3 ms·
The remaining XX% (I dispute your claimed 80%, it sounds fabricated) is why so-called "nurse practitioners" must not act as though they are front-line doctors.
by inopinatus 9y ago
The remaining XX% (I dispute your claimed 80%, it sounds fabricated) is why so-called "nurse practitioners" must not act as though they are front-line doctors. These people have too high an opinion of their medical qualifications. What you propose will increase mortality rates due to incorrect diagnosis of serious conditions. That is entirely unacceptable.
That suggestion of "Associate doctors" is a travesty that would simply further confuse a public already beset by snake oil salesmen and the false hope of "alternative".
What you are asking for - what you have listed as the positive outcomes - is properly handled by a patient advocate. These are rare today, I would see it grow as a profession.
- maxerickson 9y agoWhat you are asking for - what you have listed as the positive outcomes - is properly handled by a patient advocate. These are rare today, I would see it grow as a profession. I wonder if there is a way to structure payments such that doctors fill this role. It would be convenient if their incentives were so well aligned with patient interests.
- inopinatus 9y agoIt'd be yet another aspect of a healthcare system that gets hijacked by commercial interests, which is already the principal reason that US healthcare costs 17% of GDP when other countries deliver equal quality for 9%.
- maxerickson 9y agoAre you talking about patient advocates getting hijacked or about properly structured payments getting hijacked?
- inopinatus 9y agoI'm saying there is no payment structure you can a) devise and b) implement, without inadvertently creating a whole secondary financial sector to exploit and debase it. The word "properly" cannot attach.