10 Things Your HMO Doctor Won't Tell You.
- Thread starter Ferocious
- Start date
Alarming. 
Makes me wish the Clinton administration specifically Hillary Clinton would have come up with a plan to fix health care in this country. But she (they) didn't of course but managed to spend a ton of money in the failure. Ijiots.
Makes me wish the Clinton administration specifically Hillary Clinton would have come up with a plan to fix health care in this country. But she (they) didn't of course but managed to spend a ton of money in the failure. Ijiots.I did a research paper in college on HMO's. They are the worst thing that ever happened to the health care industry.
The bad thing about this article is that it somehow implies that the doctors and HMO are on the same side. Doctors make a point of saying stuff from the list b/c they feel if they don't, no one will (since the insurance company sure won't). If anything, there's a confrontation us vs. them with doctors and HMO's. Some statements show a clear lack of understanding of the industry. Below is an example.
"In an HMO system, a physician's financial interest lies in providing less care, not more," This is not true in many cases. Often's it's in a doctor's financial interest to give you more specialists, to help with future consoltation opportunities, from those same specialists. This sucks as well, but it illustrates the truth is that doctors have finacial motivations in many directions. Hopefully most doctors don't run their practice with these motivations as their guiding precept.
As far as time spent with you during a doctor's visit, HMOs, or otherwise, it's always in the doctor's financial interest to finish with each patient ASAP, since he doesn't get paid by the hour. Of course, once again, any doctor who treats his patients a certain way based purely on financial compensation has to be questioned.
IMO, most often the doctor is on the patient's side vs. the HMO.
"In an HMO system, a physician's financial interest lies in providing less care, not more," This is not true in many cases. Often's it's in a doctor's financial interest to give you more specialists, to help with future consoltation opportunities, from those same specialists. This sucks as well, but it illustrates the truth is that doctors have finacial motivations in many directions. Hopefully most doctors don't run their practice with these motivations as their guiding precept.
As far as time spent with you during a doctor's visit, HMOs, or otherwise, it's always in the doctor's financial interest to finish with each patient ASAP, since he doesn't get paid by the hour. Of course, once again, any doctor who treats his patients a certain way based purely on financial compensation has to be questioned.
IMO, most often the doctor is on the patient's side vs. the HMO.
The opposite would be Government run health care in which uncaring beauracrats make the decisions. Hillary Clinton's plan was so flawed...actually threatened jail time for even asking a doctor for a second opinion.
No easy answers...
HMO equals Health Maintainence Organisation
It tries to only supply needed treatment instead of running every test imaginable every time a 'Patient' complains. Profit margins get in the way sometimes. It proposes to but Medical Care in 'bulk' and thereby reduce cost.
My HMO is pretty good and I'll trust it before I trust a Socialists Scheme.
There has got to be a 'Happy Median.'
No easy answers...
HMO equals Health Maintainence Organisation
It tries to only supply needed treatment instead of running every test imaginable every time a 'Patient' complains. Profit margins get in the way sometimes. It proposes to but Medical Care in 'bulk' and thereby reduce cost.
My HMO is pretty good and I'll trust it before I trust a Socialists Scheme.
There has got to be a 'Happy Median.'
I think the article brings up a good point...it doesn't try to imply that doctors and HMOs are working on the same side, but rather that doctors are in the middle...between a patient which needs care, and an HMO which is being as cheap as possible. And the result is that the patient only gets the care that the doctor can give while still getting reasonable profit and without getting the HMO pissed off at them.
Loosely related, but also interesting.
<< Perhaps the best method of demonstrating the ?Free Market? approach offered by ?The Ohio Health Care Provider Joint Negotiation Act? vs. the ?Regulatory Approach? used by most legislative bills, including the ?Clinton Health Security Act? of a few years ago is done by simple numbers.
The Clinton Health Security Act using a regulatory approach to health care reform was 1,432 pages in length and called for the creation of a huge health care bureaucracy ?
The Ohio Health Care Provider Joint Negotiation Act using a free market approach to health care reform is 18 pages in length and will stop abuses before patients are injured.
After twenty years of attempts to stop HMO abuses of patients by legislation and government regulation, it is now clear that trying to stop abuses retroactively after they have become prominent in the market only adds administrative costs and doesn?t nip new abuses before they become common enough to hurt or kill patients. >>
http://www.opeiu.org/med/ohiohealth.asp
<< Perhaps the best method of demonstrating the ?Free Market? approach offered by ?The Ohio Health Care Provider Joint Negotiation Act? vs. the ?Regulatory Approach? used by most legislative bills, including the ?Clinton Health Security Act? of a few years ago is done by simple numbers.
The Clinton Health Security Act using a regulatory approach to health care reform was 1,432 pages in length and called for the creation of a huge health care bureaucracy ?
The Ohio Health Care Provider Joint Negotiation Act using a free market approach to health care reform is 18 pages in length and will stop abuses before patients are injured.
After twenty years of attempts to stop HMO abuses of patients by legislation and government regulation, it is now clear that trying to stop abuses retroactively after they have become prominent in the market only adds administrative costs and doesn?t nip new abuses before they become common enough to hurt or kill patients. >>
http://www.opeiu.org/med/ohiohealth.asp
Nicely put, Pretender.
In other words, it's costing our doctors more in time to fight it out with the HMO providers. Time being money, you and I receive less care for the increase in time that the doctors need to pad the bill to make up the loss difference. The doctors don't loose, and the insurance provider makes more % for what they pay out. Who get's screwed?
In other words, it's costing our doctors more in time to fight it out with the HMO providers. Time being money, you and I receive less care for the increase in time that the doctors need to pad the bill to make up the loss difference. The doctors don't loose, and the insurance provider makes more % for what they pay out. Who get's screwed?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter