywhere. Dr. Richard Rafal has come up with his own solution and feels it’s time to give lawyers a taste of their own medicine. According to Vitals.com, Dr. Rafal received his medical degree at Drexel University and completed his residencies in radiology at Lenox Hill Hospital and Cornell.

Here is an abbreviated version of his suggestions, printed in the Wall Street Journal, for a proposed bill that would dismantle the existing framework of law practice and institute socialized legal care:

Contingency fees will be discouraged, and eventually outlawed, over a five-year period. This will put legal rewards back into the pockets of the deserving—the public and the aggrieved parties.
Legal “DRGs.” Each potential legal situation will be assigned a relative value, and charges limited to this amount. Government schedules of flat fees for each service, analogous to medicine’s Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs), will be issued. For example, any divorce will have a set fee of, say, $1,000, regardless of its simplicity or complexity. This will eliminate shady hourly billing.
Legal “death panels.” Over 75? You will not be entitled to legal care for any matter. Why waste money on those who are only going to die soon? We can decrease utilization, save money and unclog the courts simultaneously. Grandma, you’re on your own.
Ration legal care. One may need to wait months to consult an attorney. Possibly one may not get representation before court dates or deadlines. But that’ s tough: What do you want for “free?”
Physician controlled legal review. This is potentially the most exciting reform, with doctors leading committees for determining the necessity of all legal procedures and the fairness of attorney fees. What a wonderful way for doctors to get even with the sharks attempting to eviscerate the practice of medicine.
Discourage/eliminate specialization. Legal specialists with extra training and experience charge more money, contributing to increased costs of legal care, making it unaffordable for many.
Electronic legal records. We should enter the digital age and computerize and centralize legal records nationwide. Anyone with Internet access will be able to search the database.
Ban legal advertisements. Catchy phone numbers such as 1-800-LAWYERS would be seized by the government and re-purposed for reporting unscrupulous attorneys.
Collect data about the supply of and demand for attorneys. Create a commission to study the diversity and geographic distribution of attorneys, with power to stipulate and enforce corrective actions to right imbalances. The more bureaucracy the better. One can never have too many eyes watching these sleazy sneaks.
Lawyer Reduction Act (H.R. -3200). A self-explanatory bill that not only decreases the number of law students, but also arbitrarily removes 3,200 attorneys from practice each year. Textbook addition by subtraction.

READ MORE ABOUT DR. RICHARD RAFAL

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [LinkedIn] [Mixx] [MySpace] [Sphere] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]
VN:F [1.7.4_987]
Rating: 9.0/10 (1 vote cast)
VN:F [1.7.4_987]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

1 Comment » Post a Comment »

May 14th, 2009

Doctors Bartering Healthcare in a Struggling Economy

diane
Dr. Brent Wakefield and Dr. Brian Lewis

Dr. Brent Wakefield and Dr. Brian Lewis

Back in the day, you got what you needed by exchanging tobacco for deerskin, spices for silks or cows for horses. And who can forget Esau trading his firstborn rights for a bowl of lentils, learning the hard way that even in the bible bartering means no backsies?

When Dr. Brent Wakefield and Dr. Brian Lewis opened their family practice in Jenks, Oklahoma, they turned to this centuries-old way of doing business. Bartering kept them solvent during the lean years and created options for patients strapped for cash.

Rather than bartering directly with their patients, they joined a barter exchange. These are companies which set up an equivalent cash value for goods and services, and have members who list what they could contribute to a trade. But swapping cattle and spitting tobacco no longer means you’ve sealed the deal. The Internal Revenue Service has strict rules and regulations that need to be followed and expects scrupulous documentation of all the transactions.

The doctors traded medical services for office supplies, plumbing work and even dinners in restaurants which they’ve given to employees as bonuses. Keeping track of how much they bring in and how much they’re able to use is essential for making the system work.

One of the biggest advantages when becoming a member of a bartering exchange is how it increases the visibility of doctors to all the people in their network. Patients who have limited insurance or no insurance at all are given the opportunity to see doctors normally unavailable to them.

Drs Wakefield and Lewis are among a growing group of physicians who have discovered a creative option which has the potential of transforming healthcare from an unaffordable luxury to a necessity within reach.

LEARN MORE ABOUT DR. BRENT WAKEFIELD AND DR. BRIAN LEWIS.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [LinkedIn] [Mixx] [MySpace] [Sphere] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]
VN:F [1.7.4_987]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.7.4_987]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

4 Comments » Post a Comment »


-->