The Doctor Drought!

T

TuTu Monroe

A Realist
Obviously, this administration doesn't care about the doctors OR the patients.

Commentary forbes.com

Marc Siegel, 12.04.09, 03:12 PM EST
If primary care physicians become extinct, it's patients who will suffer.

I am a primary care internist. All the health care reforms before Congress are counting on me and other doctors to be ready and willing to accept the millions of new patients with shiny new insurance cards. But this concept is a dream, or worse, a nightmare. In reality, my species of doctor will soon be extinct, replaced by nurse practitioners.

The growing doctor shortage in the U.S. is in the way of any real health care reform. Sen. Charles E. Schumer's, D-N.Y., proposed amendment to the Senate health bill--to provide $2 billion in funds over 10 years to create 2,000 new residency training slots geared toward primary care medicine and general surgery--is a tiny band-aid at best.

Consider that the American Academy of Family Physicians predicts a shortage of 40,000 primary care doctors (family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics and OB/GYN) by 2020. Consider that the number of medical students choosing primary care as a profession has already dropped by 51.8% since 1997, and that currently only 2% of medical school graduates choose primary care as a career.

It is understandable why my field of practice is so unpopular. Medical students tell me every day that mounting loans are too steep without a lucrative procedure they can master.

Creating additional training slots will not change any of that, unless accompanied by full loan repayments and guaranteed positions upon graduation, a plan that would cost taxpayers many more billions of dollars.

The national shortage of primary care doctors leads to a shortage of health care that cannot be compensated for with insurance of any kind. According to the federal Health and Human Services Department, as of March 2009 there were 6,080 primary care Health Professional Shortage Areas in the U.S. with 65 million people living in them. In comparison, the National Health Service Corps (a group of primary care physicians who work in HPSAs in return for two-year, $100,000 federal scholarships or $50,000 in loan repayment) has only 3,500 providers caring for 4 million people.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Obviously, this administration doesn't care about the doctors OR the patients.

Commentary forbes.com

Marc Siegel, 12.04.09, 03:12 PM EST
If primary care physicians become extinct, it's patients who will suffer.

I am a primary care internist. All the health care reforms before Congress are counting on me and other doctors to be ready and willing to accept the millions of new patients with shiny new insurance cards. But this concept is a dream, or worse, a nightmare. In reality, my species of doctor will soon be extinct, replaced by nurse practitioners.

The growing doctor shortage in the U.S. is in the way of any real health care reform. Sen. Charles E. Schumer's, D-N.Y., proposed amendment to the Senate health bill--to provide $2 billion in funds over 10 years to create 2,000 new residency training slots geared toward primary care medicine and general surgery--is a tiny band-aid at best.

Consider that the American Academy of Family Physicians predicts a shortage of 40,000 primary care doctors (family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics and OB/GYN) by 2020. Consider that the number of medical students choosing primary care as a profession has already dropped by 51.8% since 1997, and that currently only 2% of medical school graduates choose primary care as a career.

It is understandable why my field of practice is so unpopular. Medical students tell me every day that mounting loans are too steep without a lucrative procedure they can master.

Creating additional training slots will not change any of that, unless accompanied by full loan repayments and guaranteed positions upon graduation, a plan that would cost taxpayers many more billions of dollars.

The national shortage of primary care doctors leads to a shortage of health care that cannot be compensated for with insurance of any kind. According to the federal Health and Human Services Department, as of March 2009 there were 6,080 primary care Health Professional Shortage Areas in the U.S. with 65 million people living in them. In comparison, the National Health Service Corps (a group of primary care physicians who work in HPSAs in return for two-year, $100,000 federal scholarships or $50,000 in loan repayment) has only 3,500 providers caring for 4 million people.
Click to expand...

BS. Obama has nothing to do with which field of medicine a student picks. Follow the money, it's what you rabid righties do best.

Like so many of the questions about our healthcare, we can follow the money to get to the bottom of the reason many of us may have trouble finding a primary care doctor...

There are two problems that contribute to the shortage: The low numbers of medical students who are choosing primary care as a specialty, and the increasing numbers of Baby Boomers who require more and more care as they age.

Why are so few medical students choosing to go into primary care? That's where we follow the money.

Ask most newly matriculated medical students why they would like to become doctors and they will reply with answers that represent a certain amount of idealism. "I want to help people" is a common answer...

...until the realities of time and money become more apparent to them.

The average medical student finishes her education almost $150,000 in debt. She can pay off her debt earning less than $200,000 per year as a family practitioner, or she can pay her debt earning a specialist's salary which will be twice that amount or more. Which would you choose?

Primary care physicians find their day doesn't last 8 hours, or even 10 hours, but often many more than that. They may be regularly on call, 24/7 and working on weekends, too. While specialists may also find themselves working extended hours, they won't do so as often. Put another way, if you had your choice of being a dermatologist who worked a 50-hour week for $400,000 a year, vs a family practitioner who put in 80-hour weeks for half that amount of money, which would you choose?

Even the primary's day looks different. Because insurance reimbursements work the way they do, a primary care doctor is paid much less per patient visit or procedure than a specialist is. Therefore, a PCP must fit that many more patients into his day. The lower reimbursements go, the less time the doctor can spend with each patient because he must see that many more patients just to keep the lights turned on.
(continued)

http://patients.about.com/od/followthemoney/f/FAQnoprimary.htm
 
Child please, tools who make $250,000 a year want to cry. fuck that and fuck this piece of shit in in the article.
 
christiefan915 said:
BS. Obama has nothing to do with which field of medicine a student picks. Follow the money, it's what you rabid righties do best.

Like so many of the questions about our healthcare, we can follow the money to get to the bottom of the reason many of us may have trouble finding a primary care doctor...

There are two problems that contribute to the shortage: The low numbers of medical students who are choosing primary care as a specialty, and the increasing numbers of Baby Boomers who require more and more care as they age.

Why are so few medical students choosing to go into primary care? That's where we follow the money.

Ask most newly matriculated medical students why they would like to become doctors and they will reply with answers that represent a certain amount of idealism. "I want to help people" is a common answer...

...until the realities of time and money become more apparent to them.

The average medical student finishes her education almost $150,000 in debt. She can pay off her debt earning less than $200,000 per year as a family practitioner, or she can pay her debt earning a specialist's salary which will be twice that amount or more. Which would you choose?

Primary care physicians find their day doesn't last 8 hours, or even 10 hours, but often many more than that. They may be regularly on call, 24/7 and working on weekends, too. While specialists may also find themselves working extended hours, they won't do so as often. Put another way, if you had your choice of being a dermatologist who worked a 50-hour week for $400,000 a year, vs a family practitioner who put in 80-hour weeks for half that amount of money, which would you choose?

Even the primary's day looks different. Because insurance reimbursements work the way they do, a primary care doctor is paid much less per patient visit or procedure than a specialist is. Therefore, a PCP must fit that many more patients into his day. The lower reimbursements go, the less time the doctor can spend with each patient because he must see that many more patients just to keep the lights turned on.
(continued)

http://patients.about.com/od/followthemoney/f/FAQnoprimary.htm
Click to expand...

I don't know why I knew Blabba would just ignore the points you made...but I was right.


I don't know why Blabba would post another pathetic OPINION piece and expect anyone to buy into it's hyperbole...but she did.
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Obviously, this administration doesn't care about the doctors OR the patients.

Commentary forbes.com

Marc Siegel, 12.04.09, 03:12 PM EST
If primary care physicians become extinct, it's patients who will suffer.

I am a primary care internist. All the health care reforms before Congress are counting on me and other doctors to be ready and willing to accept the millions of new patients with shiny new insurance cards. But this concept is a dream, or worse, a nightmare. In reality, my species of doctor will soon be extinct, replaced by nurse practitioners.

The growing doctor shortage in the U.S. is in the way of any real health care reform. Sen. Charles E. Schumer's, D-N.Y., proposed amendment to the Senate health bill--to provide $2 billion in funds over 10 years to create 2,000 new residency training slots geared toward primary care medicine and general surgery--is a tiny band-aid at best.

Consider that the American Academy of Family Physicians predicts a shortage of 40,000 primary care doctors (family practice, internal medicine, pediatrics and OB/GYN) by 2020. Consider that the number of medical students choosing primary care as a profession has already dropped by 51.8% since 1997, and that currently only 2% of medical school graduates choose primary care as a career.

It is understandable why my field of practice is so unpopular. Medical students tell me every day that mounting loans are too steep without a lucrative procedure they can master.

Creating additional training slots will not change any of that, unless accompanied by full loan repayments and guaranteed positions upon graduation, a plan that would cost taxpayers many more billions of dollars.

The national shortage of primary care doctors leads to a shortage of health care that cannot be compensated for with insurance of any kind. According to the federal Health and Human Services Department, as of March 2009 there were 6,080 primary care Health Professional Shortage Areas in the U.S. with 65 million people living in them. In comparison, the National Health Service Corps (a group of primary care physicians who work in HPSAs in return for two-year, $100,000 federal scholarships or $50,000 in loan repayment) has only 3,500 providers caring for 4 million people.
Click to expand...
Excellent article. Part of what is driving up cost is the fact that we have the highest rate of phyisicians per capita in the world most of them are specialist. Why? That's where the money is and when you come out of school a half a million dollars in debt you need to make big money to pay that back. You're not going to do that as a primary care physician who focuses on preventative health care. The over supply of specialist with specialist procedures and exoctic (and expensive) technology promote the over utilization of these procedures/technologies and that drives up cost.

This will probably be one of the biggest impact of health care reform in this nation. The resurrection of the family doctor. The closest I can come to a family doctor in my area is a nurse practitioner at the local urgent care center. That's just fucked up.
 
So Republicans are advocating a huge government program to raise pay for and provide for more general practioners? If not, STFU and let the adults fix the shit you messed up, until the ignorant oafs elect you again and we have to repeat this process.
 
Watermark said:
So Republicans are advocating a huge government program to raise pay for and provide for more general practioners? If not, STFU and let the adults fix the shit you messed up, until the ignorant oafs elect you again and we have to repeat this process.
Click to expand...

I'm advocating using common fucking sense, increase supply of all doctors and lower their incomes.
 
How about incentives for people to go into family practice.

How about helping people pay for their education for a contract that says they will practice family medicine for a certain number of years?

Now think about the fact that you people hate higher education and any help for people to get educated.
 
You have no problem with the $400 billion cuts to Medicare?

christiefan915 said:
BS. Obama has nothing to do with which field of medicine a student picks. Follow the money, it's what you rabid righties do best.

Like so many of the questions about our healthcare, we can follow the money to get to the bottom of the reason many of us may have trouble finding a primary care doctor...

There are two problems that contribute to the shortage: The low numbers of medical students who are choosing primary care as a specialty, and the increasing numbers of Baby Boomers who require more and more care as they age.

Why are so few medical students choosing to go into primary care? That's where we follow the money.

Ask most newly matriculated medical students why they would like to become doctors and they will reply with answers that represent a certain amount of idealism. "I want to help people" is a common answer...

...until the realities of time and money become more apparent to them.

The average medical student finishes her education almost $150,000 in debt. She can pay off her debt earning less than $200,000 per year as a family practitioner, or she can pay her debt earning a specialist's salary which will be twice that amount or more. Which would you choose?

Primary care physicians find their day doesn't last 8 hours, or even 10 hours, but often many more than that. They may be regularly on call, 24/7 and working on weekends, too. While specialists may also find themselves working extended hours, they won't do so as often. Put another way, if you had your choice of being a dermatologist who worked a 50-hour week for $400,000 a year, vs a family practitioner who put in 80-hour weeks for half that amount of money, which would you choose?

Even the primary's day looks different. Because insurance reimbursements work the way they do, a primary care doctor is paid much less per patient visit or procedure than a specialist is. Therefore, a PCP must fit that many more patients into his day. The lower reimbursements go, the less time the doctor can spend with each patient because he must see that many more patients just to keep the lights turned on.
(continued)

http://patients.about.com/od/followthemoney/f/FAQnoprimary.htm
Click to expand...
 
TuTu Monroe said:
You have no problem with the $400 billion cuts to Medicare?
Click to expand...

In the first place, they aren't cuts. Just reductions in the increases over the next few year. But we know honesty usually isn't a big part of any post from you.


Rememeber during the Bush administration? How you derided Liberals who said the same thing?

Ol Two-Faced Blabba. Never met an issue she couldn't talk out of both sides of her face about!
 
TuTu Monroe said:
You have no problem with the $400 billion cuts to Medicare?
Click to expand...

What do cuts to projected spending have to do with my post?

Republican Senators Have Voted To Cut $1.31 Trillion From Medicare
December 01, 2009 11:52 am ET

Senate Floor Statements At Odds With Years Of Voting In Favor Of Medicare Cuts

Republican Senators Alexander, Coburn, Crapo, Enzi, and McConnell spoke on the Senate floor in favor of the McCain amendment and against the Democratic health care reform legislation.

Voted To Cut Medicare By $6.4 Billion. Senators Alexander, Coburn, Crapo, Enzi, McCain, and McConnell all voted in favor of the budget reconciliation bill that cut funding for Medicare by $6.4 billion by requiring that beneficiaries purchase medical equipment and cutting payments to home health care providers. The motion passed 50-50, with Vice President Cheney casting the deciding vote. [S. 1932, Vote #363, 12/21/05]

Cut $5.78 Billion From Medicare. Senators Alexander, Coburn, Crapo, Enzi, McCain, and McConnell all voted in favor of passage of a Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Resolution that would cut $5.78 billion from Medicare. The legislation passed 52-47. [S. 1932, Vote #303, 11/3/05]

Tabled An Amendment That Would Have Given The Sickest Seniors $12 Billion In Medicare Funding. Senators Alexander, Crapo, Enzi, McCain, and McConnell all voted to table an amendment that would have allocated $12 billion for additional treatment for Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and disabilities. The motion to table passed 57-41. [S. 1, Vote #253, 6/26/03]

Voted To Put Needs Of Wealthy Americans Over The Needs Of American Seniors. Senators Alexander, Crapo, Enzi, McCain, and McConnell all voted against an amendment that would reduce the enormous tax cut given to the wealthiest American tax payers in order to give a fair reimbursement to rural health care providers under Medicare. The amendment failed. [SCR 23, Vote #89, 3/25/03]

Voted Against Increasing Medicare And Medicaid Funding By $4.1 Billion. Senators Alexander, Crapo, Enzi, McCain, and McConnell all voted against a measure which would have increased funding for health care programs under Medicare and Medicaid by $4.1 billion. The motion was rejected 41-56. [HJR 2, Vote #21, 1/23/03]

Voted In Favor Of Cutting Medicare Nearly $160 Billion Over Six Years. Senators McCain and McConnell voted to cut Medicare by $158.1 billion over six years. First - the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 1997 Budget Resolution that contained the cut and, Second - the same cut in the conference report. Both passed 53-46. [H.C.R. 178, Vote #156, 5/23/1996; H.C.R. 178, Vote #159, 6/13/96]

* Budget Cuts Included Reductions In Medicare, Medicare, Welfare, And Discretionary Spending. Senators McCain and McConnell voted in favor of adopting of the conference report on the concurrent resolution to establish a six-year plan to balance the federal budget by 2002. Projected spending cuts over six years include $158.1 billion in Medicare, $72 billion from Medicaid, $53 billion from welfare and $297.9 billion from discretionary spending. The conference report passed 53-46. [HCR 178, Vote #159, 6/13/96]

Cut $270 Billion From Medicare. Senators McCain and McConnell voted in favor of a budget that would cut Medicare by $270 billion. The budget passed. [H.R. 2491, Vote #584, 11/17/1995; H.R. 2491, Vote #556, 10/27/1995; H.C.R. 67, Vote #296, 6/29/95]

Voted Against Reducing Medicare Cuts By $181 Billion In Favor Of Tax Cuts For The Wealthy. Senators McCain and McConnell voted against a motion reducing cuts to Medicare by $181 billion by reducing tax cuts for upper income taxpayers. The motion was rejected 46-53. [S. 1357, Vote #499, 10/26/95]

Voted To Maintain Tax Cuts Instead Of Reducing Medicare Cuts By $100 Billion. Senators McCain and McConnell voted against an amendment to reduce by $100 billion the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid by reducing tax cuts. The amendment failed 46-52. [S.C.R. 13, Vote #173, 5/22/95]

Voted To Preserve Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Instead Of Reducing Medicare Cuts By $181 Billion. Senators McCain and McConnell voted against a motion reducing cuts to Medicare by $181 billion by reducing tax cuts for upper income taxpayers. The motion was rejected 46-53. [S 1357, Vote #499, 10/26/95]

Voted Against Increasing Medicare Payments To Hospitals By $4.5 Billion. Senators McCain and McConnell voted against an amendment restoring $4.5 billion in payments under Medicare to hospitals that treat a disproportionate share of poor patients. The amendment failed 47-52. [S 1357, Vote #524, 10/27/95]

Voted In Favor Of Cutting $270 Billion From Medicare. Senators McCain and McConnell voted to adopt the conference report on the fiscal 1996 budget resolution to put in place a seven-year plan to balance the budget by 2002 by cutting projected spending by $894 billion, including cuts of $270 billion from Medicare, $182 billion from Medicaid, $190 billion in non-defense spending, and $175 billion from various entitlement programs such as welfare. The conference report was agreed to 54-46. [HCR 67, Vote #296, 6/29/95]

Voted To Cut Medicare By $256 Billion. Senators McCain and McConnell voted to adopt the resolution to adopt a seven-year budget plan that would balance the budget by 2002 by cutting projected spending by $961 billion of which $256 billion would come from Medicare, $175 billion from Medicaid, $190 billion from non-defense discretionary spending, and $209 billion from various entitlement programs. The concurrent resolution was agreed to 57-42. [SCR 13, Vote #232, 5/25/95]

Voted To Maintain Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Instead Of Reducing Medicare Cuts By $100 Billion. Senators McCain and McConnell voted against an amendment to reduce by $100 billion the proposed cuts of $256 billion to Medicare and Medicaid by reducing tax cuts. The amendment failed 46-52. [SCR 13, Vote #173, 5/22/95]

http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200912010001
 
Topspin said:
I'm advocating using common fucking sense, increase supply of all doctors and lower their incomes.
Click to expand...
Or you can fix their salaries and place limits on what State Funded Medical Schools can charge for tuition and fees. That's not a solution in itself Topper. we all ready have an over supply of physicians and since they have to pay a huge amount of money to get their education the tend to enter specialties which pay better. If you increase the supply of physicians but they go into specialties instead of General Practice what have you solved?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Or you can fix their salaries and place limits on what State Funded Medical Schools can charge for tuition and fees. That's not a solution in itself Topper. we all ready have an over supply of physicians and since they have to pay a huge amount of money to get their education the tend to enter specialties which pay better. If you increase the supply of physicians but they go into specialties instead of General Practice what have you solved?
Click to expand...

An oversupply of specialist will eventually lower their pay, supply and demand.
 
Topspin said:
An oversupply of specialist will eventually lower their pay, supply and demand.
Click to expand...
But the exact opposite had in fact happened. That's why the present situation in the US health care system is called a market failure. This is not a problem that MBA's can fix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top