Physicians
e-Newsletter
Intelligence Unit Special Reports Special Events Subscribe Sponsored Departments Follow Us

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

Doctors Differ In Diagnosing Supreme Court Ruling

Joe Cantlupe, for HealthLeaders Media, July 5, 2012

Kim Bullock, MD, an emergency department physician who works in Washington, D.C., hospitals in both high- and low-income areas, says she's concerned about what will happen to various factions after the high court decision.

"Now there is either bridge-building by the different factions, or continued polarization," she says. "Bridges must be made within the profession, just as among the populace. The landmark legislation has generated strong opinions, and I do believe that was part of the intent by the authors. Finding consensus will make it easier for physicians to negotiate the changes in the details associated with the law."

The American Medical Association, which supported healthcare reform, also endorsed the Supreme Court decision. They especially favored the individual mandate provision, which will open the door for millions to obtain insurance coverage.

But many physicians don't believe doctors will be in a financial position to handle more patients, noting current shortages of primary care physicians and regular overflows in emergency departments. Moreover, many doctors don't believe the law can attain its insurance coverage goal. A survey of primary care physicians conducted by MDLinx immediately after the high court's decision found that 64% said they didn't think it would achieve the law's objective of 100% coverage of all Americans.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

4 comments on "Doctors Differ In Diagnosing Supreme Court Ruling"


R Daniel King (7/7/2012 at 11:05 AM)
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Service has utilized price controls and regulations to control costs and quality respectively. Price controls for centuries have cultivated poor quality, fraud, lost talent, shortages, surpluses, organized crime etc. And federal regulations have extinguished innovation in the delivery system masked by the innovation in industries not subjected to price controls but sell great innovation in medical technology and drugs to the delivery system. Price controls have caused the quality chasm identified in the 1999 Institute of Medicare Report, and to this day, poor quality is still a cash cow as CMS uses savings from price ceilings to reimburse preventable medical errors (minus a few). When Intermountain Health System focused on preventing medical errors, it took a loss on every Medicare patient because CMS price ceilings underpay excellence. Price ceilings have caused a shortage crisis in primary care physicians. Plus, the limits in income contributes to the "less than stellar" medical school applicants in recent decades as the talented students choose price control-free careers. Price floors have resulted in overpayments to cardiologist (recently and painfully corrected) creating years of surpluses and waste. The same for CT scans because CMS's pricing system is slow to respond to technological advances that lowered costs while increasing value. Decades of CMS underpaying excellence has made excellence a cultural misfit in the nation's inefficient, quality challenged healthcare delivery system with few exceptions. And decades of government rewarding failure has filled the quality chasm with a culture of failure that ObamaCare puts on government steroids which makes ObamaCare a dead program spending just like Maine's Dirigo Health, Tennessee's TennCare, and Hawaii's employer mandates.

Tyco Brahe (7/6/2012 at 11:14 AM)
For those who decry government intrusion: The government ONLY has to step in when the private sector has failed. Medicare, SS, Medicaid are ALL programs that the government was forced to [INVALID] because the private sector ignored vulnerable populations. This healthcare reform law is the same. If 1/6th of the country weren't left uninsured because private insurance cost so much, the government would not have to step in. As for expanding Medicaid, just because some doctors don't take medicaid doesn't mean no doctors will. In fact, city hospitals and community health centers ALL take medicaid. If doctors won't take the insurance, watch nurses and PA's suddenly start getting the right to give direct primary care. You cannot leave a large chunk of America without care just because doctors won't take government insurance. The rules will all change. This is all a bump in the road to single-payer medicine. All the other developed countries have figured it out. We will too. Insurance companies and provider greed have forced the hand of the government.

Jay A. Hendrickson, M.D. (7/5/2012 at 5:02 PM)
The reason we are in the current Healthcare predicament is because of governmental intrusion. Where has the government stepped in to a business and made it more efficient, streamlined and overall better? That is correct- NEVER!!!!! As a physician I refuse to work for free, as I did during residency and fellowship. Medicaid pays about 9 cents on the dollar here in California. I can not run a practice without getting pain for the work that I do for the patients. Expanding Medicaid is USELESS. How many physicians, other than University physician, even take Medicaid? None in my area! I also find it amazing how some physicians are happy with this Federal Law. It is equivalent to having a prostitute teach your children abstinence- it makes no sense. As far as the AMA is concerned, I have not been a member for over 10 years now and 80-85% of my colleagues agree with me as only 15-18% of physicians are members. So all of you that think this is a good law, then you can see those patients for free, because your reimbursement will be ZILCH!!!!