President Obama said in his town hall meeting today that a surgeon gets paid 30,000 dollars for a foot amputation as opposed to a primary care physician who gets a pittance for managing the underlying condition. Is it just me or is there some serious misinformation being disseminated regarding physician pay?
30,000 dollars for a foot amputation?
- Thread starter HookEm14
- Start date
Well, yes, but not in the way you mean. I couldn't find anything like this in the transcript. He does mention that a foot amputation COSTS $30,000, which sounds about right:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/426997
Barack Obama said:
http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-...-reform-bill-President-Obama-town-hall-part-8
From the same meeting:
I really don't think he sees a difference between PCPs and nurse practitioners. So it should go PCP=NP making slightly less than a specialist?
Not sure how much more they should be getting paid according to He Who Knows How Much We Should All Make, but clearly some of it ought to come out of that sweet 30k the surgeon pulls down for that unnecessary foot amp.
1
123165
How much it costs, and how much he gets paid are not analogous. I was not sure if you were being sarcastic.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 12,024
- Reaction score
- 9,705
BHO has not uttered one intelligent, educated, or informed phrase on the topic of compensation. He continues to pander and espouse populism. He and his ilk cause me (and apparently many, many others) great visceral distress.
On the topic of nurses -- they are quite well paid for a position that is duly entitled after obtaining a mere associates degree. They are in demand and can find work in any city in America. As for the financial hierarchy in the medical profession -- perhaps it has become too extreme, but the existence of a hierarchy is logical, necessary, and prudent given the nature of the training and work.
On the topic of nurses -- they are quite well paid for a position that is duly entitled after obtaining a mere associates degree. They are in demand and can find work in any city in America. As for the financial hierarchy in the medical profession -- perhaps it has become too extreme, but the existence of a hierarchy is logical, necessary, and prudent given the nature of the training and work.
What he said: "30000 dollars... immediately the surgeon is reimbursed". That doesn't say "The hospital is reimbursed" or "The cost to the system", it says "The surgeon's reimbursement is 30000 dollars".
There is actually a set "surgeon's reimbursement" and it's less than 10% of the number he cited. But that isn't as inflammatory about greedy doctors prescribing unnecessary tonsillectomies or chopping off people's feet.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 12,024
- Reaction score
- 9,705
Tool. Lying, class warfare propaganda spewing, demonizing and misleading tool.
Medicare Payment***
Code Description Non Facility* Facility**
28800. Amputation, foot; midtarsal (eg, Chopart type procedure) $493.14
28805. Amputation, foot; transmetatarsal $655.87
Hell, a microsurgical reattachment of a foot pays less than 10% of that bogus figure.
20838. Replantation, foot, complete amputation $2151.25
Medicare Payment***
Code Description Non Facility* Facility**
28800. Amputation, foot; midtarsal (eg, Chopart type procedure) $493.14
28805. Amputation, foot; transmetatarsal $655.87
Hell, a microsurgical reattachment of a foot pays less than 10% of that bogus figure.
20838. Replantation, foot, complete amputation $2151.25
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 1
Here's the video in case anyone needs an emetic; make sure you have a bucket or other receptacle nearby:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG56B2et4M8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG56B2et4M8
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 0
"Doctors Choose Amputation Because Surgeons Get Paid More Than Physicians"? He says nothing of the sort. He is saying that reimbursements are disproportionately low for medical management of chronic conditions compared to surgical treatment. That's all.
Fear mongering isn't necessary.
Vassar Liberal, what I am angry about is the misinformation being spread that a surgeon recieves 30,000 dollars into his or her pocket for lopping off a diabetics foot. He also previously stated that a physician would take out the tonsils of a child because of sore throat for no other reason than it is more lucrative to do so. There is a very clear message being sent here and regardless of where you stand on healthcare reform, you have to be pissed off at how uninformed some of the things he says are.
- Joined
- May 11, 2008
- Messages
- 4,078
- Reaction score
- 42
Statement from the ACS (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/at_what_cost_cutting_off_a_leg_1.php):
"The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.
-- Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts
completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg
amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and
$1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the
evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient
follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation.
Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for
this service.
-- Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon's decision to
remove a child's tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of
money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were
dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons
make decisions about recommending operations based on what's right for
the patient.
We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President's remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.
We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care."
"The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.
-- Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts
completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg
amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and
$1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the
evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient
follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation.
Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for
this service.
-- Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon's decision to
remove a child's tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of
money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were
dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons
make decisions about recommending operations based on what's right for
the patient.
We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President's remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.
We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care."
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2002
- Messages
- 2,713
- Reaction score
- 74
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 12,024
- Reaction score
- 9,705
No, he threw out completely erroneous and fallacious numbers to support his agenda. **** him and his lying ass.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 0
Obama: "All I'm saying is: Let's take the example of something like diabetes, a disease that's skyrocketing, partly because of obesity, partly because it's not treated as effectively as it could be. Right now, if we paid a family — if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they are taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance.
But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, immediately, the surgeon is reimbursed. So why not make sure that we are also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation? Right? That will save us money."
My mistake. Dammit, Obama, why!?
He didn't say the surgeon is immediately reimbursed $XX,000, merely that they are reimbursed immediately, perhaps? I dunno.
(Though it does depend on punctuation and interpretation, so I can certainly understand the perspective of those who think Obama was wrong, because he certainly erred.)
But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, immediately, the surgeon is reimbursed. So why not make sure that we are also reimbursing the care that prevents the amputation? Right? That will save us money."
My mistake. Dammit, Obama, why!?
He didn't say the surgeon is immediately reimbursed $XX,000, merely that they are reimbursed immediately, perhaps? I dunno.
(Though it does depend on punctuation and interpretation, so I can certainly understand the perspective of those who think Obama was wrong, because he certainly erred.)
Last edited:
it does depend on punctuation but do you think Joe American will know that? nope. his tone and demeanor was definitely bias and people will think surgeons are reimbursed 30k+
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 12,024
- Reaction score
- 9,705
No, you are attempting to spin, liberal.
He was making a direct comparison between FP and surgeon pay.
"Pittance" versus "$30, 40, 50,000 -- immediately the surgeon is reimbursed".
On this subject he is a truth twisting ignorant fool... as is anyone who would defend him.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 771
- Reaction score
- 3
It really isn't ok to make mistakes like that. It reinforces the "greedy doctor" idea and makes the relationship b/w you and your patients adversarial. He gets a zero for understanding and a -10 for blurting out stupid ****. You can't say stupid stuff like that when you're the president.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
The problem with any discussion on this issue nowadays is that it turns from a discussion of the issue to an ad hominem attack on the speaker. How about sticking to the facts of the issue and not sidetracking on what you think of the speaker.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2009
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
As I go over the conversation, it seems that the president was misunderstood and taken out of context. For me, the issue of compensation depends upon where the specialists, or the surgeon, or the doctor or whatever, is working. If he is a private practitioner, then he can set his price. What we should be more aware of is to put a maximum amount of fee for certain cases (if feasible) then everything good will follow. Just my opinion.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 12,024
- Reaction score
- 9,705
As I go over the conversation, it seems that the president was misunderstood and taken out of context. For me, the issue of compensation depends upon where the specialists, or the surgeon, or the doctor or whatever, is working. If he is a private practitioner, then he can set his price. What we should be more aware of is to put a maximum amount of fee for certain cases (if feasible) then everything good will follow. Just my opinion.
You obviously do not know how our system works... fees are set, in large part, through a central pricing mechanism known as the CPT system. MC sets their reimbursement based upon budgetary and medical care expenditure growth rates. Private insurers (who you enter into contractual relations with), in large part, index their fee schedule based upon MC rates. The days of "setting your fees" and expecting to collect them passed with the Reagan administration (or before for much of the country).
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 356
- Reaction score
- 2
When said speaker utilizes blatantly inaccurate information when speaking to a gullible public to further his agenda, he's going to be criticized. Who's truly at fault in this specific instance... the speech writer, the researcher? Does it matter? In the end, he oversees and approves it all, and the criticism falls on him. As it should.
