Live data from Hacker News

More doctors are charging fees to respond to patient messages

wsj.com

301–310 of 372 posts

Re: More doctors are charging fees to respond to patient messages

#301

The hospitals are poorly run. Please hate your hospitals management more. Or if you are a good manager, convince some friends to run a hospital. Imagine 10 appointments a day, 30 mins each. You have to write /everything/ down the patient tells you. You often have to go over the 30mins because some patients need it. You need to follow up to order extra tests, you need to occasionally google something. You skip lunch o…

Why do they bill $700 for a bag of salt water they paid $1 for? (1)

1. https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2013/08/27/the-secre...

Re: More doctors are charging fees to respond to patient messages

#302
post #255
post #19

> Dr. Lauren Oshman, a family physician and associate professor at the University of Michigan Medical School, says she initially experienced some patient resistance and anger about the prospect of being billed for emails. > Now, she says, patients are typically pleased that they are able to get a direct response from her through a portal message. > “They’re thrilled when they get me directly,” she says. Geez, this co…

It's ironic because I almost never want to message my doctor - there just simply isn't another option. In the Michigan Medicine system the 3 main message options are: refill a medication, ask a medical question, and ask a billing question. If you select "ask a medical question" the next and final choice is whether you're submitting a question in English or Spanish. Most often I want to ask a scheduler (because each o…

scheduling is such a thing. there's real money to be made if someone figures out how to have my calendar talk to your calendar and just work it out.

Re: More doctors are charging fees to respond to patient messages

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like we just need more doctors, no? The AMA is notorious for trying to limit the number of new doctors. They do that more than much of anything to do with public health.

The problem is doctors are expensive so the management is economizing their time.

You’re being downvoted because that’s baked into the parent comment; the suggested solution is to increase the supply of doctors.

Re: More doctors are charging fees to respond to patient messages

#305

I don't mind paying for my Dr's time. If my insurance starts doctor blocking by making me chat with an AI first AND charging me for that? No, that's not going to be acceptable.

Yeah that wouldn't be a good outcome. How would you feel if the doctor were messaging you through a platform that had extensive predictive text features, possibly trained on that particular doctor's past messages, and allowed her to send a message in 30 seconds that would have taken 10 minutes to type out? If you used that system for years and paid for it happily, would you be upset to learn that the doctor was spend…

Most EMR's allow for certain boilerplate things to be inserted easily. My wife is a neurologist; it's very common for her to dictate a note saying "insert seizure precautions" and it puts in a paragraph of things that you can't do if you have seizures: take a bath, drive, get on ladders or other elevated surfaces, that sort of thing.

I've customized the hell out of my own hospital's Epic system (I'm an anesthesiologist) to make notes as easy as possible. 95% of the things I do are done the same way, every time. Back when we used paper, they had all of that in checkboxes on forms. Basically a way to say "yes, I did this legal and proper" very quickly. It was very useful because you knew that if you skipped over that and went straight to the written description on an old record, you'd actually get the important information.

Before billing criteria took over medical documents, doctors could do more because a board-certified pediatrician doing a well-baby visit could just write "18 mo WM, PMH NC, PE WNL, f/u 6 mo" (18 month old white male, past medical history noncontributory, physical exam within normal limits, follow up in six months). We had "skeletons" for reporting the most common labs in notes - just a graphic representation so you didn't have to write "Sodium 139, potassium 4.3, chloride 122, bicarb 24, BUN 9, creatinine 1.1, glucose 85".

    139 | 122 | 9  /
    --------------- 85
    4.3 | 24  | 1.1 \
The paper medical record was subject to handwriting, but it was extraordinarily space- and time-efficient.

Re: More doctors are charging fees to respond to patient messages

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-a-attorney-charge-for... https://lawstuffexplained.com/can-a-lawyer-charge-you-for-em...

Speaking as an attorney myself, I'm not the least bit surprised that a bunch of my peers are claiming that they can charge to merely view emails. Many attorneys -- especially bad ones -- are particularly defensive of the practice. The problem is that without demonstrating somehow that they read it, they cannot prove they actually read that correspondence when they claim to have. This puts them in a difficult position…

> I'm not the least bit surprised that a bunch of my peers are claiming that they can charge to merely view emails. Many attorneys -- especially bad ones -- are particularly defensive of the practice.

Having received many email tomes from clients, I wouldn't think twice to charge for reading their email. I would typically respond, but not necessarily if they weren't asking a question, or if we were going to be meeting soon to discuss.

I don't know any attorneys (note: all the attorneys I know are corporate attorneys, so may be less bill-sensitive) who would not bill for time spent reading emails. Lawyers spend tons of time reading emails!

> FWIW I've had little trouble getting my attorneys to credit me for activities I didn't ask them to do.

This makes sense, but is somewhat orthogonal to the email question. If a client sends his lawyer a long email, he is implicitly asking the lawyer to spend the time reading the email.

Re: More doctors are charging fees to respond to patient messages

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is doctors are expensive so the management is economizing their time.

You’re being downvoted because that’s baked into the parent comment; the suggested solution is to increase the supply of doctors.

The parent comment doesn’t state it explicitly, and suggests it’s the managements fault.

One of the problems is that regulations require MD oversight but not necesssrily performing all operations. That’s a good thing but forces them into a role where they hover for a few minutes then get rushed to the next supervision activity.

So there are lots of dials to play with in addition to supply.

Re: More doctors are charging fees to respond to patient messages

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like we just need more doctors, no? The AMA is notorious for trying to limit the number of new doctors. They do that more than much of anything to do with public health.

Supposedly, AMA reversed course in 2019: https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-fun... https://www.openhealthpolicy.com/p/medical-residency-slots-c... But don't know how much is talk versus walk. It is not clear to me why only the US Federal Congress can fund residencies. Surely, with how much doctors can earn, a private underwriter would be willing to finance a residency. https://www.washingtonian.…

It's not just talk. In recent years the AMA has actively lobbied Congress to increase funding for residency programs (graduate medical education).

Anyone can fund residencies. If a wealthy donor has enough money to spare, a teaching hospital would probably be willing to create an endowed residency slot in their name. And there is already some private funding, although it is a tiny fraction of Medicare funding. Commercial payers (medical insurers) also indirectly subsidize residencies by reimbursing teaching hospitals at higher rates than other facilities for the same procedures. None of the other major healthcare industry players have a direct incentive to fund residencies.

https://www.chcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GuideGraduat...

Re: More doctors are charging fees to respond to patient messages

#309

The hospitals are poorly run. Please hate your hospitals management more. Or if you are a good manager, convince some friends to run a hospital. Imagine 10 appointments a day, 30 mins each. You have to write /everything/ down the patient tells you. You often have to go over the 30mins because some patients need it. You need to follow up to order extra tests, you need to occasionally google something. You skip lunch o…

It seems like we just need more doctors, no? The AMA is notorious for trying to limit the number of new doctors. They do that more than much of anything to do with public health.

The AMA is one of the four pigs at the trough of US healthcare:

1) Insurance companies - extract profit from the usual insurance model applied to healthcare.

2) Drug/Device companies - extract maximum profit from patent monopolies, FDA regulatory capture, and marketing.

3) Malpractice lawyers - use regressive law precedent to maximize individual payout and lawyer billing to the detriment of everyone else

4) AMA/Providers - restrict supply, and maximize billing for services

Really, none of these pigs have the interests of overall public health in mind:

- Insurance companies are incentivized to maximize the cost of insurance and deny coverage as much as possible, like any insurance company vertical. Obviously this results in denial of care. However, an insurance company is motivated to reduce provider costs and possibly to incentivize preventative care. Insurance companies are also vertically integrating into owning provider facilities to solidify local monopolies (so people HAVE to use their insurance if they live in an area) and to be able to impose cost cuts to actual providers.

- Drug/Device companies are incentivized to maximize the profits from 20 years of provided patent monopolies, often exploiting desperate people looking for relief from maladies, but the cost is usually beyond the ability of individuals to afford. Lawyers are incentivized to bill/get percentages of settlements and maximize awards of "damages" regardless of the overall impact to health services costs and the implicit denial of care that involves. However, these orgs, while generally not doing the core science of new treatment modalities (universities do that), they do help usher treatments through safety review.

- Trial lawyers are incentivized to maximize their patient damages and billing, which obviously is transferred to higher costs for all. Lawyers are one of the few hammers to get insurance companies to properly pay out, keep hospitals from devolving into managerial corruption, and keep Drug/Device companies from fudging the numbers.

- And the AMA/Providers are incentivized to maximize the billing for their services, overbill for often superfluous services, resist any intermediate level profession (Nurse Practitioners, etc) from devaluing their law-enforced professional monopoly, and incentivized to not address general health of patients but rather bill with expensive specialist care rather than help patients maintain wellness that averts serious illness. In my experience no provider ever cared about how much their services cost the patient, until it became apparent the patient could no longer pay. Then their economic awareness of the cost of care become VERY APPARENT. The AMA is criminally complicit in restricting supply of doctors, which it very well knows raises the cost of medical services and of course denies care to people on the aggregate.

Each of the four pigs simply points to other pigs as someone to blame and lobbies with maximum force to prevent any threat to their gravy train.

To address US healthcare costs will generally require all four pigs: a public insurance option (at a minimum). Reduce patent length or invalidate patents, and with cases like unpatented production that has been monopolized (epipen, insulin) enforce antitrust. Fix prices if necessary. Obviously trial lawyers awards should be capped. Finally, nurse practitioners and AI expert systems used to decrease costs, and supply of doctors increased vastly. Overall, government needs to address the total lack of preventative care.

Re: More doctors are charging fees to respond to patient messages

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it greed? Is it all doctos tacitly agreeing to this so they can get bigger paychecks?

The individual doctors don't have much choice when they're heavily indebted by the time they become doctors. We (the AMA?) regulate where a doctor gets their education in order to become a doctor. This gives schools a lot of power. It also gives hospitals a lot of power when those doctors work insane shifts during their rotations.

The AMA is only a private professional association. They have some political influence but no regulatory authority. Medical schools have to be accredited so that's one limiting factor. But the real bottleneck today is more lack of slots in graduate medical education (residency) programs. Every year there are some students who graduate with an MD but can't practice medicine because they don't get matched to a residency program. To expand the supply we have to start there.

https://www.ama-assn.org/education/gme-funding/save-graduate...

Post reply on HN