Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (25488)	3/20/2013 3:39:33 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

He discovered that his pay was cut, in fact, by more than in half... Was he given a rationale for that? I assume they want to pay him according to what they get paid for his work, otherwise they'd be losing money on him. Do you know if, while on salary, he just didn't have enough business to fill his day or if he was fully occupied but his product just didn't bring in enough money to justify the salary?

To: skinowski who wrote (25488)	3/20/2013 11:47:52 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 42652

>> They forgot to develop a "scientific" method of assigning RVUs to each service. That's the real problem; RVUs would be an excellent tool if they represented reality. But you can't tinker with the RVU assignments to procedures (in order to produce particular payment outcomes) and expect the system to have overall integrity. Today, there is a problem with the practice expense portion of the system as well as the facility/non-facility breakdowns. In short, the entire system has collapsed into something arbitrary and meaningless. In the late 80s, when it was being developed, I believe it was being done objectively -- even though it was funded (at least in part) by HCFA. Now it is nearly worthless.