Post #327,167
6/1/10 11:12:50 AM
|
Your malpractice numbers don't make sense.
Malpractice costs more than salaries? I don't think so.
http://money.cnn.com...are_doctor_costs/
Schreiber, who employs two nurse practitioners, agreed to break down the costs associated with running his practice.
He spends about $60,000 a month on "fixed costs" to run his practice. "That's more or less my breakeven point," he said. "If I spend more, I'm in the red for the month."
Business costs include rent, payroll, utilities, medical and office supplies. Because he maintains electronic health records for his patients, Schreiber also pays for equipment maintenance and other management services associated with patient billing.
Fixed costs for a private practice also include malpractice insurance. He pays about $7,000 a year for himself and $2,000 each for his two nurse practitioners. Schreiber admits that his cost for malpractice insurance is relatively low, compared to specialists such as ob/gyns, who pay upward of $100,000 a year. (Rx for money woes: Doctors quit medicine)
Finally, his fixed costs include benefits to cover his employees, including himself.
Those costs go against the $800,000 or so in revenue, which includes about $100,000 in income, he said his practice collects in a given year.
Nearly a third of that money, the sum that would be cut 21%, comes from Medicare.
(Of course, Congress is never going to cut doctor's salaries that much in one fell swoop.)
I can't believe that any practice has malpractice insurance costing more than physician salaries. It would be enlightening to see otherwise.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #327,171
6/1/10 11:27:19 AM
|
What, you think...
100k/year is too much and Congress should cut it?
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #327,172
6/1/10 11:32:46 AM
6/1/10 4:04:49 PM
|
Yes, that's *exactly* what I think. Of course. :-/
[edit:] Just to be clear: I was trying to be snarky.
I have no particular knowledge why some malpractice insurance rates are so high. I didn't address that. I was trying to point out that numbers I've seen indicate typical malpractice rates are not the dominant expense in a doctor's office.
Even in practices where they are spending $100k for insurance, I would bet that salaries are higher. I could be wrong, of course.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #327,201
6/1/10 5:43:44 PM
|
Are you talking about insurance rate,,,
or the docs income?
Docs income is 100k in the example given.
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #327,204
6/1/10 6:20:02 PM
|
I made an assumption.
My comment was about insurance. The excerpt said some doctors pay $100k for insurance. You asked whether $100k was too high. I assumed you were talking about insurance. You weren't?
You really need to use more words in your posts.... ;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #327,206
6/1/10 7:03:27 PM
|
What's the opposite of "benefit of the doubt"?
You were responding to his comment, "Of course, Congress is never going to cut doctor's salaries that much in one fell swoop."
That was a response to the article he quoted, which discussed the possible impact of proposed Medicare changes on one doctor's net profits.
For your question to be meaningful, you had to assume that Scott's goal was to reduce doctor salaries. You then had to conclude that his comment was not a statement of fact, but stating a problem.
When you assume the worst of intentions, and use those assumptions to turn analysis into argument, you make it impossible to have a reasonable discussion. Challenging your opponent on every statement of fact may be a good rhetorical device, but it doesn't lead to common ground. It's a sign that winning the argument is more important than understanding each other.
--
Drew
|
Post #327,214
6/2/10 12:53:43 AM
|
When you state it that clearly
you violate the Human Events Rulez !111!!
(once summarized by one Newt Gingrich: his little working notes somehow found their way into the meeja -- they were All about How To Do [do just what you are suggesting is most often the Beep n'Bill Game.]
This is quite beyond stupid rhetorical badinage -- it is about making actual discourse, to some fucking Purpose [Any fucking Purpose]: impossible.
Which, as with WOPR's [machine] comment in That Movie:
"The only way to win this [War] Game is Not to play.."
er, qed?
I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers!
-- via RC
|
Post #327,217
6/2/10 7:31:25 AM
|
ok dad;=)
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #327,219
6/2/10 9:00:44 AM
|
Damn whippersnapper
--
Drew
|
Post #327,220
6/2/10 9:03:54 AM
|
Well HE started it!
(we have had a dr income discussion before, HONEST)
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
|
Post #327,189
6/1/10 3:48:07 PM
|
Re: Your malpractice numbers don't make sense.
Some numbers from a 2005 article (And a partial reason for why they are so high):
Malpractice insurance premiums vary widely from state to state. Florida is the highest-premium state, with an average 2004 premium of more than $195,000, followed by Nevada, Michigan, the District of Columbia, Ohio, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois and New York.
The 10 lowest-premium states are Oklahoma, at about $17,000 on average, and Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota, Indiana, Idaho, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Arkansas and South Carolina.
...
The reasons for the rising costs in this specialty are myriad, but Ransom notes that a partial explanation is that Âeverybody wants and expects a perfect baby, leading many people to sue when the reality doesn't match their expectation.
http://www.med.umich...ge/2005/obgyn.htm
|
Post #327,190
6/1/10 4:05:19 PM
|
Thanks.
|
