MarkR

http://reiboldt.com

5 Comments

    • The Relationship between Oil, Drillers and Refiners [view article]
      Mark, thanks for the links to the data. May 28 01:58 PM
    • The Relationship between Oil, Drillers and Refiners [view article]
      Would you be willing to provide a data file for your models? May 28 10:47 AM
    • Hospitals to Underinsured: Pay Upfront [view article]
      romrex, that isn't exactly right? the uninsured are the same as self-pay. that means that have more leverage than anyone with coverage. they can go to the different providers of healthcare and not only compare prices, but they can negotiate the price they will pay. doctors should gladly accept this, b/c they will still get a larger percentage than what they would actually get paid by third parties (i.e., insurance companies).

      i will concede the fact that most people will not do that, and it is definitely more difficult to "shop" around for healthcare. however, there are many organizations that are popping up that provide data on quality and pricing, giving consumers more of an edge in choosing their care. this is part of the consumer-directed approach to solving our nation's healthcare delivery challenges. sure, the uninsured still have to pay, but they have leverage in the process, just the same way they have the ability to choose the mechanic they use.

      what is killing our system are the people that not only don't want to negotiate, but they aren't willing to pay at all. they think the gov't should provide everything at no cost (but it does cost).       May 12 05:23 PM
    • Hospitals to Underinsured: Pay Upfront [view article]
      WSW, it is indeed illegal to turn away admitted patients in the event of providing life-saving care or in a life-threatening situation. Meaning, if there was a patient that had half of a chemo bag emptied (as per the example in the WSJ story), the hospital could not hold the person without care until they pay. That would not only be unethical, but also flagrantly illegal. Sighting caselaw is not something that is necessary, because if you are at all familiar with the healthcare industry, you know this is true. Further, this goes against everything that doctors and nurses (and other providers) are taught. Now, do some potential patients get turned to other facilities because they cannot pay for a certain facility up front? Yes, but it is completely within a hospital's right to do so, because 1) they know the patient will receive the needed care (even if it isn't from their facility) and 2) they are a business that must answer to either shareholders or a community and if they do not maintain profitable margins, they will go out of business, which will cause a much greater problem to our healthcare delivery system. There are so many hospitals, especially ones in rural settings, that are in this situation ... they can't get gov't funding, yet they also cannot get their patients to pay for their very costly services. This is the biggest problem in our healthcare system, which only leads to further problems, i.e., uninsured, frivolous lawsuits, etc.

      In terms of million $ pay packages - that is not my concern, but I can tell you as someone that works for a firm who develops compensation plans for hospital and medical group executives, there isn't a hospital CEO - for profit or non-profit - out there that receives a million $ comp plan for only serving as a hospital CEO or Med Dir. You're off target there and you, like the author, do not understand that of which you speak.

      Finally, your first point is the one that is most interesting, because I actually pointed this out on a response I wrote on my own website, reiboldt.com. The WSJ articles cites a situation at UCLA Med Ctr whereby a family was claiming mistreatment of sort by the hospital that allegedly led to the tragic death of a young lady. While this is a horrible situation, the family's attorney is lambasting the hospital; however, the family refused to give the hospital consent to respond to the claims, which without such consent, the hospital would violate HIPAA rules and other privacy regulations. So, the hospital is being claimed for doing something and they can't even respond or defend themselves, so it's open season on frivolous blame by the trial attorney representing the family, which (the story left this part out) received a multi-million dollar settlement out of the situation. Now, whether there was wrongdoing or not, we'll never know, because it was a one-sided blame game by a trial lawyer representing a grieving family. So, ultimately, the WSJ can't be sued for libel because it's giving one side to stories that no one can stipulate or refute, due to privacy restrictions. Tell me something isn't wrong there.       Apr 29 09:26 PM
    • Hospitals to Underinsured: Pay Upfront [view article]
      This write-up, as well as the WSJ article, are two of the most misinformed opinion pieces that I have ever read. They are opinion pieces, because there is nothing journalistic about gathering one side of stories and publishing it as a legitimate article. A better word for this would be propaganda.

      First, the article asserts blame for the hospitals for requiring payments up front. After they make it sound like patients waiting on an organ are lined up outside the doors of the hospital, they also make it sound like nurses are refusing to finalize treatment until proof of payment is shown. Not only would that be illegal for a nurse to do (not to mention grossly unethical and against everything they're taught), I find it hard to believe that a nurse at perhaps the most respected cancer treatment facility in the world is refusing to give a patient life-saving care because the business office hasn't signed off on the treatment yet. Let's be clear about thing: doctors and nurses do not wait on the billing personnel to tell them it's ok to provide life-saving care to patients.

      More importantly, however, is the blame this article asserts against hospitals, when they are not blame. These hospitals, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, operate in a system whereby they must compete to stay alive. This isn't like the UK where healthcare providers receive funding directly from the government (except for the VA). Doctors/hospitals must be paid for their services, the same way any businessperson must be paid for their products/services, or they will go out of business. Mr. Steinberg conveniently left out the part of the article where it talks about the millions of dollars MD Anderson has lost from patients being unable to pay. As someone that works in healthcare, I can tell you that the billions of dollars a year are lost because patients cannot pay for their care; however, they still receive the care they need.

      This article, and the misinformed viewpoints of Mr Steinberg are extremely off-target. I suggest you do more research and deeper thinking before blindly commenting on a topic that you do not understand.       Apr 29 02:33 PM
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»

Trading Center