70% of most Doctors Offices revenues are from Medicare

[PlatinumGold]

don't fool yourself. a very large %age of all medical costs goes thru either medicare or medicaid. if not those two then another large percentage goes to Tricare (military) or some other govt sponsored insurance company.

commercials? what commercial is there other than Blue Cross? aetna? a small percentage of revenue for most doctors offices.

what is my point?

well we already know that 80% of all medical costs are incurred either at the beginning or end of your life. that makes sense. it doesn't take a genius to see how that would be true also.

WHY NOT nationalize healthcare? are we against supplying healthcare to babies? to Elderly (oops we already do).

basically the only people the govt isn't covering right now are middle class middle age people that get sudden illnesses.

and guess what, if we did a better job of preventative medicine in the younger years, we would spend less money on medical expenses in the older years.

it's not that difficult to do, we just have to make our mind up to do it.

 

[envy me]

Pharmacies (medicine) don't make money if people are healthy.

 

[Train]

so 70% of Medical Costs are paid by Medicare/Medicaid?

What % of the population is covered by these programs?

Do the math, what does that tell you?

Damn thats an easy one.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: envy me
Pharmacies (medicine) don't make money if people are healthy.

now that's a different question isn't it.

this "free market" system we have just isn't working. free market can only work when there is a certain amount of information available. this is difficult when what you are selling IS information. when you are selling information, you have to make it difficult for anyone to acquire that said information.

 

[Uhtrinity]

70%?? Link?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Train
so 70% of Medical Costs are paid by Medicare/Medicaid?

What % of the population is covered by these programs?

Do the math, what does that tell you?

Damn thats an easy one.

i don't know what your point is, but let's look at it this way.


which age group buys the most wheelchairs? walkers? dentures? has cataract surgeries?

fact is, i don't need to do the math you are talking about to tell me who the majority of medical dollars would be spent by.

we already know that an overwhelming majority of health cost dollars are spent in the 1st year (including birth) of a childs life and in the last 1 year of that persons life.

it's not only factual, but it's also logical.

we act as if allowing EVERYONE to participate in medicare would increase the medicare expenditures by a huge amount, that's just simply not true. and a percentage of every dollar spent by patients in middle age group would reduce what is spent when they retire.

it's not that we don't have enough money or ability, it's that we don't have the willingness.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
70%?? Link?

no link, my business is heavily involved with medical billing in doctors offices. this is just what i've seen, the obvious exception to this rule is obgyn and pediatrics. those two specialties have almost no medicare but do have quite a large percentage of medicaid patients.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
70%?? Link?

no link, my business is heavily involved with medical billing in doctors offices. this is just what i've seen, the obvious exception to this rule is obgyn and pediatrics. those two specialties have almost no medicare but do have quite a large percentage of medicaid patients.

So your personal experience makes it a nationwide trend? Doubtful, and that's being generous on my part. While Medicare/Medicaid might be big (Medicaid is crappy...too much handout going on), it's absolutely uninformed to imply that 70% of office bills by MD's are from Medicaid/Medicare.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity
70%?? Link?

no link, my business is heavily involved with medical billing in doctors offices. this is just what i've seen, the obvious exception to this rule is obgyn and pediatrics. those two specialties have almost no medicare but do have quite a large percentage of medicaid patients.

So your personal experience makes it a nationwide trend? Doubtful, and that's being generous on my part. While Medicare/Medicaid might be big (Medicaid is crappy...too much handout going on), it's absolutely uninformed to imply that 70% of office bills by MD's are from Medicaid/Medicare.

obviously my sample size is small but my logic still holds. the difference between offering medicare JUST for those over 65 and offering to everyone is not as large as many people make it out to be.

i can and do pull reports from my customers billing software on a regular basis, as that is the crux of what i do, install and set up billing software as well as training and maintaining of said software.

i do see numbers on a consistent basis. ask your GP what percent he thinks medicare makes of his total take? I'd be very very surprised if it was less than 50%. i know docs where it is higher than 80% depending on where their practice is. obviously PT practices and pysiatrist practices will have much higher than average doctors practices as far as a percentage of receivables from medicare.

but accross the board, i don't think 70% is that high.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Train
so 70% of Medical Costs are paid by Medicare/Medicaid?

What % of the population is covered by these programs?

Do the math, what does that tell you?

Damn thats an easy one.

i don't know what your point is, but let's look at it this way.


which age group buys the most wheelchairs? walkers? dentures? has cataract surgeries?

fact is, i don't need to do the math you are talking about to tell me who the majority of medical dollars would be spent by.

we already know that an overwhelming majority of health cost dollars are spent in the 1st year (including birth) of a childs life and in the last 1 year of that persons life.

it's not only factual, but it's also logical.

we act as if allowing EVERYONE to participate in medicare would increase the medicare expenditures by a huge amount, that's just simply not true. and a percentage of every dollar spent by patients in middle age group would reduce what is spent when they retire.

it's not that we don't have enough money or ability, it's that we don't have the willingness.

your assuming only children and the elderly are on medicare/medicaid, its not distributed by age groups, but by financial need. Lets assume the age groups of those on medicare vs those that are not are pretty evenly distributed.

The math I'm speaking of, guessing that about 15-20% of the US population is on those programs, would mean that 70% of the costs are paying for 15-20% of the population. See what Im getting at? That means the costs would be 5 or 6 times higher if the whole country was on medicare. Part of the reason medicare is more expensive is because providers actually charge medicare more than other insurers, partly because medicare essentiually writes blank checks.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Train
so 70% of Medical Costs are paid by Medicare/Medicaid?

What % of the population is covered by these programs?

Do the math, what does that tell you?

Damn thats an easy one.

i don't know what your point is, but let's look at it this way.


which age group buys the most wheelchairs? walkers? dentures? has cataract surgeries?

fact is, i don't need to do the math you are talking about to tell me who the majority of medical dollars would be spent by.

we already know that an overwhelming majority of health cost dollars are spent in the 1st year (including birth) of a childs life and in the last 1 year of that persons life.

it's not only factual, but it's also logical.

we act as if allowing EVERYONE to participate in medicare would increase the medicare expenditures by a huge amount, that's just simply not true. and a percentage of every dollar spent by patients in middle age group would reduce what is spent when they retire.

it's not that we don't have enough money or ability, it's that we don't have the willingness.

your assuming only children and the elderly are on medicare/medicaid, its not distributed by age groups, but by financial need. Lets assume the age groups of those on medicare vs those that are not are pretty evenly distributed.

The math I'm speaking of, guessing that about 15-20% of the US population is on those programs, would mean that 70% of the costs are paying for 15-20% of the population. See what Im getting at? That means the costs would be 5 or 6 times higher if the whole country was on medicare. Part of the reason medicare is more expensive is because providers actually charge medicare more than other insurers, partly because medicare essentiually writes blank checks.

i'm assuming that the very young and the very old get sick more often than those in the middle. i don't have a link that shows it, but it is logical and it is borne out in statistics.

if you had 2 groups of people come to you and ask you to insure their health, group a, middle age adults and group b, kids and retired people. lets say there were the exact same number of people in both groups. which group do you think would require more money for medical care?

it's not just logic, it's a fact. it's not a generalization. the fact is the body breaks down with age and the very young because they haven't built up the immunities get sick more often. this is medical certainty.

you assume that everyone will require the same amount of medical age as retired people (as most of medicare is the retired), that's just simply false. the majority of people not covered under medicare DO not require the same amount of medical coverage as those that are retired.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Train
so 70% of Medical Costs are paid by Medicare/Medicaid?

What % of the population is covered by these programs?

Do the math, what does that tell you?

Damn thats an easy one.

i don't know what your point is, but let's look at it this way.


which age group buys the most wheelchairs? walkers? dentures? has cataract surgeries?

fact is, i don't need to do the math you are talking about to tell me who the majority of medical dollars would be spent by.

we already know that an overwhelming majority of health cost dollars are spent in the 1st year (including birth) of a childs life and in the last 1 year of that persons life.

it's not only factual, but it's also logical.

we act as if allowing EVERYONE to participate in medicare would increase the medicare expenditures by a huge amount, that's just simply not true. and a percentage of every dollar spent by patients in middle age group would reduce what is spent when they retire.

it's not that we don't have enough money or ability, it's that we don't have the willingness.

your assuming only children and the elderly are on medicare/medicaid, its not distributed by age groups, but by financial need. Lets assume the age groups of those on medicare vs those that are not are pretty evenly distributed.

The math I'm speaking of, guessing that about 15-20% of the US population is on those programs, would mean that 70% of the costs are paying for 15-20% of the population. See what Im getting at? That means the costs would be 5 or 6 times higher if the whole country was on medicare. Part of the reason medicare is more expensive is because providers actually charge medicare more than other insurers, partly because medicare essentiually writes blank checks.

i'm assuming that the very young and the very old get sick more often than those in the middle. i don't have a link that shows it, but it is logical and it is borne out in statistics.

if you had 2 groups of people come to you and ask you to insure their health, group a, middle age adults and group b, kids and retired people. lets say there were the exact same number of people in both groups. which group do you think would require more money for medical care?

it's not just logic, it's a fact. it's not a generalization. the fact is the body breaks down with age and the very young because they haven't built up the immunities get sick more often. this is medical certainty.

you assume that everyone will require the same amount of medical age as retired people (as most of medicare is the retired), that's just simply false. the majority of people not covered under medicare DO not require the same amount of medical coverage as those that are retired.

I'm not arguing that children and elderly are a large portion of healthcare, but are all elderly and children on medicare/medicaid? No, most of them are covered by other insurance, thier families or thier employers.

Im just saying that its safe to assume the percentage of those on medicare/medicaid who are elderly is roughly the same as those who are on other inusrance plans.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Train
so 70% of Medical Costs are paid by Medicare/Medicaid?

What % of the population is covered by these programs?

Do the math, what does that tell you?

Damn thats an easy one.

i don't know what your point is, but let's look at it this way.


which age group buys the most wheelchairs? walkers? dentures? has cataract surgeries?

fact is, i don't need to do the math you are talking about to tell me who the majority of medical dollars would be spent by.

we already know that an overwhelming majority of health cost dollars are spent in the 1st year (including birth) of a childs life and in the last 1 year of that persons life.

it's not only factual, but it's also logical.

we act as if allowing EVERYONE to participate in medicare would increase the medicare expenditures by a huge amount, that's just simply not true. and a percentage of every dollar spent by patients in middle age group would reduce what is spent when they retire.

it's not that we don't have enough money or ability, it's that we don't have the willingness.

your assuming only children and the elderly are on medicare/medicaid, its not distributed by age groups, but by financial need. Lets assume the age groups of those on medicare vs those that are not are pretty evenly distributed.

The math I'm speaking of, guessing that about 15-20% of the US population is on those programs, would mean that 70% of the costs are paying for 15-20% of the population. See what Im getting at? That means the costs would be 5 or 6 times higher if the whole country was on medicare. Part of the reason medicare is more expensive is because providers actually charge medicare more than other insurers, partly because medicare essentiually writes blank checks.

i'm assuming that the very young and the very old get sick more often than those in the middle. i don't have a link that shows it, but it is logical and it is borne out in statistics.

if you had 2 groups of people come to you and ask you to insure their health, group a, middle age adults and group b, kids and retired people. lets say there were the exact same number of people in both groups. which group do you think would require more money for medical care?

it's not just logic, it's a fact. it's not a generalization. the fact is the body breaks down with age and the very young because they haven't built up the immunities get sick more often. this is medical certainty.

you assume that everyone will require the same amount of medical age as retired people (as most of medicare is the retired), that's just simply false. the majority of people not covered under medicare DO not require the same amount of medical coverage as those that are retired.

I'm not arguing that children and elderly are a large portion of healthcare, but are all elderly and children on medicare/medicaid? No, most of them are covered by other insurance, thier families or thier employers.

Im just saying that its safe to assume the percentage of those on medicare/medicaid who are elderly is roughly the same as those who are on other inusrance plans.

nope, the majority of elderly are on medicare. i have doctors that practice in some of the richest areas in NJ, their elderly patients are ALL on medicare and it's not like they can't afford better, they just refuse to buy.

nope, your guess would be wrong, the majority of elderly that qualify for medicare are on medicare.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let me help out this debate which is startling devoid of accurate information.

The overwelming majority of healthcare expenses used to be consumed during the last year of life. Several factors have changed over the past two decades:

1) Neonatal care doesn't sux anymore. A lot of babies that would have died in days or hours maybe survive for weeks, months, or even live somewhat normal lives.
2) People are getting chronic diseases at younger ages. Heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes are creeping downwards. This means a dramatic increase in sick years and hospital days.
3) Interventional care has improved so people don't die . . . well white people with insurance. Think Dick Cheney . . .
4) Diagnostics (MRI, PET) and interventions (surgery, drugs, stents) have reached unprecedented levels of cost and utilization.

The above means many middle aged (and even young) people consume a lot more healthcare than previous generations.

BUT . . . and it's a big but . . . young, healthy people (0-40) consume very little healthcare. Vaccinations, annual exams, the occasional injury, and well managed chronic diseases (asthma, allergies) are extremely cheap.

Unfortunately, if you have a BS health system then annual exams/vaccinations and chronic disease management falls by the wayside. This leads to fat kids, sick kids with repeated hospitalizations for preventable conditions, and kids getting the flu. Spend "x" to keep people healthy or spend "10x" to treat sick people.

The output of a universal healthcare system for people under 40 is that the profit margins will disappear for drug companies, for-profit hospitals, specialty clinics, health insurance companies, long term care facilities, etc.

What about the old people? Hmm . . . compassionate euthanasia? I think we need some good old tribal self-reliance. If you cannot pull your weight . . . wander off into the woods . . . and die.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Let me help out this debate which is startling devoid of accurate information.

The overwelming majority of healthcare expenses used to be consumed during the last year of life. Several factors have changed over the past two decades:

1) Neonatal care doesn't sux anymore. A lot of babies that would have died in days or hours maybe survive for weeks, months, or even live somewhat normal lives.
2) People are getting chronic diseases at younger ages. Heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes are creeping downwards. This means a dramatic increase in sick years and hospital days.
3) Interventional care has improved so people don't die . . . well white people with insurance. Think Dick Cheney . . .
4) Diagnostics (MRI, PET) and interventions (surgery, drugs, stents) have reached unprecedented levels of cost and utilization.

The above means many middle aged (and even young) people consume a lot more healthcare than previous generations.

BUT . . . and it's a big but . . . young, healthy people (0-40) consume very little healthcare. Vaccinations, annual exams, the occasional injury, and well managed chronic diseases (asthma, allergies) are extremely cheap.

Unfortunately, if you have a BS health system then annual exams/vaccinations and chronic disease management falls by the wayside. This leads to fat kids, sick kids with repeated hospitalizations for preventable conditions, and kids getting the flu. Spend "x" to keep people healthy or spend "10x" to treat sick people.

The output of a universal healthcare system for people under 40 is that the profit margins will disappear for drug companies, for-profit hospitals, specialty clinics, health insurance companies, long term care facilities, etc.

What about the old people? Hmm . . . compassionate euthanasia? I think we need some good old tribal self-reliance. If you cannot pull your weight . . . wander off into the woods . . . and die.

you are an MD or a Med student right? can't remember which.

regular checkups can significantly reduce dollars spent on healthcare at all age levels. inadequate healthcare does have an impact on what we are currently spending.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I'm an MD. But despite my advocacy for preventative healthcare I work exclusively with children with serious mental illness (autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder).

 

[Zebo]

i had heel surgury recently to cut out some bone and stuff costs $22,000 and I was sedated and out of sports clinc next day.. Somthing has to be done from supply angle too. No way it should cost that much.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Train
Im just saying that its safe to assume the percentage of those on medicare/medicaid who are elderly is roughly the same as those who are on other inusrance plans.

That is incorrect. Most of those on medicare/medicaid are the elderly. Most elderly don't have complete insurance separate from medicare and are not covered by employers, spouses, or etc. The demographics of medicare+medicaid is greatly skewed towards the elderly compared to any other form of health insurance.

Most health care cost are incurred by the elderly.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Zebo
i had heel surgury recently to cut out some bone and stuff costs $22,000 and I was sedated and out of sports clinc next day.. Somthing has to be done from supply angle too. No way it should cost that much.

if you had been covered by an insurance plan (commercial, blue or medicare) i guarantee you the bill would not have been anywhere NEAR as high.

one of the biggest scams going is how much doctors and hospitals charge cash patients. if you don't have insurance you can pay anywhere between 40% higher to as much as 3 times higher than what an insurance company would have to pay the doctor/hospital for the same procedure.

so not only are you fvcked if you don't have insurance because medical costs are high to start off with, they jack it up on you even more because you don't have insurance.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Zebo
i had heel surgury recently to cut out some bone and stuff costs $22,000 and I was sedated and out of sports clinc next day.. Somthing has to be done from supply angle too. No way it should cost that much.

if you had been covered by an insurance plan (commercial, blue or medicare) i guarantee you the bill would not have been anywhere NEAR as high.

one of the biggest scams going is how much doctors and hospitals charge cash patients. if you don't have insurance you can pay anywhere between 40% higher to as much as 3 times higher than what an insurance company would have to pay the doctor/hospital for the same procedure.

so not only are you fvcked if you don't have insurance because medical costs are high to start off with, they jack it up on you even more because you don't have insurance.

You sure that isn't the other way around? That insurance companies have bargained for coverage amounts/allowable costs & everybody else is stuck paying retail?

The majority of the population realizes that public health care is a bad idea. Oregon tried recently to setup public health care & failed (by quite a margin, IIRC).

Viper GTS

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Zebo
i had heel surgury recently to cut out some bone and stuff costs $22,000 and I was sedated and out of sports clinc next day.. Somthing has to be done from supply angle too. No way it should cost that much.

if you had been covered by an insurance plan (commercial, blue or medicare) i guarantee you the bill would not have been anywhere NEAR as high.

one of the biggest scams going is how much doctors and hospitals charge cash patients. if you don't have insurance you can pay anywhere between 40% higher to as much as 3 times higher than what an insurance company would have to pay the doctor/hospital for the same procedure.

so not only are you fvcked if you don't have insurance because medical costs are high to start off with, they jack it up on you even more because you don't have insurance.

Blame all the uninsured people who don't pay their bill.

 

[Genx87]

The chart I saw for 2003 showed the govt picking up 46% of the healthcare costs in this country or about 600 billion a year.

 

[Legend]

I'd like to see some links.

I didn't think healthcare would just mean being sick. I thought it mean more about getting people on multiple prescriptions, and these costs are huge. ADD, Allergies, depression, sexual function, cholesterol, etc. Just watch some TV, it's a huge market. By letting the government pay for everything, so many people are going to get these prescription drugs.

Your kid only shows small symptoms of ADD? Who cares! It's free, and it'll make him more competitive at school.

I used to be on Ritalin and I'd have to get my blood taken every 3 months. From my experience the largest group of customers were middle age unheathly people and their kids. All of them overweight and drowsy.

I used to get allergy shots and checkups. The largest customers were children. usually ages 3-10. There were also some middle aged people. These people didn't look as unhealthy as the other group.


It seems to me that if we genuinely were concerned about health, we'd open healthcare but on a condition: Junk food taxes. Either companies would have their products taxed or they would have to improve them to to reduce the tax. We'd establish a board of nutritional experts free of any lobbying from food companies to deem the products on a scale of unhealthyness.

This would help eliminate the cause, and create revenue to fund it from the very people that create the most costs.