Obamacare preview: Mayo Clinic in Arizona to Stop Treating Some Medicare Patients

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Here is an example of what we have to look forward to when it comes to government run healthcare.

In order to keep costs down the government limits the fees that it pays to doctors. Eventually the fees become lower than the cost of doing business and doctors either have to cut the patients or raise fees charged to other patients to make up for the difference.

In this case one Mayo clinic is going to stop treating any medicare patients at all, unless they pay cash for their treatments. After losing $120 million from treating medicare patients last year it seems to had to take some kind of action.

I am sure this is just the beginning. Already 25% of family doctors in the US don't accept new medicare patients and with government expanding medicare as a means to help provide health insurance to more Americans I would expect that rate to climb.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aHoYSI84VdL0
The Mayo Clinic, praised by President Barack Obama as a national model for efficient health care, will stop accepting Medicare patients as of tomorrow at one of its primary-care clinics in Arizona, saying the U.S. government pays too little.

More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government’s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, won’t affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.

Obama in June cited the nonprofit Rochester, Minnesota-based Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for offering “the highest quality care at costs well below the national norm.” Mayo’s move to drop Medicare patients may be copied by family doctors, some of whom have stopped accepting new patients from the program, said Lori Heim, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a telephone interview yesterday.

“Many physicians have said, ‘I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,’” said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. “If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn’t make sense to do more of it.”

Medicare Loss

The Mayo organization had 3,700 staff physicians and scientists and treated 526,000 patients in 2008. It lost $840 million last year on Medicare, the government’s health program for the disabled and those 65 and older, Mayo spokeswoman Lynn Closway said.

Mayo’s hospital and four clinics in Arizona, including the Glendale facility, lost $120 million on Medicare patients last year, Yardley said. The program’s payments cover about 50 percent of the cost of treating elderly primary-care patients at the Glendale clinic, he said.

“We firmly believe that Medicare needs to be reformed,” Yardley said in a Dec. 23 e-mail. “It has been true for many years that Medicare payments no longer reflect the increasing cost of providing services for patients.”

Mayo will assess the financial effect of the decision in Glendale to drop Medicare patients “to see if it could have implications beyond Arizona,” he said.

Nationwide, doctors made about 20 percent less for treating Medicare patients than they did caring for privately insured patients in 2007, a payment gap that has remained stable during the last decade, according to a March report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a panel that advises Congress on Medicare issues. Congress last week postponed for two months a 21.5 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements for doctors.

National Participation

Medicare covered an estimated 45 million Americans at the end of 2008, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the agency in charge of the programs. While 92 percent of U.S. family doctors participate in Medicare, only 73 percent of those are accepting new patients under the program, said Heim of the national physicians’ group, citing surveys by the Leawood, Kansas-based organization.

Greater access to primary care is a goal of the broad overhaul supported by Obama that would provide health insurance to about 31 million more Americans. More family doctors are needed to help reduce medical costs by encouraging prevention and early treatment, Obama said in a June 15 speech to the American Medical Association meeting in Chicago.

Reid Cherlin, a White House spokesman for health care, declined comment on Mayo’s decision to drop Medicare primary care patients at its Glendale clinic.

Medicare Costs

Mayo’s Medicare losses in Arizona may be worse than typical for doctors across the U.S., Heim said. Physician costs vary depending on business expenses such as office rent and payroll. “It is very common that we hear that Medicare is below costs or barely covering costs,” Heim said.

Mayo will continue to accept Medicare as payment for laboratory services and specialist care such as cardiology and neurology, Yardley said.

Robert Berenson, a fellow at the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said physicians’ claims of inadequate reimbursement are overstated. Rather, the program faces a lack of medical providers because not enough new doctors are becoming family doctors, internists and pediatricians who oversee patients’ primary care.

“Some primary care doctors don’t have to see Medicare patients because there is an unlimited demand for their services,” Berenson said. When patients with private insurance can be treated at 50 percent to 100 percent higher fees, “then Medicare does indeed look like a poor payer,” he said.

Annual Costs

A Medicare patient who chooses to stay at Mayo’s Glendale clinic will pay about $1,500 a year for an annual physical and three other doctor visits, according to an October letter from the facility. Each patient also will be assessed a $250 annual administrative fee, according to the letter. Medicare patients at the Glendale clinic won’t be allowed to switch to a primary care doctor at another Mayo facility.

A few hundred of the clinic’s Medicare patients have decided to pay cash to continue seeing their primary care doctors, Yardley said. Mayo is helping other patients find new physicians who will accept Medicare.

“We’ve had many patients call us and express their unhappiness,” he said. “It’s not been a pleasant experience.”

Mayo’s decision may herald similar moves by other Phoenix- area doctors who cite inadequate Medicare fees as a reason to curtail treatment of the elderly, said John Rivers, chief executive of the Phoenix-based Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association.

“We’ve got doctors who are saying we are not going to deal with Medicare patients in the hospital” because they consider the fees too low, Rivers said. “Or they are saying we are not going to take new ones in our practice.”
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
This is nothing new, doctors have been dropping medicare for a long time. Why are you all of a sudden posting this now? Gee, I wonder?

Let me guess, it's all Obama's fault, because he caused this to start when he was still in college, right?
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
So does OP support spending more money on Medicare payments so that Mayo would take them?
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
I hate to burst your bubble, Johnnie, but the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, is the second ranked hospital in the US behind Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore.

The Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix is not listed in any of the 'Best Hospital' lists (that I can find). Its only ranked listing is # 46th in 'digestive orders' and doesn't rank in any other specialties.

Ooops.

And the Mayo Clinic Hospital in Phoenix doesn't seem to be much to write home about when compared to real hospitals where I live such as Dook, Carolinas Medical and even my local hillbilly rednecks deep in Deliverance Country.

And not to really embarrass you, but here is the actual Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

So, essentially, your attempt at propaganda is Fail.




(no big surprise)






--
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Not surprising. No one can operate at a loss, so as reimbursements are cut, so will be the number of places to take a particular insurance, including government sponsored ones.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
What amazes me is the fact that Liberals think that you can lower the enrollment age of medicare (thus increasing enrollment), cut 500 billion in medicare payments, and keep the same quality of care.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,446
33,039
136
This is excellent news for P&N! A rightwinger has finally admitted that no one is forcing doctors to take the government gold.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
It's a legitimate issue to discuss the payment structure of Medicare, whether it's adequate for doctors' needs, and how to fix it if it's not adequate. One anecdote serves little purpose, though.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
S CHIP is about the same. The bright note on these is that E.R.'s have to accept them. Of course,,,that doesn't put any strain on E.R.'s.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Tax all income with medicare and this would be no problem but they only want wage earners to pay disproportionate taxes. As jobs and wages fall apart it's only inevitable programs fixed to them fall apart too.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Tax all income with medicare and this would be no problem but they only want wage earners to pay disproportionate taxes. As jobs and wages fall apart it's only inevitable programs fixed to them fall apart too.

An interesting idea. Unearned income taxation is a huge issue hurting wage earners.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
An interesting idea. Unearned income taxation is a huge issue hurting wage earners.

HUGE!! Say you get a check from an investment for $1000 not only do you get to deduct expenses associated with managing that investment you pay no employment taxes on it. (SS/Med/UE) I know 'people' who drive around all the time looking at oil and gas properties and just happen to bring their shotgun 'in case' there are dove and quail around. Get it?


(not to mention accelerated depreciation schedules for O&G but that's a whole nother issue)

vs.

Working you get hit with ~1% med ~6.25% SS and in some states the employee pays his own UE (cost varies) and you incur federal/state taxes on whole $1000.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
HUGE!! Say you get a check from an investment for $1000 not only do you get to deduct expenses associated with managing that investment you pay no employment taxes on it. (SS/Med/UE) I know 'people' who drive around all the time looking at oil and gas properties and just happen to bring their shotgun 'in case' there are dove and quail around. Get it?


(not to mention accelerated depreciation schedules for O&G but that's a whole nother issue)

vs.

Working you get hit with ~1% med ~6.25% SS and in some states the employee pays his own UE (cost varies) and you incur federal/state taxes on whole $1000.

Don't forget the different tax rates.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Tax all income with medicare and this would be no problem but they only want wage earners to pay disproportionate taxes. As jobs and wages fall apart it's only inevitable programs fixed to them fall apart too.

Eliminate medicare. Implement a OPTIONAL government option for the elderly that isn't subsidized by tax dollars. Problem solved.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Marginal tax rates are identical whether unearned and earned - the only difference is how one can reduce basis - maybe you mean long term capital gains?
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Eliminate medicare. Implement a OPTIONAL government option for the elderly that isn't subsidized by tax dollars. Problem solved.

Patranus, Medicare is going nowhere - it enjoys overwhelming popular support something like 80%, the only question is how we finance it 'fairly' and fully. I'd argued the working person pay too much already so I'd advocate maybe even reduce their taxes while hitting up another segment of income which is today left unassailed.
 
Last edited:

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Tax all income with medicare and this would be no problem but they only want wage earners to pay disproportionate taxes. As jobs and wages fall apart it's only inevitable programs fixed to them fall apart too.


Guilty, as charged, Your Honor.

I made a serious effort (30 years ago :eek:) to maximize capital gains to reduce my tax burden as compared to that of 'salaries, wages & tips ...'

Just a guess on my part but I imagine it has meant a reduction of 30-50% over the obligations of my 'conventional income'.

And what is even a bigger kick to the crotch of the 'system', depending upon the final status of the inheritance tax, my heirs will receive the bounty of the 'accelerated basis' tax free.

That is, unless I go Hunter Thompson on them, sell-out and surround myself with age 20-something supermodels :D




--
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Marginal tax rates are identical whether unearned and earned - the only difference is how one can reduce basis - maybe you mean long term capital gains?

Yes, you are right - in terms of the 'issue' I was referring to income other than wages, both 'unearned' and capital gains which are similar in terms of the issue we're discussing.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Patranus, Medicare is going nowhere - it enjoys overwhelming popular support something like 80%, the only question is how we finance it 'fairly' and fully. I'd argued the working person pay too much already so I'd advocate maybe even reduce their taxes while hitting up another segment of income which is today left unassailed.

When did I say Medicare was going anywhere?
The problem is that Medicare is a Ponzi scheme and is not optional.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
HUGE!! Say you get a check from an investment for $1000 not only do you get to deduct expenses associated with managing that investment you pay no employment taxes on it. (SS/Med/UE) I know 'people' who drive around all the time looking at oil and gas properties and just happen to bring their shotgun 'in case' there are dove and quail around. Get it?


(not to mention accelerated depreciation schedules for O&G but that's a whole nother issue)

vs.

Working you get hit with ~1% med ~6.25% SS and in some states the employee pays his own UE (cost varies) and you incur federal/state taxes on whole $1000.

Both employer and worker pay 7.3% each-- without Social Security and Medicare, every working man's wage would be 15% higher. You have any idea what 15% more money would do for the economy? It would fix our problem right there.