Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
07.23.2008 8:01 pm

Thursday editorial: Profit/patient relationship

  • Email this
  • Print this

bz_cg_medical_imaging1_opt.jpgYou drop your car off for routine service. The mechanic has bad news. He needs to replace a part you’ve never heard of. It’s going to be expensive, he says.
Is this for real, you ask yourself, or is he just trying to sell me something?
You visit your doctor for routine care. There’s a problem, she says. You don’t entirely understand what’s wrong, but she wants to send you for tests at an “imaging center.” She may or may not mention that she is a part owner of that center.
Do you ask yourself the same questions you asked about the mechanic?

Tectonic shifts are underway in how health care is paid for, how it’s delivered and how much it costs. Even more fundamental financial pressures are forcing subtle changes in the doctor-patient relationship.
Post-Dispatch business writer Mary Jo Feldstein sketched out one of them last week: the rise of doctor-owned imaging centers stocked with expensive MRI machines and CT scanners.
In nearly half the states in the nation, including Illinois, it’s illegal for doctors to make referrals to outside imaging centers in which they have a stake. Medicare doesn’t allow it, either, although loopholes in its rules have made the practice increasingly common. But in Missouri, it’s perfectly legal.
Doctors who own such centers — there are perhaps two dozen in the St. Louis area, each of them a partnership involving dozens of doctors — say they provide MRIs and CT scans that are quicker, of higher quality and more convenient for patients. They scoff at the idea that the relatively modest payments they receive would motivate them to order unnecessary tests.
But the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that doctors with a financial stake in imaging equipment are 50 percent more likely to refer patients for MRIs and 30 percent more likely to suggest CT scans than doctors who don’t have a piece of the action.

Medicare spent slightly less than $7 billion on diagnostic imaging in 2000. By 2006, the tab had leaped to $14.1 billion.
A GAO analysis found that increased Medicare spending was linked to the growth in the number of physicians with their own imaging equipment. It also found that doctors with their own equipment were deriving a larger percentage of their total income from payments for the scans. That’s because insurance companies have worked aggressively to hold down what they pay doctors for office visits and routine care.
More than just money is at stake. Researchers from Harvard University wrote last year that as many as one-third of all CT scans performed each year are unnecessary.
Since each CT scan delivers as much radiation as hundreds of X-rays, the researchers estimated that as many as 3 million additional cancer cases could be caused by unnecessary CT scans over the next two or three decades.

Whatever else it represents, health care is big business. Billions of dollars are spent in the St. Louis region each year on doctors, hospitals and prescription drugs.
Before there were doctor-owned imaging and surgical centers, hospitals built and controlled free-standing facilities to provide those services.
As not-for-profit hospitals came to operate like big businesses, doctors found themselves increasingly strained by paperwork requirements, squeezed by insurance company reimbursement rates and frustrated by what they perceived as their loss of influence of the practice of medicine. Many regarded investing in imaging and surgical centers as a way to regain control of their medical practices.
It’s hard to fault them. But it’s happening at a time when more and more responsibility — for educating themselves about health, shopping around for services and paying for their own care — is already being placed on patients. They’re not happy about those changes.
What it comes down to is that doctors want their share of the economic spoils. Knowing that, patients may start regarding them with the same skepticism they have toward big insurance companies and hospitals.
Any way you cut it, that’s a net loss for doctors.

Christian Gooden/Post-Dispatch photo

21 comments

Comments are closed.

I’m guessing A- loves the government run military…Heckuva job!
The Republican side of our government knows how to kill and torture. Hell, they’re experts at it… But when it comes to providing healthcare for our children, the liberal side of our government is all screw-up.

Government run war, YES. Government run healthcare, NO.
Let’s have the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and the hospital CEO’s screw it up instead….Healthcare in this country is great, if you have it.

I’ld rather be the tough guy conservative, “Bring ‘em on”….$12 billion a month.
Then the bleeding heart liberal, ” Let’s help our children”…$2 billion a month.

Just more of that “pro-life,” compassionate conservatism BS.

— Garrison
9:19 am July 25th, 2008

I never knew that compassion had to be accompanied by any sort of government check or an increase in my taxes. Spending $2 billion a month is not the definition of “compassion”.

And sorry, they are not “our” children. They have parents. They are THEIR children. They are THEIR responsibility, not mine.

— havetolaugh
10:36 am July 25th, 2008

The same parents conservatives complain about because they’re earning $6.55 an hour…Maybe we should just sterilize them because they’re lazy, ignorant, government whinning parasites. Isn’t that what people like you, Cheney, and Phil Gramm believe? And we’re better than they are.
That kind of compassionate conservatism? Or the kind that kills 600,000 Iraqis for their oil?

— Garrison
10:52 am July 25th, 2008

Garrison,

Nice rambling response, but not one thing you said refutes my points.

Having children is a choice, always has been and always will be. Being poor does not mean you should not have children, but it does not make it anyone else responsibility to pay for them either.

And I do not believe “government whinning parasites” should be sterilized. My solution is much cheaper and does not cost tax payers a dime……I would just make them responsible for their actions, just like I (Joe Taxpayer) am responsible for mine.

For the record, I make more than $6.55 an hour. My wife and I cannot afford children yet. Therefore we don’t have children yet. But if your bleeding heart is willing to fork over the cost for food, clothing, day care, etc, I will tell you where to start sending the checks…..THEY CAN BE OUR CHILDREN!!!

— havetolaugh
11:27 am July 25th, 2008

Sounds like you must oppose public education. All education should be private and mostly unaffordable. If $12,000 a year for education is out of your reach…don’t have kids..When you do have kids, and if they attend public schools, I’ll tell you where you can start sending the checks. Because THEY”RE NOT MY KIDS! Why am I (Joe taxpayer) educating your kids because you’re not responsible and didn’t have the initiative to work hard and get a good education that pays an extra $12,000 a year (like healthcare costs for most families)?

Anyone who sends their kids to public schools is a whinning government parisite. Why do Republicans send their kids to public schools? It’s socialist concepts are everything the “free-market” capitalist “ditto-head” Republicans abhor….Must be a double standard when it affects their families.

Free government education is the kind of “government program” that is acceptable to most Republicans who have access to healthcare.

— Garrison
12:53 pm July 25th, 2008

Garrison…. Your guessing is as faulty as your logic. I’ve expressed my disagreement with the Bush spending and foreign policies from day one. I’ve also pointed out to you and others the difference in the Constitutional responsibilities of the federal government versus state & local, private, civic, and personal responsibilities as I see them. No point in rehashing here.

I’m a social libertarian and fiscal conservative. Of course, you, Hogan, and Lisa never recognize the conflict in your government worship alongside your Bush bashing. Bigger government means more to dislike under either party banner. Those who use government to control the behaviors of others are no different than those who’ve used religion for the same purpose over the ages. You even use the same terms; compassion, common good, moral obligations, etc. The only real difference is social evangelicals preach of Satan in Bentonville, AR instead of underground. Praise the FED!!! Glory!!!

— A#
1:13 pm July 25th, 2008

Is it education, or healthcare? What you want to talk about? Trying to link the two somehow is just another way to change the subject. Seeing how you now switched to education, here is my take on the subject

Considering how the continued liberal domination of public education coincides with our children’s education going from being ranked number 1 in the world in the 1950’s to being number 30 (and still dropping), eliminating public education would not be such a bad thing. They are not getting edumacated anyway!!!!

At the rate liberals are running our educational system into the ground, it cannot get much worse than not having public education at all. My children would be probably be better educated in a one room dirt school with no plumbing in Cameroon where they cook their lunches over a dung fire than in a St Louis City public school…….

— havetolaugh
2:37 pm July 25th, 2008

Let’s compare all public education with a one room school house in Cameroon? Dung fires? Public education built this country. Do you actually want to return to 1840?

— Garrison
3:22 pm July 25th, 2008

If it improved the public educational system for our children, you bet.

— havetolaugh
3:55 pm July 25th, 2008

Garrison,

Yes I would prefer not to pay taxes to allow my daughter to be educated by a failed school system. I could do a better job. Thanks.

Are you so incapable you cannot?

— John Deal
5:45 pm July 25th, 2008

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 » Show All