🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep24.015509.4243@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca>, brent@mikejag.wimsey.bc.ca (Brent Kennedy) writes:
|> 
|> 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??

On the other hand, why would you expect your employer not to have a say on your salary ?

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Ouellet, Research Associate
Pulp and Paper Centre, University of British Columbia
2385 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4
Tel:(604)822-8240   Fax:(604)822-8563   Email: daniel@ppc.ubc.ca