>>> .he never said docs bill 30-50K
Here is the exact quote:
But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 -- immediately the surgeon is reimbursed. Well, why not make sure that we're also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation, right? That will save us money. (Applause.)
Courtesy the liberal LA Times tinyurl.com
Anyone with any experience in this business, as you claim to have, should have no problem understanding that.
I can understand an error in the way the words came out; happens to me all the time. But nobody who understands health care finance would have made this mistake because it is reflective of a misunderstanding of the PROCESS, not merely a mangling of the words.
The PROCESS is such that the scenario he created would not happen. The surgeon does not have that kind of money on the line, so even if there was an ethical lapse, it isn't like these guys are having to run around finding jobs to do. And with the threat of litigation constantly held over the surgeon's head, the idea that they're to risk EVERYTHING for a $1,000 insurance reimbursement is absurd.
It is true the overall cost of an amputation can be 30K. But the surgeon is not, as he suggested compelled to perform an amputation by the potential for the big score. And this reflects an absolute misunderstanding of how the system works, in addition to a gratuitous, politically motivated villainization of the profession. |
