Kalifornia Rest in Peace - Chili's

:up:

 

He's right about the collection efforts. In fact, (this is from memory, but it think it's pretty accurate) about 40% of those who file for Bankruptcy do so because of medical bills, and some of them even had insurance.

Medical providers do provide for discounts to the various insurance companies, and then attempt to charge more to those that are uninsured. However, recently there was a case when a medical provider was sued because of those collection practices. Since you don't come to an agreement on the price of the care from the provider, all they can collect is what is reasonable and customary. If someone wanted to make an issue, they could claim that what is reasonable and customary is what the provider charges the Feds under Medicare, which is probably below what they would charge an uninsured patient. Nobody has attempted that yet to my knowledge, but I think it's coming, and when it does, watch the medical community scream. I think it's about time they stopped raping the public though with their billing charges, etc.

Art

 

Right! Reality check time! Medical costs are so outrageous because of the frivilous lawsuits by you hack lawyers.

If more people, yes even the "poor" people, would make healthcare more of a priority for their families (meaning, buy this BEFORE you buy your 48" HDTV) there wouldn't be so much learned helplessness and families lacking healthcare. I'm all for medicare for those who truly need it, but come on.

Canadian healthcare? Ask Robert how long he had to wait to get his c-bone fixed....

 

Quack, Quack. I mean AFLAC.

 

It's true. Everyone of my receipts form my insurance company shows what the doctor charged/discount/payout.

Also, my friend's wife is a baby doctor (I can't spell pediatrician) and he says no matter what she bills the insurance company, they will only pay out so much for a certain procedure.
If she raises her insurance rates she can't raise her feess because they still only pay out the same payments.

 

The primary reason for the ballooning cost of health-care is our insistence on paying 20% more for a service that provides only a 5% increase in efficacy. "Frivolous" lawsuits play only a minor role.

As for "poor" people and health care, a family of 4 making 30K would have to pay 10K-15K for private health insurance and (assuming no preexisting medical conditions), and would not qualify for Medicare.

 

Anyone remember what HMO stands for and what they were intended to do?

 

HMO stands for we take the government money and charge for work we never performed.

 

Is that really why it's so high?

Have you seen the caps put on pain and suffering in a lot of states in the last couple of years? Shit is still high.

It amazes me that a jury is wise enough to decide a Death penalty verdict, but can't decide a monetary value on a malpractice suit.

 

Says the high priced attorney.

 

It's not quite that simple. Providers are forced to negotiate contracts with insurers - if they don't they don't get their business - plain and simple. For most providers, the difference between a contract rate for a procedure and a non-contract rate can be (and often is) made up by creative ICD/CPT coding. That's why the billing deparment of modern medical practices keeps them in business.

 

Boo Hoo. The providers should Unionize.

 

Jay:

Take a look at this report, you'll see about 1/2 way down an interesting comment: 9.3% of the doctors cause 63% of the claims. You think that if the docs policied themselves a little better, you'd get a reduction in the claims? Please note also that only 14% of the docs who committed mal-practice were ever discplined. Something to think about?

http://www.braytonlaw.com/news/legalnews/013103_medmal_wv.htm

Art

 

Art, that report is for West Virginia. Have anything for nationwide statistics?

I'd be curious what the equivilant stats for the legal profession would show, including data on the percentage of lawyers disciplined for malpractice.

 

Frank:

I've seen studies for California and the percentages are about the same. About 8 - 10% of the docs incur about 60 - 70% of the claims and costs. I don't know if a study has been done nationally, but I suspect that you'd see similar numbers.

California doesn't keep those numbers, but if you are sued in California, you've got to notify the State Bar of the case, and advise me of the result. We get monthly reports, which include a displine section. Usually anywhere from 10 to 20 lawyers per month have been discplined for incompetence. There are about 130 -140k active attornies in California, so you can see the percentage is relatively small. What gets you disbared in taking client's money, or allowing your trust account to bounce a check, absolute guarantee of suspension or disarment.

California has the Nation's most difficult Bar Exam, so getting a license here is difficult, which may account for why the percentage of discpline for incompetence is low. Some states don't require an exam, if you attend certain schools. I suspect, but don't know, that those states might have a problem with the attorney population's competence.

Art

 

Professional exams are rarely more that a tool to make entrance to the club more difficult, not as a means to prove competence or ethics. The more exclusive the club, the fewer the number of members and the higher fees you can charge. It is simply controlling the supply side of the supply/demand equation.

 

seems like art would be able to produce the Kalifornia numbers easier than the WV ones.


seems anyhow.....

 

Thats correct. But you're leaving out the fact that the consumer of the services isn't the one paying, his/her insurer is (or is paying most of it).
Hospitals now don't make provisions for the 20% cheaper method because everyone demands the more expensive one...and they can't afford two sets of equipment or specialists etc.

 

Might as well, it's already overpriced so you can't get blamed for that.

Of course the AMA(the medical one) might as well be unionized the way they protect fuckups.

 

I don't understand why you think that having a low percentage of doctors with malpractice claims is a bad thing, or why you expect that the percentage should be higher. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your point. Most people don't have auto insurance claims, either. It's known as spreading the risk.