More Doctors are now taking medicare than accepting private

[johnthomasmacdonald]

new insurance patients.

The number of physicians accepting new Medicare patients rose by ONE-THIRD between 2007 and 2011 and is now higher than the number of physicians accepting new private insurance patients, according to a Department of Health and Human Services report obtained by USA TODAY.

In 2007, about 925,000 doctors billed Medicare for their services. In 2011, that number had risen to 1.25 million, according to the report by the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

"I think the report comes at a time when people are asking questions about Medicare," said Jonathan Blum, principal deputy administrator for the Center for Medicare Services. "It provides a more complete picture of how physicians choose to participate in the Medicare system."


The report was commissioned because of a Wall Street Journal article that reported the number of doctors who opt out of Medicare increased from 3,700 in 2009 to about 9,500 in 2012.

That won't cause problems, officials said, because there are more new primary care physicians entering the health care system than older physicians dropping out.

"These findings allay concern that the number of physicians 'opting out' of Medicare has increased in recent years," the report states.

Blum said Medicare-monitoring offices, such as the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (Medpac), have always been interested in access to care. But because they hadn't seen any "alarming trends," they would not have issued a formal brief if it had not been for the newspaper article.

"It confirms the picture we had," Blum said. "It just adds one more data point to a story we've felt quite confident about."

Ninety percent of office-based physicians accept new Medicare patients, a rate similar to those who take privately insured patients, researchers found. The rate of Medicare patients who say they can find a new doctor in a timely manner is similar to those who are privately insured, the report said.

Medpac found 28% of the 7% of Medicare beneficiaries looking for a new doctor had a tough time finding someone who accepted Medicare last year, but Blum said that's also similar to privately insured rates.

Baker said his clients have had a harder time finding doctors in densely populated cities, such as New York, Washington and San Francisco.

"But there are still plenty of doctors taking Medicare," he said. "We've never not been able to find them a doctor who does take Medicare."http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... s/2682301/

[LSAT]

I Disagree with this post....There are dozens of articles that say the opposite

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... last-year/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 41898.html

http://app1.kuhf.org/articles/134187102 ... icaid.html

[woodworkerjunkie]

So it doesn't matter whether you like the Dr, or whether or not you feel the Dr. is working in your best interest, just as long as they get you signed up with a Doctor. From all the Dr.'s I've talked to, it's hard for me to believe their findings! I lost my GP of over 20 years about 5 months ago. He decided to join a group where you have to pay $1600 a year to remain his patient. With the plan you would get to spend more time per visit with the Dr. and receive one well care visit free of charge per year. Even if you don't use his services during the year, you're still on the hook for the $1600, Needless to say, I had to move on and find another Dr!

He sent a list of Dr.'s that was accepting new patients and when I checked their ratings on the net, none of them ranked above 3 stars. So I spent 2 days researching Dr.'s in our area and checking various sites for ratings before deciding on my new Dr. I finally found one that had very high ratings with only one complaint and contacted their office. I'm still on the fence with this Dr. As far as prescriptions, he uses mostly over priced holistic drugs that he sells out of his office. He will write a prescription if he feels it's absolutely necessary, but doesn't like to. I guess we will see how this Obamacare turns out over the next few years, but I don't believe that it's going to be good.

As far as new Dr.'s coming on board, you have to be mindful of their experience. I went to a clinic about 2 years ago and had a young Dr. tell me that I had COPD without even taking an X-ray! When I went in to see my lung Dr. last year, he sent me down and had X-rays taken and showed me the results... No COPD! Only 1old scar from pneumonia that I had over 20 years ago!

[chunkyfrog]

In my area, it appears that most of the doctors are Medicare providers; quite a few are "contracted".
I can't imagine taking care of us old farts is anything less than challenging.
The lower-rated docs seem to be in the HMO's, as always.

[idamtnboy]

I Disagree with this post....There are dozens of articles that say the opposite

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... last-year/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 41898.html

http://app1.kuhf.org/articles/134187102 ... icaid.html

The first and third links refer to Medicaid which is a whole different animal than Medicare. Medicaid is managed by the states. The WSJ article requires a subscription to WSJ.com. Can you quote the salient parts of it?

[oak]

agreed, idamtboy. if I had a nickel every time someone i was talking to mistakenly referred to medicaid as medicare, i would be a rich woman.

i tried to sign into the wsj article with facebook, but the only thing that comes up is an article about IBM changing their staff to the exchanges rather than continue their health plan.

[LSAT]

Here are some MEDICARE articles............. NOT MEDICAID

http://www.healthcaretechnologyonline.c ... ients-0001

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamac ... /id/517497

http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Medica ... 82012.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... g-Medicare

[oak]

I don't believe for a minute that when baby boomers are all on Medicare that there wont be GOOD doctors to treat them. The numbers of baby boomers alone will dictate that doctors be willing to treat them. Now my sons' generation is another story entirely.

[keepsmyelin]

I read the article twice and here's where I find a problem. It states the number of doctors in 2007 and the amount of Medicare patients seen. Then they attempt to prove there are more doctors taking Medicare because the number of Medicare patients increased. Seems to me you can't make that "jump" without knowing the number of doctors seeing those patients.

Perhaps, it's the same amount of doctors, they're just seeing more patients. We know that as the Baby Boomers age, there will more and more people on Medicare. I'm in Florida, so there are lots of seniors on Medicare seeing doctors. I will say that to get an appointment with my GP takes 5 weeks...and with most other doctors who are specialists, it can take that long or longer. I waited 6 months to see the "specialist" neurologist I needed to see. So since appts. are getting harder to come by, I believe that more people are seeing the same doctors, thus the longer wait times.

I'm not certain one way or another what the "real deal" is, just saying they did not make the case that more doctors are accepting Medicare from the data they presented.

[CapnLoki]

Here are some MEDICARE articles............. NOT MEDICAID

http://www.healthcaretechnologyonline.c ... ients-0001

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamac ... /id/517497

http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Medica ... 82012.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2 ... g-Medicare

Sorry, these articles don't actually add any new information. The first and second are simply regurgitating the WSJ story, which is cherry picking at best. The third is a bit different, but again, focuses on the small number of doctors who have left Medicare, and ignored doctors who joined. The last article actually explicitly disagrees with the WSJ and points out that the number of doctors has increased!

[martinsr00]

So it doesn't matter whether you like the Dr, or whether or not you feel the Dr. is working in your best interest, just as long as they get you signed up with a Doctor.

Note the underlying assumptions often present on the posts on forums such as this:

1. Any doctor with a credential is sufficient

2. Someone else should pay for my care for free or for a small amount that I can easily afford.

I suggest that professionals, artisans, skilled workers among us should believe that any other in our group is as good as another, or that anything "needed" by our customers should come out of our paycheck as a matter of course (absent our charity). Or that we should be able to dictate ( not recommend) what our customers buy (or don't buy). Notice how the logic seems to change when we are on the receiving end and a doctor is involved and our money is required.

There are three major attributes people desire in medicine: cheap, fast, and good. In practice, you will rarely find more than two out of the three. Cheap and fast, but not good. Cheap and good, but not fast.

Just some thoughts to consider.

[StuUnderPressure]

I haven't gone out & polled all of the doctors in my area.

And my statements are based on my personal experience & the personal experience of only a handful of people I know.

So, this is NOT scientific by any means.

But, in my area, MOST Doctors (almost 100%) are NOT accepting any new Medicare patients.

And only about 40% of those Doctors are keeping the Medicare patients they already have. That includes patients that move into Medicare from a private insuror & they were already being served by that Doctor.

That means that 60% of them are even getting rid of the Medicare patients they already have.

So, if your Doctor does not want to treat you because you are on Medicare, who can you go to if all of the other Doctors are not taking any new Medicare patients.

I guess there could be some new Doctors just starting out in practice who would accept those patients. Question is, would those patients really want to use those Doctors? They may not have any choice.

I am lucky in that all of my Doctors ARE keeping their current Medicare patients. Part of that is who those Doctors are. Most of them served us as patients in a very large self insured group administered by BC/BS for which they were providers. As a lot of us are now moving into Medicare & still have the BC/BS as secondary, I can only assume they want to keep that large pool of patients.

[CapnLoki]

So it doesn't matter whether you like the Dr, or whether or not you feel the Dr. is working in your best interest, just as long as they get you signed up with a Doctor.

Note the underlying assumptions often present on the posts on forums such as this:

1. Any doctor with a credential is sufficient

Given that over 80% of doctors accept Medicare this line is rather meaningless.

2. Someone else should pay for my care for free or for a small amount that I can easily afford.

Yes, the perpetual conservative fantasy that anyone who likes Medicare is cheating the system.

I suggest that professionals, artisans, skilled workers among us should believe that any other in our group is as good as another, or that anything "needed" by our customers should come out of our paycheck as a matter of course (absent our charity). Or that we should be able to dictate ( not recommend) what our customers buy (or don't buy). Notice how the logic seems to change when we are on the receiving end and a doctor is involved and our money is required.

I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here, or how it might relate to the discussion. Doctors are free to bow out of the insurance/Medicare systems and charge premium rates to those who want to pay. And perhaps 10-15% do that, but the vast majority find they can make a quite reasable living with the rates set by insurance. I just had a short consultation with my sleep doctor - I think Medicare will pay about $80 to the doctor, plus $160 to the facility.

The reality is that some professions allow you to chose your own customers, dictate your own procedures, set your own rates. Other professions require that you follow various rules.

There are three major attributes people desire in medicine: cheap, fast, and good. In practice, you will rarely find more than two out of the three. Cheap and fast, but not good. Cheap and good, but not fast.

Why not? You make up these arbitrary rules and then (I assume) claim that anyone who wants more is gaming the system. Frankly I had no trouble getting a good sleep doctor and sleep study - 10 weeks from first referral to receiving CPAP seems a bit long but there are a number of steps that take time. Out of pocket cost (given that I have Medicare and supplement) was zero. I appreciate that other locations don't have the support that we enjoy here, but it was a conscious decision to embrace Romney care, and it's part of the reason I live here.

I'm really at a loss as to where this argument is coming from. Its pretty clear that any insurance based system will have to set rates, make procedures, assume some uniformity of service. So are you claiming that we'd be better of with no insurance at all so that all medical care goes to those that can afford "what the market will bear"? Those that can't afford the best will have to settle for second or third rate, that there is no protection from quacks and frauds. Yes, that would fulfill the conservative fantasy, but I think we'd be a much poorer society for it.

[idamtnboy]

What we don't know, and may never know, is how the corporatation [my word] of doctors is impacting the servicing of Medicare patients. More and more doctors are being sucked into corporate practices where they individually have less and less say over who they get to have as patients. Back office accounting managers are making decisions based solely on money flow, and if they determine Medicare, or any specific class of insured, patients are not generating sufficient revenue, then they will want to cut them out. I have not seen nor heard of any cutbacks in SW Idaho in doctors and clinics providing care to Medicare patients. I could be wrong but I think that as long as any clinic does not function in a "hospital" mode they are not subject to Hill-Burton, and can deny care to anyone, including indigents.

[idamtnboy]

There are three major attributes people desire in medicine: cheap, fast, and good. In practice, you will rarely find more than two out of the three. Cheap and fast, but not good. Cheap and good, but not fast.

Why not? You make up these arbitrary rules and then (I assume) claim that anyone who wants more is gaming the system

That is standard business mantra. High quality, fast service, low price. Pick any two. My nephew has that on a sign in his office at his HVAC business. It's exceedingly rare you can get all three from one source.