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: Lane3 who wrote (25574)	4/5/2013 1:30:41 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> But if the purpose of the office visit is routine chronic-care follow-up, like for blood pressure or diabetes, I don't see a difference worth differential payment. The presumption implicit in this statement is that there is no benefit to a physician's greater education and experience in the case of such illnesses. I don't believe that. Don't misunderstand me -- I certainly believe there are functions a NP can perform adequately, but if you remove physician supervision from the mix you are dumbing-down health care. Aside from the big-picture negatives (e.g., exacerbation of the shortage of primary care physicians), you are undoubtedly virtually guaranteeing a lesser quality of care. This makes no sense at all to me. But just on the basis of government telling private insurance companies what they can and cannot pay a particular provider, that's meddling that ought not to be happening. It is none of the government's business what an insurance company chooses to pay physicians vs. NPs.