Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A very interesting article and one I shall mull over.
I will note that my great-grandfather was a medical doctor and, of course, accepted either cash or barter (fixing a door, eggs, etc).
As a youth in the early 1960s our family doctor was cash-only. However, he retired in the 1970s after being sued by a patient for not correctly diagnosing some problem (I forget the details). It was in the 1970s that malpractive suits against medical doctors (and hospitals) began skyrocketing.
Which leads me to a general question: do these doctors, like the ones cited in the article, not have liability insurance? It may be well to have only 2,000 patients, but if just one patient decides to sue then the doctor is left exposed to a potentially devasting financial hit.
The issues are, I believe, rather tied together. As malpractice suits against medical doctors rose, medical doctors began having to purchase medical malpractice insurance. When some patients began to collect huge (I mean, huge) verdicts against medical doctors (which the insurance companies were obliged to pay) insurance rates rose. As insurance rates rose, doctors (and hospitals, etc) had to raise their own rates. As they raise their rates, people were eventually priced out and so sought health insurance.
It is a vicious cycle. I wish the article would 'follow up' on the individual doctors named in about five years, and see what their status is.
When a doctor is employed by a faceless corporate hospital, typically the hospital will settle most cases rather than seeing them through court. If a doctor is running their own practice and knows the case to be without merit, they will typically fight it and obviously win since it was frivolous to begin with. The doctor in their own practice has more control over the direction they can take complaints from customers. That is another big advantage to doing "no insurance" practices, as more responsible patients tend to be under your care, and hopefully this may be reflected in malpractice insurance, that "no insurance allowed" practices will get lower insurance premiums versus a large practice that receives more claims that eventually are settled.
What's this got to do with Obamacare? There was no "Obamacare" 8 years ago. It's only been around the past 3, and only parts in effect the last two or so.
The frustration existed long before Obamacare but is certainly amplified by it.
You should have made your poll public if you wanted to know how certain persons voted.
There's a significant tradeoff. I want small minded folks to feel comfortable expressing their opinion by voting yes, and I wanted folks who comment but refuse to answer in a futile effort to spite me to feel equally comfortable.
There's a significant tradeoff. I want small minded folks to feel comfortable expressing their opinion by voting yes, and I wanted folks who comment but refuse to answer in a futile effort to spite me to feel equally comfortable.
I voted no, mainly because it is a non-issue. When a practice doesn't accept insurance, it means they are treated as an out-of-network provider by your insurance plan. So you will have to pay up front and file for reimbursement, and your reimbursement will be at a lower level than if they were in-network. It also means that the provider does not negotiate with insurance companies to offer lower rates to plan members.
In the current system, patients can choose their provider based on quality of care and/or price. If a chosen provider is out-of-network and price is an issue, they may choose an in-network provider.
To enact a ban would mean requiring providers to participate in ALL insurance networks. This would certainly give insurance companies the upper hand in price negotiations, forcing providers to deeply discount their rates for all patients. It would be a boon for the insurers, because with the ACA all patients must be insured. So they would have more premium dollars coming in while they are driving down what they pay to providers.
I voted no, mainly because it is a non-issue. When a practice doesn't accept insurance, it means they are treated as an out-of-network provider by your insurance plan. So you will have to pay up front and file for reimbursement, and your reimbursement will be at a lower level than if they were in-network. It also means that the provider does not negotiate with insurance companies to offer lower rates to plan members.
In the current system, patients can choose their provider based on quality of care and/or price. If a chosen provider is out-of-network and price is an issue, they may choose an in-network provider.
To enact a ban would mean requiring providers to participate in ALL insurance networks. This would certainly give insurance companies the upper hand in price negotiations, forcing providers to deeply discount their rates for all patients. It would be a boon for the insurers, because with the ACA all patients must be insured. So they would have more premium dollars coming in while they are driving down what they pay to providers.
Not accepting any type of insurance is a big cost saver for practices. As medicare reimbursements go down, I would imagine many will adopt this practice. It's a great idea because you don't have to stand in the same line as moochers and leeches if you can afford to pay for quality care. You can save your pennies and get more F2F time with your doctor and the others can line up like cattle at the conglomerate practice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
