• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Doctors show Medicare patients the door

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
denver and the west
Doctors show Medicare patients the door
By Jennifer Brown
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/14/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT

Beverly Brodnax just got dumped by her doctor.

The disabled woman is among the many Coloradans on Medicare who say it's becoming more difficult to find a doctor who will take their government health insurance.

A 21 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements to physicians went into effect April 1, and although the U.S. Senate is poised to stave off the reduction with a last-minute, temporary stopgap this week, it's too little, too late for some Colorado doctors and their patients.

Brodnax and her husband, David, got the disappointing news a couple of weeks ago. Beverly's primary-care doctor of five years would no longer see her because she is on Medicare.

"He fired her," David Brodnax said. "It's almost impossible to find a physician who will take you as a new patient in Colorado Springs if you have Medicare."

The Brodnaxes' doctor did not return phone calls seeking comment. But the couple eventually found a Kaiser Permanente clinic accepting patients with Kaiser Medicare plans. Otherwise, they had intended to seek health care at the urgent-care clinic in the grocery store.

"You'd have to go to urgent cares or the emergency room," David Brodnax said.

Substantial cuts to Medicare reimbursement have loomed several times over the years.

Under a 1997 federal statute, reduced Medicare payments to physicians kick in based on a formula that tracks medical inflation. But each time the reduction is imminent, Congress puts it off.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal department that doles out reimbursements to doctors, has suspended Medicare payments since April 1 in the hope that the Senate would once again delay the cuts.

The department is holding claims until midnight today. "Then we will really have no choice but to begin processing checks to physicians that reflect the cut," spokesman Mike Fierberg said.

Doctors say another temporary fix is inadequate. Instead, they are pushing for a permanent change in law, a solution estimated to cost about $220 billion over the next decade.

Dr. Oswaldo Grenardo, who along with three other recent medical-school graduates opened a family-medicine practice in Parker, said he probably would stop accepting new Medicare patients if the cuts took effect.

"It's a hit that we frankly can't afford to take," Grenardo said. "To have any further decrease in reimbursement is going to be problematic for us to be able to pay for the staff.

"Creating a permanent fix would eliminate a lot of the frustration."

Grenardo, who has about $125,000 in medical-school debt, said his office is reimbursed by private insurance companies from 10 to 30 percent more than by Medicare. Plus, Medicare patients typically are more complicated to treat — more diseases, more prescriptions to manage.

"I wouldn't say we lose money on Medicare patients, but we certainly don't get reimbursed at the same rate as other insured patients," Grenardo said.

Under the previous rates, doctors were paid $95.43 by Medicare for a new-patient visit. The cuts that went into effect April 1 knocked the reimbursement down to $75.20, according to the Colorado Medical Society.

Medicare used to reimburse doctors $19.40 for electrocardiography of the heart. The current rate — unless it's halted by Congress — is $15.29.

The Colorado Medical Society, along with the American Medical Association and the senior lobby AARP, have been pushing lawmakers to permanently end the uncertainty. The Senate voted 60-34 Monday to end debate on the bill, setting up for a vote this week.

"We need a permanent fix so that patients and their doctors don't have to continue to worry about whether the federal government is going to be a good business partner or not," said Alfred Gilchrist, the medical society's chief executive.

"Doctors don't have the good fortune of being able to delay their business expenses like the Congress."

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14877801
 

Tam

Well-known member
Obama promised if you liked your Doctor you could keep them. I guess someone should have asked Obama what he was going to do to make Doctors want to keep you if you are on Medicare. :?
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Tam said:
Obama promised

Well then. It is highly likely that it was a lie from that point on.

Private docs have huge equipment costs. Staff costs including insurance specialists just because of such things. RNs are expensive to have on staff in the first place. Then the building and utilities. NONE of this compares to the cost of malpractice insurance.

Docs were going out of private practice and into the hospitals before all of this just to get under the hospital's umbrella for malpractice insurance cost.

Obama just made it a whole lot worse and you can count on it running down hill. "We're not taking any new patients" is going to be a response from most.
 

Tam

Well-known member
You have to wonder just how many pateints are going to admit they support Obamacare when they read a notice in their Doctors office that say Obamacare supporter need to find another doctor. :???:
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Wasn't this bill supposed to increase care for everybody? Liberals?

I have a close family member being treated for cancer my family members care has been excellent and medicare isn't letting my family member down.

The bill is going to make people be responsible for their health care. If you have to have insurance to drive a car why is it such a big deal you have to have it on yourself. Unresponsible citizens have gotten us in this predicament and over priced health insurance.

Come on Sandhusker don't you know at least one person doing the oh I can't afford health insurance as they drive their 4 door pickup or suburban?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
Sandhusker said:
Wasn't this bill supposed to increase care for everybody? Liberals?

The bill is going to make people be responsible for their health care. If you have to have insurance to drive a car why is it such a big deal you have to have it on yourself. Unresponsible citizens have gotten us in this predicament and over priced health insurance.

Does the Government force people to drive?

Why when it comes to Health Care, do you believe that a Government has the right to mandate what you do with your body, but when it comes to abortion, it's "my body, my choice"?


But the idea of comparing Health insurance to auto insurance is an idea that should be explored further.

The $$ you pay for Health Insurance would be rated on your usage, age, past care etc.

Get Drunk and cause yourself or anybody to require Health Care, and you lose your license and insurance. Take your eyes off that knife, because you are using the cell phone at the same time, and have your insurance premium increased due to "care and control"


Whoever dreamed up the concept of comparing auto insurance (since it is required) with health insurance didn't really think it through. There are so many differences that trying to compare the two concepts is like comparing vegetables and auto parts.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Hypo I disagree strongly that it's not even slightly related health and auto insurance.

Why do you have auto insurance? So if you hit someone or are in an accident things are taken care of. Might protect your finances if anyone gets sue happy. Banks require full coverage if you owe on the vehicle.

Why does a person have health insurance? Well one reason is to be responsible, another to protect assets, and yet another is to protect your finances.

Why would the government make us insure our cars but not make us be responsible citizens and have health insurance?

I do not believe the government has the right to mandate what I do with my body or you do with yours. I'm not sure how you even got that idea hypo.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
Hypo I disagree strongly that it's not even slightly related health and auto insurance.

Why do you have auto insurance? So if you hit someone or are in an accident things are taken care of. Might protect your finances if anyone gets sue happy. Banks require full coverage if you owe on the vehicle.

Why does a person have health insurance? Well one reason is to be responsible, another to protect assets, and yet another is to protect your finances.

Why would the government make us insure our cars but not make us be responsible citizens and have health insurance?

I do not believe the government has the right to mandate what I do with my body or you do with yours. I'm not sure how you even got that idea hypo.


First off auto insurance is based on personal risk, age, past driving history etc.

Government mandated Health Insurance is not.

People still get sue happy in Canada and people still go bankrupt. It's not because they didn't have Health Insurance. Mostly it is due to them not being able to work, and lack of savings/financial means to get them through.

Health Insurance and Bankruptcy Rates in Canada and the United States

“If socialized medicine played a role in reducing personal bankruptcies, we would expect to see a lower rate of personal bankruptcy in Canada compared to the United States. Yet the reverse is true. The personal bankruptcy rate is actually higher in Canada than it is in the U.S.,” he said.

Skinner compared bankruptcy data in the U.S. and Canada from 2006 and 2007, and found that personal (non-business) bankruptcy filings as a percentage of the population were 0.2 per cent in the U.S. during 2006 and 0.27 per cent in 2007. In Canada, the numbers are 0.3 per cent in both 2006 and 2007.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/researchandpublications/publications/6786.aspx


Do you have any numbers for how many bankruptcies are caused, due to lack of Health Insurance in the US?


Have you ever watched Blue Collar Comedy and hear the joke about buying the full insurance when renting a car?


Opponents of the provision objected that uninsured Americans would abuse the requirement by waiting until they needed insurance to cover high medical bills and then drop out after a short time to avoid paying premiums. Doing so drives up costs to those who remain in the system.

Now data from Massachusetts lend support to the opposition's claims with the Boston Globe reporting recently that "thousands of consumers are gaming" the state's 2006 health insurance law by doing just that.


With both auto and Health Insurance, it is the responsible users that will end up paying for the irresponsible. Bankruptcies and lawsuits included.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
Hypo I disagree strongly that it's not even slightly related health and auto insurance.

Why do you have auto insurance? So if you hit someone or are in an accident things are taken care of. Might protect your finances if anyone gets sue happy. Banks require full coverage if you owe on the vehicle.

Why does a person have health insurance? Well one reason is to be responsible, another to protect assets, and yet another is to protect your finances.

Why would the government make us insure our cars but not make us be responsible citizens and have health insurance?

I do not believe the government has the right to mandate what I do with my body or you do with yours. I'm not sure how you even got that idea hypo.

How can you say this law is about creating responsibility for healthcare when what it is doing is making those who already have healthcare (responsible people) pay for those who don't? Hell, the irresponsible people have won! They just got another handout! You want to make people responsible for their healthcare? How about denying them anything but the basics when they get hurt. Stop the bleeding and turn them out.

Comparing health insurance and auto insurance is apples and oranges. First of all, the auto coverage is a state requirement, not a federal one, and the states have that constitutional right, the feds do not. Secondly, auto insurance is requried for the PRIVILEGE of driving in that state. Screw up, and that privilege can be taken away, like any other.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Isn't it by 2014 every American will be required to have health insurance? Those of us that do will continue to and those that don't will be accountable and responsible for themselves. I'm tired of people who bitch about not affording health insurance and drive big suv's or pickups. It's all about priorities. Yeah I'd like a Escalade but here's the deal it's more responsible to have health insurance. It's the responsible thing to do for my family. As a conservative I'd think you would want people to be accountable and responsible?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
Isn't it by 2014 every American will be required to have health insurance? Those of us that do will continue to and those that don't will be accountable and responsible for themselves. I'm tired of people who bitch about not affording health insurance and drive big suv's or pickups. It's all about priorities. Yeah I'd like a Escalade but here's the deal it's more responsible to have health insurance. It's the responsible thing to do for my family. As a conservative I'd think you would want people to be accountable and responsible?

I hear you about the people driving the nice outfits and getting some kind of government benefit. You're right, is about priorities.

How are you making people resonsible by subsidizing or giving them insurance? How are you making them responsible when they can do anything with their bodies, live any kind of destructive livestyle and still not be turned down for insurance? This law doesn't create responsiblity, it does the exact opposite.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
CattleArmy said:
Isn't it by 2014 every American will be required to have health insurance? Those of us that do will continue to and those that don't will be accountable and responsible for themselves. I'm tired of people who bitch about not affording health insurance and drive big suv's or pickups. It's all about priorities. Yeah I'd like a Escalade but here's the deal it's more responsible to have health insurance. It's the responsible thing to do for my family. As a conservative I'd think you would want people to be accountable and responsible?

I hear you about the people driving the nice outfits and getting some kind of government benefit. You're right, is about priorities.

How are you making people resonsible by subsidizing or giving them insurance? How are you making them responsible when they can do anything with their bodies, live any kind of destructive livestyle and still not be turned down for insurance? This law doesn't create responsiblity, it does the exact opposite.

My understanding is except for the extremely poor starting in 2014 people will have to have health insurance and pay for it.

Ok on not being turned down by insurance to me this is a huge victory. Our oldest has asthma and it can be a very expensive and make you pull you hair out process to try and change insurance. She didn't live a destructive lifestyle it's not her fault. Yet before we were covered under a group plan we were looking at putting her on a chip plan by herself that had no prescription coverage and that alone would have been a huge bill having to pay out of pocket for the meds full with no copay.

This law will help create some responsibility and for once in your banking history you might just not see so many people raping the system driving fancier vehicles then those of us paying for insurance.
 

CattleArmy

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
How will those not able to afford Health Health Insurance now, afford it by 2014?

How many people say they can't afford it but then you don't see them living any different lifestyle then those of us with it?

My understanding also is it will be income based if you are buying private.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
CattleArmy said:
hypocritexposer said:
How will those not able to afford Health Health Insurance now, afford it by 2014?

How many people say they can't afford it but then you don't see them living any different lifestyle then those of us with it?

My understanding also is it will be income based if you are buying private.

I don't know how many, but you sound convinced. What did you base your opinion on?

Got any numbers?

Is this anything like the bankruptcy numbers you based your opinion on?

Don't these people that don't have insurance get billed for the service? Doesn't it damage their credit rating when they don't pay the bill? How do they finance these luxuries, with a damaged credit rating?


I don't think it happens as often as you claim, please provide some sort of data?
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
I can tell you all the pan handlers in Dallas have the latest technology in cell phones. They don't have money for food for the kids but they have money for those phones and cigarettes. They worship the great one too.
 
Top