- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,135
- Reaction score
- 1,034
Labcorp's latest path lab purchase
- Thread starter WEBB PINKERTON
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2012
- Messages
- 321
- Reaction score
- 61
?Another bunch of greedy pathologists selling our specialty out?
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,135
- Reaction score
- 1,034
At this point, selling is about the only option. Better get some dough while you still can. If the big two are stupid enough to give you millions, take it I guess.
Labcorp/quest are on a buying spree down south. Solstas, Southeastern Pathology Associates, and PCA Southeast have all been sold recently. It's a good thing for competitor labs in the area. There will be a LOT of leakage as usual.
And then the labs that get the leakage will look attractive and sell out and so the cycle continues....
Labcorp/quest are on a buying spree down south. Solstas, Southeastern Pathology Associates, and PCA Southeast have all been sold recently. It's a good thing for competitor labs in the area. There will be a LOT of leakage as usual.
And then the labs that get the leakage will look attractive and sell out and so the cycle continues....
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2012
- Messages
- 321
- Reaction score
- 61
D
deleted314957
What makes them greedy? People sell business's all the time.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,221
- Reaction score
- 203
I agree with you. There's nothing greedy about selling a business for profit.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 515
- Reaction score
- 86
True. But those who sell must also know they are slowly helping to turn pathology from a field with good private practice opportunities into a field full of employed MDs with no hope of partnership or shared profits. Yes it's a dog eat dog world and these folks are getting theirs. But they're helping to bring the whole field down as a result. Just my $.02.
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,221
- Reaction score
- 203
The only reason that pathologists are corporate employees rather than autonomous patient care advocates is because the field lets in people who are happy having "any" job doing any thing, who strive not for excellence but for self-preservation.
In my opinion pathology needs some sweeping changes from academia before the field is actually taken seriously. It needs to do away with the lab image, it needs to completely dissociate from CP and forensics, it needs to stop doing autopsies, it needs to emphasize its role in cancer diagnostics, and most importantly, it needs to let only the smart, qualified people in.
Right now its a field that doesn't know what it's duty truly is.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 515
- Reaction score
- 86
One thing that I think would go a long way towards changing the field is if surgical pathology serves could be reclassified as consultation services. Surgical pathology is not CP - the tissue doesn't go into a machine that does standardized tests and spits out a number. We use our specific medical knowledge to render diagnoses that clinicians could not render themselves. We are experts in our field, and tissue is sent to us for that expert knowledge and for us to "consult" on. A piece of a patient is a patient. If our services are considered along the lines of consult services, I highly doubt clinicians could legally bill for them and keep a chunk of our pay. And if we were employed by them we would have more leverage.
It seems to me, as an outsider, that one can make a TON(seven to even eight figure paydays in some cases) if they build up a local pathology practice and then just sell it to be gobbled up by some labcorp type place? Where am I wrong? How does this possibility(which is really unique in medicine) not make path one of the best deals around?
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,135
- Reaction score
- 1,034
It's not unique to pathology at all. What speciality isnt selling out to the large hospital chains?
How is it any different from selling a surgery center to some hospital chain? It's much easier to scare the local hospitals and blackmail them with a surgery center (or whatever else the entrpreneural physician can come up) than it is to get a lab off that ground that you can sell to labcorp/quest.
How is it any different from selling a surgery center to some hospital chain? It's much easier to scare the local hospitals and blackmail them with a surgery center (or whatever else the entrpreneural physician can come up) than it is to get a lab off that ground that you can sell to labcorp/quest.
but the total numbers(in terms of the buyouts) in pathology just seem much bigger.
All US markets are not only saturated, there is ruthless competition among pathologists for business. Why would any clinician group/hospital send their stuff to "poster vistaril's" private lab after years of reputable service with contractual arrangements? Who in their right mind would give "poster vistaril", rookie pathologist, capital to start such a venture?
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,135
- Reaction score
- 1,034
Yea, the numbers can be quite staggering. The corporate labs will overpay big time and then they turn around and lose a ton of the business they acquire.
I gotta think it would be easier to start a surgery center than a laboratory, especially when you control the flow of patients. Hospitals will overpay for those facilities. A fairly small one near me sold to a local hospital for over 2 million. Some physicians turned around and opened another one just a few miles away. LOL.
I gotta think it would be easier to start a surgery center than a laboratory, especially when you control the flow of patients. Hospitals will overpay for those facilities. A fairly small one near me sold to a local hospital for over 2 million. Some physicians turned around and opened another one just a few miles away. LOL.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 515
- Reaction score
- 86
Vistaril, is your sugar mama gastroenterologist fiance's GI pod lab gonna sell their path lab to LabCorp now?
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2003
- Messages
- 2,962
- Reaction score
- 79
I used to think like you a number of years ago, but no longer do. If you were an owner of a private pathology practice who is getting close to retirement and someone was willing to pay you 2-3 million dollars for your stake in your practice and make you an employee, would you decline because you didn't want to ruin the profession for people like icpshootyz who you have never met or would do what is best for your spouse and kids.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,654
- Reaction score
- 37
If you haven't noticed, this has happened to every specialty in medicine except for a handful. And that handful will not be immune either.
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 515
- Reaction score
- 86
This is why I'm glad I'm in a group that isn't owned by one guy or two guys, we're all partners. No one can sell and screw the rest of us, we all have equal votes. And no, I'm not near retirement so I can't speak for it. But that doesn't mean that the "I got mine" mentality is all that honorable. Basically all you're saying is we have ourselves to blame, which is no reassuring thought.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2003
- Messages
- 28,059
- Reaction score
- 438
Yeah but in large part that's because pathology practices are often bigger and more valuable than a small physician practice. A lot of buyouts in non-path fields are solo practitioners being bought by hospitals or large physician groups, or 2 person groups. These won't be as obvious to you. And plus, the pathology ones tend to get publicized more because of their volume and associated with public companies who have to announce the fact that they bought it.
I think you may need to read Daniel Kahnman in regards to perception and bias.
oh gosh I dunno we don't talk business. All I know is I'm expecting to make 90-95k next year(and she a lot lot lot lot more), so the salaries you guys are talking about in here seem really big to me.
