3 ms·

You can see this trend even outside the hospital, for example in primary care, with some doctors choosing to open concierge practices. In return for a few hund

by nugget 11y ago

You can see this trend even outside the hospital, for example in primary care, with some doctors choosing to open concierge practices. In return for a few hundred dollar annual fee, you have a doctor responsible for perhaps 1/3rd the total number of patients. Meaning he or she can spend 3 times more time with you. For every MD/DO who reduces their patient panel, it's likely that a mid-level provider (nurse, np, or pa) picks up the slack. I would expect this trend to continue in the future.

sologoub 11y ago
You start describing a very positive situation where a Dr. is able to spend more time with a patient, but then immediately turn it into a zero sum situation where people have to be relegated to lesser care. How about having more doctors in general and overall better standards of care? I'd gladly pay a few hundred a year to be able to get the care my family needs. Following the changes from affordable care act (aka obamacare), the main medical group in our city turned into something akin to cattle processing facility. Doctors are encourage to spend less than 15 minutes per patient! When we needed an urgent appointment for something that wasn't bad enough for a 911 call, but certainly had the potential to turn in to one if neglected for a few days, all we were offered was a slot 2 MONTHS from the date of the call! I eventually escalated and escalated, but it turns out the supervisor I talked with simply double-booked our doctor... If we can add money to the system that allows for better doctor/patient ratio, why is it a bad thing? Sure, the economics have to make sense and the real price of this "luxury" should be charged.
- nugget 11y ago
  It's zero sum in that there are a fixed number of doctors today. We could train more, but the focus in health care is on decreasing costs, not increasing them. I can also tell you from experience that unless you are called to primary care in a near spiritual way, it's just not a very appealing job (work hours, environment, and compensation after many years in school).

by nugget 11y ago

sologoub 11y ago

You start describing a very positive situation where a Dr. is able to spend more time with a patient, but then immediately turn it into a zero sum situation where people have to be relegated to lesser care. How about having more doctors in general and overall better standards of care? I'd gladly pay a few hundred a year to be able to get the care my family needs. Following the changes from affordable care act (aka obamacare), the main medical group in our city turned into something akin to cattle processing facility. Doctors are encourage to spend less than 15 minutes per patient! When we needed an urgent appointment for something that wasn't bad enough for a 911 call, but certainly had the potential to turn in to one if neglected for a few days, all we were offered was a slot 2 MONTHS from the date of the call! I eventually escalated and escalated, but it turns out the supervisor I talked with simply double-booked our doctor... If we can add money to the system that allows for better doctor/patient ratio, why is it a bad thing? Sure, the economics have to make sense and the real price of this "luxury" should be charged.

nugget 11y ago
It's zero sum in that there are a fixed number of doctors today. We could train more, but the focus in health care is on decreasing costs, not increasing them. I can also tell you from experience that unless you are called to primary care in a near spiritual way, it's just not a very appealing job (work hours, environment, and compensation after many years in school).