🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep19.174335.3316@unixg.ubc.ca> buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
> 
> My worry would be taken care of if the doctors made an unconditional
> commitment to charge no more than the patient could recover, but I
> have seen no hint of such a commitment.  Has anyone else?


The original agreement at the BCMA study session in  Vancouver was that those
who did direct billing would charge no more than the fee schedule provides
for.  ie what the patient could recover from the government.  The reason for
the opting out was not so much trying to increase the fees, but simply to get
paid for the money that has been earned.  ie If the average person works 40
hours on week, they expect to be paid for those 40 hours.  With the
governments cap of $1.27 billion dollars per year, physicians could recieve no
payments for anyof the work they did in the last week, month, several months,
etc. of the financial year.  The use of the system is determined more by the
patient than by the physician, so it makes it difficult to make patients come
to their doctor less, in order to remain below this arbitrary cap.  By direct
billing the government cannot enforce this cap, unless they choose to not 
reimburse a tax-paying patient for the money they have paid out to their
docotor.  Please realize that this is exactly what the government is presently
doing to physicians.  Last year the 'claw-back'  was approx.  $5000 per
physician.  How would you like your employer to ask for part of your salary
back at the end of the year??



-- 
#     Brent Kennedy	      | The disease of "Trauma" is responsible for   #
#                             | more years of potential life lost than any   #
# brent@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca  | other disease, yet it's also the most        #
#		              | preventable, does that make any sense??      #