More research indicating that annual PSA screening for prostate cancer does not cut mortality.
My own doc put me on an every four year testing schedule due to good numbers. I still get the annual invasive exam, as it costs nothing extra. Ouch.
Item #2:
The Department of Labor is starting to issue citations for violation of the breast pumping regulations in 2010 health care bill. I’m guessing most employers do not have a clue, unless in a state with previous regulations.
Item #3:
Multiple news reports this week on physicians in financial trouble. I’ll do a post next week.
Item #4:
More problems in the US with drug shortages. No easy solution in sight.
rusty, If so that has to be regional. Specialties count. It’s hard to imagine that in metro urban regions (remember, ” ’cause that’s where the money is”) doctors are hurting. I’m seeing opthos, cardios, dermos, etc. reporting well over $500K annually. Granted that others make less, but they’re still in the top fraction of the 1% as a group, in those regionals.
Here’s a point that has been on my mind for a while now. Think about it. I assume that many of you out there know a good number of the poor as well as a substantial number of the very wealthy. I’m not talking about your friends, but, instead, the people you may be acquainted with enough so that their ideas are occasionally shared. Here’s the point. I have rarely, if ever, met a poor person who cried for more than they have. Wish they had better circumstances? Sure!! But complain frequently about what they don’t have as opposed to what they ight need? Rarely.
Now think about the frequent topics of conversation amongst your very wealthy acquaintances. The point? They never have enough so that they didn’t wish either that they had more or, and more frequently, that someone like the poor and the government, that ally of the poor, was always looking to take away what they have. It seems to be a fact of their existence, their collective mind set, that the government is always looking to give their money to the poor, that they could always use more in income or less taxes.
Those of us in the middle are a mixed bag on this point. Always tasting the good life nearly enough to want some more, but happy not to be down there at the lower rungs with the poor.
With the bluster going on in New Hampshire, and all little is making news about the impending hand wringing by the generals and their future employers over the tiny cuts to the bloated war department.
The attached chart is from OMB historical tables 3-1 and 10-1.
Notes the cuts imposed by the debt deal are about $1000B over $7800B expected business plans going out 10 years.
Less than 15% reduction while reductions after Korea, Vietnam and the cold war ran over 30% off peak.
Pity the poor internal medicine practitioner. The insurance industry is hanging them out to dry. The insured are pouring a fortune of premium payments into a system with a perculairly high over head some someone has to suffer the loss.
“Cardiologists with heavy Medicare practices…”? Is there some other kind? Would that be the opposite of an oxymoron? There are cariological studies that differentiate between young and old patient groups by those under and over 70 years of age. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738954. And what physician doesn’t have a Medicare practice, and why would such a practice prove to be sub-par financially speaking. I hear lots of physicians complain about intended cuts in Medicare rates, but I don’t hear any cardios looking for an under 65 patient group. That might be the equivalent of Diogenes and his search for an honest man.
Pity the poor internal medicine practitioner. The insurance industry is hanging them out to dry. The insured are pouring a fortune of premium payments into a system with a perculairly high over head so someone has to suffer the loss.
“Cardiologists with heavy Medicare practices…”? Is there some other kind? Would that be the opposite of an oxymoron? There are cariological studies that differentiate between young and old patient groups by those under and over 70 years of age. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738954. And what physician doesn’t have a Medicare practice, and why would such a practice prove to be sub-par financially speaking. I hear lots of physicians complain about intended cuts in Medicare rates, but I don’t hear any cardios looking for an under 65 patient group. That might be the equivalent of Diogenes and his search for an honest man.
News on a quiet Saturday evening:
Item #1:
More research indicating that annual PSA screening for prostate cancer does not cut mortality.
My own doc put me on an every four year testing schedule due to good numbers. I still get the annual invasive exam, as it costs nothing extra. Ouch.
Item #2:
The Department of Labor is starting to issue citations for violation of the breast pumping regulations in 2010 health care bill. I’m guessing most employers do not have a clue, unless in a state with previous regulations.
Item #3:
Multiple news reports this week on physicians in financial trouble. I’ll do a post next week.
Item #4:
More problems in the US with drug shortages. No easy solution in sight.
Pyongyang funk……………..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lwoSFQb5HVk
Thanks to Brad De Long.
rusty,
If so that has to be regional. Specialties count. It’s hard to imagine that in metro urban regions (remember, ” ’cause that’s where the money is”) doctors are hurting. I’m seeing opthos, cardios, dermos, etc. reporting well over $500K annually. Granted that others make less, but they’re still in the top fraction of the 1% as a group, in those regionals.
Here’s a point that has been on my mind for a while now. Think about it. I assume that many of you out there know a good number of the poor as well as a substantial number of the very wealthy. I’m not talking about your friends, but, instead, the people you may be acquainted with enough so that their ideas are occasionally shared. Here’s the point. I have rarely, if ever, met a poor person who cried for more than they have. Wish they had better circumstances? Sure!! But complain frequently about what they don’t have as opposed to what they ight need? Rarely.
Now think about the frequent topics of conversation amongst your very wealthy acquaintances. The point? They never have enough so that they didn’t wish either that they had more or, and more frequently, that someone like the poor and the government, that ally of the poor, was always looking to take away what they have. It seems to be a fact of their existence, their collective mind set, that the government is always looking to give their money to the poor, that they could always use more in income or less taxes.
Those of us in the middle are a mixed bag on this point. Always tasting the good life nearly enough to want some more, but happy not to be down there at the lower rungs with the poor.
Sorry, but I meant to indicate that my reply is to point #3.
With the bluster going on in New Hampshire, and all little is making news about the impending hand wringing by the generals and their future employers over the tiny cuts to the bloated war department.
The attached chart is from OMB historical tables 3-1 and 10-1.
Notes the cuts imposed by the debt deal are about $1000B over $7800B expected business plans going out 10 years.
Less than 15% reduction while reductions after Korea, Vietnam and the cold war ran over 30% off peak.
See the chart.
It is both regional, by specialties and sometimes by sub-specialties.
CArdiologists with heavy Medicare practices are suffering, certain oncologists have a broken business model, etc.
Family practice is getting whacked most places.
Pity the poor internal medicine practitioner. The insurance industry is hanging them out to dry. The insured are pouring a fortune of premium payments into a system with a perculairly high over head some someone has to suffer the loss.
“Cardiologists with heavy Medicare practices…”? Is there some other kind? Would that be the opposite of an oxymoron? There are cariological studies that differentiate between young and old patient groups by those under and over 70 years of age. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738954. And what physician doesn’t have a Medicare practice, and why would such a practice prove to be sub-par financially speaking. I hear lots of physicians complain about intended cuts in Medicare rates, but I don’t hear any cardios looking for an under 65 patient group. That might be the equivalent of Diogenes and his search for an honest man.
Pity the poor internal medicine practitioner. The insurance industry is hanging them out to dry. The insured are pouring a fortune of premium payments into a system with a perculairly high over head so someone has to suffer the loss.
“Cardiologists with heavy Medicare practices…”? Is there some other kind? Would that be the opposite of an oxymoron? There are cariological studies that differentiate between young and old patient groups by those under and over 70 years of age. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738954. And what physician doesn’t have a Medicare practice, and why would such a practice prove to be sub-par financially speaking. I hear lots of physicians complain about intended cuts in Medicare rates, but I don’t hear any cardios looking for an under 65 patient group. That might be the equivalent of Diogenes and his search for an honest man.