Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
No its not. I talked to them about it. Go through insurance, charge is full price, period. In addition, 30% is not equivalent to the time-value-of-money for the reimbursement period in question. Besides, why present one amount as the cost when using insurance cost while the real cost for using insurance is done under the table? Does not make sense.
[/quote]Hopefully you misunderstand what I’m saying, otherwise you’re just wrong. Insurance companies do not pay full charges. For both HMO’s and Perferred Provider plans, rates for services are specifically negotiated. (That’s how physicians, hospitals and other allied health services get on to the insurance companies “approved” lists.) Most have negotiated rates anywhere from 30 to 90% of what cash customers are charged (before discounts) depending on the specific service. Most non HMO and non preferred provider plans also provide that they will reimburse “reasonable and customary” charges, which are almost invariably lower than full charges that doctors or hospitals will quote.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
No its not. I talked to them about it. Go through insurance, charge is full price, period. In addition, 30% is not equivalent to the time-value-of-money for the reimbursement period in question. Besides, why present one amount as the cost when using insurance cost while the real cost for using insurance is done under the table? Does not make sense.
[/quote]Hopefully you misunderstand what I’m saying, otherwise you’re just wrong. Insurance companies do not pay full charges. For both HMO’s and Perferred Provider plans, rates for services are specifically negotiated. (That’s how physicians, hospitals and other allied health services get on to the insurance companies “approved” lists.) Most have negotiated rates anywhere from 30 to 90% of what cash customers are charged (before discounts) depending on the specific service. Most non HMO and non preferred provider plans also provide that they will reimburse “reasonable and customary” charges, which are almost invariably lower than full charges that doctors or hospitals will quote.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
No its not. I talked to them about it. Go through insurance, charge is full price, period. In addition, 30% is not equivalent to the time-value-of-money for the reimbursement period in question. Besides, why present one amount as the cost when using insurance cost while the real cost for using insurance is done under the table? Does not make sense.
[/quote]Hopefully you misunderstand what I’m saying, otherwise you’re just wrong. Insurance companies do not pay full charges. For both HMO’s and Perferred Provider plans, rates for services are specifically negotiated. (That’s how physicians, hospitals and other allied health services get on to the insurance companies “approved” lists.) Most have negotiated rates anywhere from 30 to 90% of what cash customers are charged (before discounts) depending on the specific service. Most non HMO and non preferred provider plans also provide that they will reimburse “reasonable and customary” charges, which are almost invariably lower than full charges that doctors or hospitals will quote.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Recent polling shows that most physicians support reform, and a public option (or even stronger) in a wider margin than the general public.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story…
..
If you can identify bias in the polling data, I invite you to do so.
How about the fact that when you go to Scripts Hospital for an MRI, you will get a discount of aproximately 30% if you pay direct with your own cash/check than if they have to deal with your insurance. Considering they are giving up somewhere around $300 just not to have to deal with insurance makes the preference quite clear.[/quote]
Right, their preference is to get cash in hand ASAP. I’m guessing that 30% discount is probably just about the same (or an even smaller discount) than insurance companies and medicare have already negotiated.
But that’s really not what the reform question is about. The more important question is whether they would rather deal with the federal government or private insurance. Since they already deal with medicare, almost flawlessly, the only significant question is reimbursment rate.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Recent polling shows that most physicians support reform, and a public option (or even stronger) in a wider margin than the general public.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story…
..
If you can identify bias in the polling data, I invite you to do so.
How about the fact that when you go to Scripts Hospital for an MRI, you will get a discount of aproximately 30% if you pay direct with your own cash/check than if they have to deal with your insurance. Considering they are giving up somewhere around $300 just not to have to deal with insurance makes the preference quite clear.[/quote]
Right, their preference is to get cash in hand ASAP. I’m guessing that 30% discount is probably just about the same (or an even smaller discount) than insurance companies and medicare have already negotiated.
But that’s really not what the reform question is about. The more important question is whether they would rather deal with the federal government or private insurance. Since they already deal with medicare, almost flawlessly, the only significant question is reimbursment rate.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Recent polling shows that most physicians support reform, and a public option (or even stronger) in a wider margin than the general public.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story…
..
If you can identify bias in the polling data, I invite you to do so.
How about the fact that when you go to Scripts Hospital for an MRI, you will get a discount of aproximately 30% if you pay direct with your own cash/check than if they have to deal with your insurance. Considering they are giving up somewhere around $300 just not to have to deal with insurance makes the preference quite clear.[/quote]
Right, their preference is to get cash in hand ASAP. I’m guessing that 30% discount is probably just about the same (or an even smaller discount) than insurance companies and medicare have already negotiated.
But that’s really not what the reform question is about. The more important question is whether they would rather deal with the federal government or private insurance. Since they already deal with medicare, almost flawlessly, the only significant question is reimbursment rate.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Recent polling shows that most physicians support reform, and a public option (or even stronger) in a wider margin than the general public.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story…
..
If you can identify bias in the polling data, I invite you to do so.
How about the fact that when you go to Scripts Hospital for an MRI, you will get a discount of aproximately 30% if you pay direct with your own cash/check than if they have to deal with your insurance. Considering they are giving up somewhere around $300 just not to have to deal with insurance makes the preference quite clear.[/quote]
Right, their preference is to get cash in hand ASAP. I’m guessing that 30% discount is probably just about the same (or an even smaller discount) than insurance companies and medicare have already negotiated.
But that’s really not what the reform question is about. The more important question is whether they would rather deal with the federal government or private insurance. Since they already deal with medicare, almost flawlessly, the only significant question is reimbursment rate.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Recent polling shows that most physicians support reform, and a public option (or even stronger) in a wider margin than the general public.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story…
..
If you can identify bias in the polling data, I invite you to do so.
How about the fact that when you go to Scripts Hospital for an MRI, you will get a discount of aproximately 30% if you pay direct with your own cash/check than if they have to deal with your insurance. Considering they are giving up somewhere around $300 just not to have to deal with insurance makes the preference quite clear.[/quote]
Right, their preference is to get cash in hand ASAP. I’m guessing that 30% discount is probably just about the same (or an even smaller discount) than insurance companies and medicare have already negotiated.
But that’s really not what the reform question is about. The more important question is whether they would rather deal with the federal government or private insurance. Since they already deal with medicare, almost flawlessly, the only significant question is reimbursment rate.
Participant[quote=sd_matt]”….70% of doctors polled in a Tipp/IBD poll 2 weeks ago opposed it, 45% said they would retire or quit the profession….”
Quite the disparity.
But who is Tipp/IBD? Ah here we go…http://www.tipponline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=3
Lets see what I can find from Gallup or Pew…[/quote]
I saw that a few weeks ago, and a few things jumped out at me.
First, the poll was done by mail. Highly unusual for scientific polls. I couldn’t find the margin of error (I confess I didn’t look real hard) but I suspect it’s pretty high.
Second, it said “responses are still coming in”. Huh? How can they publish poll results when they don’t have a completed poll? Most any respected pollster will confirm this is both highly unusual and dubious.
Third, at least one of the questions is atrocious: “Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?”. Good pollsters ask one question at a time. That’s arguably three questions. Otherwise it’s impossible to know which question the respondents are answering. It’s a useless poll question.
And lastly, IBD/Tipp sounded familiar, so I looked. This is the same organization that had the presidential election a year ago a virtual dead heat 11 days before the election, with an astounding almost 12% undecided. More than double any other poll. They also had McCain winning the 18-24 demographic by a whopping 74 to 22% margin. According to the NY Times, just 11 days later, Obama won that demographic by a margin of 66 to 32%.
As a professional polling organization, IBD/TIPP sucks. Which explains why their poll results are so different than others.
Participant[quote=sd_matt]”….70% of doctors polled in a Tipp/IBD poll 2 weeks ago opposed it, 45% said they would retire or quit the profession….”
Quite the disparity.
But who is Tipp/IBD? Ah here we go…http://www.tipponline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=3
Lets see what I can find from Gallup or Pew…[/quote]
I saw that a few weeks ago, and a few things jumped out at me.
First, the poll was done by mail. Highly unusual for scientific polls. I couldn’t find the margin of error (I confess I didn’t look real hard) but I suspect it’s pretty high.
Second, it said “responses are still coming in”. Huh? How can they publish poll results when they don’t have a completed poll? Most any respected pollster will confirm this is both highly unusual and dubious.
Third, at least one of the questions is atrocious: “Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?”. Good pollsters ask one question at a time. That’s arguably three questions. Otherwise it’s impossible to know which question the respondents are answering. It’s a useless poll question.
And lastly, IBD/Tipp sounded familiar, so I looked. This is the same organization that had the presidential election a year ago a virtual dead heat 11 days before the election, with an astounding almost 12% undecided. More than double any other poll. They also had McCain winning the 18-24 demographic by a whopping 74 to 22% margin. According to the NY Times, just 11 days later, Obama won that demographic by a margin of 66 to 32%.
As a professional polling organization, IBD/TIPP sucks. Which explains why their poll results are so different than others.
Participant[quote=sd_matt]”….70% of doctors polled in a Tipp/IBD poll 2 weeks ago opposed it, 45% said they would retire or quit the profession….”
Quite the disparity.
But who is Tipp/IBD? Ah here we go…http://www.tipponline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=3
Lets see what I can find from Gallup or Pew…[/quote]
I saw that a few weeks ago, and a few things jumped out at me.
First, the poll was done by mail. Highly unusual for scientific polls. I couldn’t find the margin of error (I confess I didn’t look real hard) but I suspect it’s pretty high.
Second, it said “responses are still coming in”. Huh? How can they publish poll results when they don’t have a completed poll? Most any respected pollster will confirm this is both highly unusual and dubious.
Third, at least one of the questions is atrocious: “Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?”. Good pollsters ask one question at a time. That’s arguably three questions. Otherwise it’s impossible to know which question the respondents are answering. It’s a useless poll question.
And lastly, IBD/Tipp sounded familiar, so I looked. This is the same organization that had the presidential election a year ago a virtual dead heat 11 days before the election, with an astounding almost 12% undecided. More than double any other poll. They also had McCain winning the 18-24 demographic by a whopping 74 to 22% margin. According to the NY Times, just 11 days later, Obama won that demographic by a margin of 66 to 32%.
As a professional polling organization, IBD/TIPP sucks. Which explains why their poll results are so different than others.
Participant[quote=sd_matt]”….70% of doctors polled in a Tipp/IBD poll 2 weeks ago opposed it, 45% said they would retire or quit the profession….”
Quite the disparity.
But who is Tipp/IBD? Ah here we go…http://www.tipponline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=3
Lets see what I can find from Gallup or Pew…[/quote]
I saw that a few weeks ago, and a few things jumped out at me.
First, the poll was done by mail. Highly unusual for scientific polls. I couldn’t find the margin of error (I confess I didn’t look real hard) but I suspect it’s pretty high.
Second, it said “responses are still coming in”. Huh? How can they publish poll results when they don’t have a completed poll? Most any respected pollster will confirm this is both highly unusual and dubious.
Third, at least one of the questions is atrocious: “Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?”. Good pollsters ask one question at a time. That’s arguably three questions. Otherwise it’s impossible to know which question the respondents are answering. It’s a useless poll question.
And lastly, IBD/Tipp sounded familiar, so I looked. This is the same organization that had the presidential election a year ago a virtual dead heat 11 days before the election, with an astounding almost 12% undecided. More than double any other poll. They also had McCain winning the 18-24 demographic by a whopping 74 to 22% margin. According to the NY Times, just 11 days later, Obama won that demographic by a margin of 66 to 32%.
As a professional polling organization, IBD/TIPP sucks. Which explains why their poll results are so different than others.
Participant[quote=sd_matt]”….70% of doctors polled in a Tipp/IBD poll 2 weeks ago opposed it, 45% said they would retire or quit the profession….”
Quite the disparity.
But who is Tipp/IBD? Ah here we go…http://www.tipponline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=3
Lets see what I can find from Gallup or Pew…[/quote]
I saw that a few weeks ago, and a few things jumped out at me.
First, the poll was done by mail. Highly unusual for scientific polls. I couldn’t find the margin of error (I confess I didn’t look real hard) but I suspect it’s pretty high.
Second, it said “responses are still coming in”. Huh? How can they publish poll results when they don’t have a completed poll? Most any respected pollster will confirm this is both highly unusual and dubious.
Third, at least one of the questions is atrocious: “Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?”. Good pollsters ask one question at a time. That’s arguably three questions. Otherwise it’s impossible to know which question the respondents are answering. It’s a useless poll question.
And lastly, IBD/Tipp sounded familiar, so I looked. This is the same organization that had the presidential election a year ago a virtual dead heat 11 days before the election, with an astounding almost 12% undecided. More than double any other poll. They also had McCain winning the 18-24 demographic by a whopping 74 to 22% margin. According to the NY Times, just 11 days later, Obama won that demographic by a margin of 66 to 32%.
As a professional polling organization, IBD/TIPP sucks. Which explains why their poll results are so different than others.
Participant[quote=Hobie]I dunno. May not be an unbiased sample.
IF this gets pushed through my money is on docs forming boutique private practices combining several specialities to serve a small group of local patients who, like the docs, don’t want to deal with the govn’t system.[/quote]
If you can identify bias in the polling data, I invite you to do so.
Most all doctors (with only minor exceptions) already deal with a government payer, medicare. Most physicians can’t avoid it anymore than they can avoid dealing with private insurance.
Anectdotally, most, in my experience, (as an advisor to scores of MD’s over the last 30 years) are quite content dealing with the government as a third party payer, at least as content as they are with private insurance.
-
AuthorPosts
