|
Futuresight posted:I always get a little skeeved out when people describe others as smart. There's no such thing as a smart person. Every motherfucker on earth fucks up constantly and barely knows what they're doing and even then gain that barest knowledge right as or slightly before they do it. The best you can hope for is someone already knows what to do purely because they've already done it and it hasn't deviated too much from when they did it last time, or have failed enough before to eliminate all their stupid ideas. In every other instance people are only separated by their ability to appear competent, and unfortunately the people best able to appear competent are the people who don't realise they aren't. So when someone is described as "smart" I think "gently caress, they actually think they know what they're doing and so do the people around them". And that's a recipe for disaster. Everyone is a loving idiot who needs to have their ideas and work questioned and double checked. Everyone. Most people wouldn't think doctors were as smart as they appear to be if they realized when they need to "step out to check something real quick" they're just pulling out their smartphone and more-or-less "Googling" the patient's symptoms in the Epocrates app.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Communist Zombie posted:I thought not wanting the tax cuts TO sunset was why they wanted the repeal done first. Like the donors got mad that W's cuts sunset during Obama and werent renewed, they want it so that to get rid of them Congress would have to actively pass a bill which they would fight as it would be "raising taxes". This is correct. It's tough to explain that Dems raised taxes when they simply didn't extend the tax cuts you'd made previously. Kind of undercuts your antidebt hysteria when Dems can point out they're temporary cuts because you didn't give a gently caress about the debt while you were in charge. Speaking of in charge-can anyone think of a reason it'd be lunacy to write a healthcare bill that concentrates control of our healthcare system in the hands of HHS? https://mobile.twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/913197939731943424 Anyone?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/913543911049760768 Cool! Cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Everything else attached to the Trump brand is a total scam, so why not make bootleg, junk TrumpCare "insurance product"*. *not for medical use
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
I like how Kentucky of course tried that first and watched the market implode.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Rand Paul is scarily good at Trump-whispering. This would, of course, face immediate legal challenge. ERISA is a strange piece of legislation that explicitly preempts state laws, though. It'd make for an interesting SCOTUS case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
The question is whether the markets would be destroyed by the 2018 elections and how badly it would affect the elections
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:The question is whether the markets would be destroyed by the 2018 elections and how badly it would affect the elections The insurance markets are already going to be total poo poo in 2018 because Congress took so long dicking around about Obamacare that the insurance industry went ahead and priced the uncertainty into their rollouts for next year, and these Senate idiots are about to let CHIP funding expire because it would mean delaying their weekend. So now Trump appears poised to pull all the blame onto himself with a single bitchass executive action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Nothus posted:Everything else attached to the Trump brand is a total scam, so why not make bootleg, junk TrumpCare "insurance product"*. I think the most likely outcome of ERISA-based plans is that the vast majority of hospitals & doctor groups operating under the hospital's moniker - as well as many doctors operating private partnerships - will just outright not accept those healthcare plans. So a whole bunch of idiots get all  at first followed by getting their (uncovered) bill like  and all of their friends and family  .Maybe then we'll have an honest conversation with the average Trump supporter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:I think the most likely outcome of ERISA-based plans is that the vast majority of hospitals & doctor groups operating under the hospital's moniker - as well as many doctors operating private partnerships - will just outright not accept those healthcare plans. No, then they'll declare that the elitist libtard doctors are conspiring against emperor MAGA and a new market of quacks and scam artists will swoop in to fleece the proudly gullible. Some people will go to the grave refusing to admit they were ever wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
If you're hoping your dumb Trump-loving friends and family will stab themselves in their voting hand in shame and publicly repent on social media, well forget it, they will gloat about how great Trumpcare is now that their premiums for scam insurance are low, and the percentage that get hosed over will memoryhole what they said and cry that this is more proof Obamacare is collapsing and Democrats just won't let Trump fix it. Like don't even hope for critical thinking or self-awareness from them, if they were capable of it they wouldn't be Trumpstaffel. On the other hand they are a minority and every public poll on the issue has shown that the public will overwhelmingly hold Trump responsible for whatever happens with healthcare because he ran on a secret plan to fix it and give everyone a pony.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/27/16373494/chip-funding-reauthorization-congress So in 48 hours or so funding for CHIP is going to run out and health care for 9 million children and pregnant women is going to be at risk. States have some emergency funding they can apply but for some states the timeline is measured in weeks, not months. I have some serious concerns that this could turn into a proxy battle due to the Republicans failure to repeal the ACA. This is why any UHC bill in the future needs to have permanent taxes and funding, to prevent any political fuckery from denying people health care.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
nice, no-info poster hat trick If you have only been paying attention to politics since Trump was elected, and/or if you don't have domain-specific knowledge about the healthcare industry or insurance regulations, then please kindly refrain from prognosticating in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:No, then they'll declare that the elitist libtard doctors are conspiring against emperor MAGA and a new market of quacks and scam artists will swoop in to fleece the proudly gullible. I have no doubt about the voters, but the financial backers are what makes the GOP lose sleep at night. There's already plenty of rumbling from the GOP fundraising elite that these failures mean they won't be donating, and not just for Presidential - but for the GOP in general. Of course how much of that is honest, and how much of that is saber rattling, is a different story. The Phlegmatist posted:nice, no-info poster hat trick What are you on about? I'm definitely not going to sit here and provide my bona fides, but I'm definitely educated enough in health policy (and politics in general) to sit here and talk about it. There's absolutely no indication that any hospital network would want anything to do with an ERISA-based plan that's not backed by a *major* corporation. Hell BCBS has been fighting tooth-and-nail to get their cheaper networks accepted by more hospitals across the country, and they're only accomplishing it because of the shear amount of weight BCBS can swing AND calling the hospital on their bluff to let their BCBS contract expire. ERISA self-insured plans make sense (in a non-single payer market) when the company self-insuring is General Electric. it doesn't make sense when it's just a random group. Most self-insured plans are adminsitered through major insurers like BCBS, but that's because BCBS knows the self-insured corporation can definitely pay its bills and has an HR team that's able to explain benefits to their employees. Some random group of people won't have any of that so BCBS (or Aetna, or UHC, or whoever) is not going to accept an offer to administrate it...which means they'll have no expertise. No doctors office in their right mind - nevermind a hospital group - is going to accept that insurance. If anyone's making worthless posts here it's what you just posted. Crashrat fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 09:13
|
|
|
Nevermind
esquilax fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:I think the most likely outcome of ERISA-based plans is that the vast majority of hospitals & doctor groups operating under the hospital's moniker - as well as many doctors operating private partnerships - will just outright not accept those healthcare plans. I think the point is going to be the $1 "air breather" ERISA plan that covers literally nothing, but qualifies you to evade the mandate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think the point is going to be the $1 "air breather" ERISA plan that covers literally nothing, but qualifies you to evade the mandate. It doesn't. Crashrat posted:There's absolutely no indication that any hospital network would want anything to do with an ERISA-based plan that's not backed by a *major* corporation. Hell BCBS has been fighting tooth-and-nail to get their cheaper networks accepted by more hospitals across the country, and they're only accomplishing it because of the shear amount of weight BCBS can swing AND calling the hospital on their bluff to let their BCBS contract expire. BCBS administers tons of small self-insured firms in my area. It's risk-free money for them. Oh but wait they need a huge guaranty fund in order to self-insure because of state regulations in order to meet solvency requirements. Conveniently there are businesses in the area that will set up million-dollar guaranty funds in your firm's name for a small fee. It doesn't actually matter that you can't use the money in practice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:It doesn't. Oh really? Could you give some more detail on this? That's what I thought the whole problem was - that because these insurance plans are not regulated but they count as insurance, it lets people opt out of the insurance pool. If these don't get you out of the mandate, what's the problem?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
So let's take the $1 air-breather association plan. We can assume it's not ACA-compliant in that it doesn't meet the standard of minimum essential benefits. If you bought this plan on your own, you would still pay the tax penalty because of that fact. But associations are going to be regulated under group insurance rules. When Rand Paul came up with his grand idea of associations, it came along with repealing large amounts of ACA regulation. Without repealing those regulations, any new plan offered to members of a group needs to meet the minimum standards of ACA compliance (60% AV, essential health benefits covered.) The $1 air-breather plan is, in fact, highly illegal. So in the interests of not getting the poo poo fined out of them, associations would have to offer minimally ACA-compliant plans at the very least. So here's where the problem lies: 1. Associations allow cherry-picking of the risk pool. They'd run afoul of HIPAA regulations if they actually put any of this in writing, but it's entirely possible for associations to pick, say, nonsmokers under 40 without diabetes having a BMI under 30 with no preexisting conditions, which is an actuary's wet dream. Then you can be kicked out of the association at any time since there really are no regulations on them. So you'd be able to form small risk pools of healthy individuals (with commensurate lower premiums) and force people with extant medical problems onto the market. This causes a death spiral for the individual market. 2. No solvency requirements for payers. So maybe our $1 plan for the air breathers association is ACA-compliant on paper. Except they don't have any money in the bank and can't pay any of your medical costs. Now, would this plan allow you to get out of paying the individual mandate tax penalty? Technically, yes. But the scam insurers would be quickly sued out of existence, so your association would have to deal with finding new scam insurers every year. I don't think this is really feasible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:1. Associations allow cherry-picking of the risk pool. They'd run afoul of HIPAA regulations if they actually put any of this in writing, but it's entirely possible for associations to pick, say, nonsmokers under 40 without diabetes having a BMI under 30 with no preexisting conditions, which is an actuary's wet dream. Then you can be kicked out of the association at any time since there really are no regulations on them. So you'd be able to form small risk pools of healthy individuals (with commensurate lower premiums) and force people with extant medical problems onto the market. This causes a death spiral for the individual market. Are people really going to be practically capable of self-organizing themselves to do stuff like this in sufficient numbers to meaningfully hurt the market?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Lifetime healthcare spending follows a Pareto distribution. The top quartile of the population account for something like 85% of payer expenditures. If you block the most expensive people from joining an association and cherry pick, premiums become incredibly low. It's an attractive option for self-employed contractors or very small firms. Until you get sick and then it kind of sucks, because you are now shunted to the high-risk pool made up of the top quartile that you were trying to escape, and now there's nobody left to subsidize them via premiums. It blew up Kentucky's market very quickly since the low premiums are a major attractor and people don't really seem to get the concept of insurance on a basic level.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
quote:Secretary of Health and Human Services Thomas Price offered his resignation earlier today and the President accepted. The President intends to designate Don J. Wright of Virginia to serve as Acting Secretary, effective at 11:59 p.m. on September 29, 2017. Mr. Wright currently serves as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health and Director of the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. ding dong the witch is dead anyone know if Wright is a political appointee or someone who might be actually interested in making obamacare function instead of sabatoging it at every turn?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:ding dong the witch is dead I'm not sure what sort of evidence you'd have at this point that would indicate that anyone or anything attached to this administration is interested in making Obamacare work
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:ding dong the witch is dead HHS for 12 years. Product of the Texas system, which is the only negative note- they're big on the "market facilitation" model of slow capture there, due to heavy academic-industrial research partnership models that have worked there and almost nowhere else. I have nothing on his personal policy preferences. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Azhais posted:I'm not sure what sort of evidence you'd have at this point that would indicate that anyone or anything attached to this administration is interested in making Obamacare work that he was a career official instead of a political appointee, basically. that he's been at HHS for 12 years is very good news.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:that he was a career official instead of a political appointee, basically. that he's been at HHS for 12 years is very good news. Others have pointed out, though, that Wright is oddly low on the totem pole to be tapped, and his tenure roughly would map to entry during the George W admin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
The Phlegmatist posted:Oh but wait they need a huge guaranty fund in order to self-insure because of state regulations in order to meet solvency requirements. Conveniently there are businesses in the area that will set up million-dollar guaranty funds in your firm's name for a small fee. It doesn't actually matter that you can't use the money in practice. If it's an ERISA-based plan then there won't be state regulation, and there won't be solvency requirements. You mention this later in this thread, but it's directly contradicting what you said in response to me, so I'm a bit confused on this front.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:ding dong the witch is dead Yeah, he's a George W appointee and conservative as hell, which is why he's been tapped way out of turn. Oppo groups are listing abstinence only support and title X cuts so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yeah, he's a George W appointee and conservative as hell, which is why he's been tapped way out of turn. Oppo groups are listing abstinence only support and title X cuts so far. weeeeeeeelp that is stunningly out of character for the admin to have someone tapped that fast, wonder who is responsible
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:If it's an ERISA-based plan then there won't be state regulation, and there won't be solvency requirements. It's two different things. Solvency of a self-insured firm versus solvency of the insurance company insuring an association. States have the ability to regulate solvency requirements for firms that self-insure. In my state, it requires firms that self-insure to have a guaranty fund, usually in the range of a million+ dollars. This regulates the firm that is self-insuring, not the actual insurance company performing ASO. When you look at base ERISA rules, which would be in effect when an insurer wants to provide services to one of these associations, there is no actual requirement that the insurance company itself be solvent. Nor is there a requirement that the association be solvent because, of course, they're not self-insuring. State regulations have solvency requirements for insurers in the non-group market. Associations evade that because the associations are participating in the group market and subject only to ERISA rules. So it's entirely possible that if you join an association to get health insurance, your insurer might not actually have any money in the bank because they have evaded state regulations and are not required to actually be solvent before offering group insurance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:I think the most likely outcome of ERISA-based plans is that the vast majority of hospitals & doctor groups operating under the hospital's moniker - as well as many doctors operating private partnerships - will just outright not accept those healthcare plans. I read this as "Eripsa-based plans" and to be perfectly honest I'd trust Eripsa to write a healthcare bill before I trusted Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yeah, he's a George W appointee and conservative as hell, which is why he's been tapped way out of turn. Oppo groups are listing abstinence only support and title X cuts so far. Gaaaaah Abstinence only is my one personal non-professional disproportionate windmill. It's just the worst sex ed idea possible, especially since it usually comes packaged at a policy level with reducing access to contraception for responsible adults.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Alright so now that we're past the most recent GOP attempt to wreck everything I was curious if this would be the place to discuss the effect of current efforts to disrupt the health care industry. Namely in the form of "big data" combined with machine learning - but also automation. We all know IBM's Watson at this point so I'll just assume anyone here know that bit. Watson is awesome, but it's work so far has been narrow as far as I know. I'm more interested in the disruptive effects of major machine learning models like PriceWaterhouseCooper's DoubleJump Health / Bodylogical systems. I can't go into too much detail as my friends that work at PWC told me things about it as friends, and presumably in confidence, but the shear amount of data integration this model can handle on its own is mindboggling. Just hearing them explain the work they've done at major health systems to manage patient data makes it sound like the incredible majority of primary health care provision for anything outside acute care is likely to be almost completely automated. In other words the machine learning that already exists is potentially on the cusp of making chronic disease management an AI-based system. The way it's been described to me is that they're aiming to have patients opt-in as a way to save money, and getting insurers to pay for the cost because it's cheaper than office visits and lowers actuarial risk down the line by better managing a chronic condition. The patient opts in to save time and money by skipping office visits as well. The patient just links in their lab testing, they link in any acitgraph/CPAP/etc medical equipment readings that are aligned with the disease process, and then the model spits out information directly to the patient. So for example a CPAP patient is a long-term expense. The vast majority of office visits for CPAP are literally just handing off data for a doctor to look it over even though we've had automated uploading of data from equipment makers like ResMed. The doctor adjust the machine. This super simple 15 minute established patient is billed at sometimes as much as $250 - though it's likely written down to $125-175 - all just to either say "keep the CPAP as is" or "lets adjust a couple levels." This is the sort of thing that's absolutely ripe for disruption and with PWC pushing it rather than some startup it's almost guaranteed to happen. That's just one example, but I imagine most people here can see how it would aggregate, and it will mean a massive drop off in office visits. A big plus for cutting down patient waiting times for patients who really need to see a doctor for an indepth consultation, but a massive drop in revenue for hospitals and doctors. ---- And that's all before we get to automation. Companies like SwissLog already have *massive* automation systems that are going to completely disrupt the nursing and pharmacy fields. Swisslog's automated pharmacy system basically completely eliminates pharmacy techs (unless you count putting liquids or pills into a bin as a job needing specialized training) and cuts down extensively on the need for pharmacists. We all know that pharmacists rely exhaustively on computer databases for drug interactions - the amount of interactions is beyond human knowability - but Swisslog goes a step further and even handles nuclear pharmacy and oncology pharmacy in an automated process. We should see that as a good thing because handling hazardous materials on a daily basis means an inevitable mistake - but it's a huge loss of very highly trained and very high paying jobs. Swisslog's automated dispensing systems and rover systems also drastically reduce the number of nurses needed on a ward. There's a great YouTube video for their MedRover system that's obviously aimed at hospital administrators. The standard ward shown has 13 nurses of which only 3 are shown charting. With the MedRover system they change the graphic down to 4 nurses with 3 charting. The video never actually says "this means you can cut your nursing costs by getting rid of all those nurses" but you don't even have to squint your eyes to read between the lines. We've spent almost 2 decades yelling at people non-stop to become nurses and just the basic systems like MedRover drastically reduce the need for them - further disruptions are also out there, but this post is already too long. I don't even have to explain how automated charting is happening and happening fast. ---- All of this is good for society in terms of healthcare outcomes and healthcare costs. It's unequivocally better for patients. But what's it going to do to the healthcare industry itself? It's going to be very hard to look at a nurse with a bachelor's and master's and tell them, "So sorry, but that decade of education and experience is just not needed anymore." That's not the same as telling a lineworker at the factory to go back and "get their degree." If the healthcare industry continues on this machine-learning and automation path - and there's every indication it will - we're going to end up with legions of highly trained / very skilled people with no market for them besides signing up for Doctors without Borders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Crashrat posted:Swisslog's automated dispensing systems and rover systems also drastically reduce the number of nurses needed on a ward. There's a great YouTube video for their MedRover system that's obviously aimed at hospital administrators. The standard ward shown has 13 nurses of which only 3 are shown charting. With the MedRover system they change the graphic down to 4 nurses with 3 charting. The video never actually says "this means you can cut your nursing costs by getting rid of all those nurses" but you don't even have to squint your eyes to read between the lines. We've spent almost 2 decades yelling at people non-stop to become nurses and just the basic systems like MedRover drastically reduce the need for them - further disruptions are also out there, but this post is already too long. I don't even have to explain how automated charting is happening and happening fast. I watched the video just to be sure of what you are taking about, and automated dispensary systems won't change nursing staffing needs. There are mandated nurse:patient ratios, usually 4:1 on a regular floor and 2:1 or 1:1 in the ICUs.Even if there is increased automation, you need a physical person to be able to lay eyes on a patient, physically examine them, administer medications, draw labs, clean them, etc... Even with increased automation, one person can only be aware of so much at a time, and increasing nurse:patient ratios is a great way to increase medical errors. And automated charting is a terrible idea. I have seen far too many patient notes assisted by dot phrases and automatic test result pull-ins, medications / problem list imports that make a note almost unreadable because of all the extra crap that is automatically included. Don't get me wrong, there is definitely a role for automation in healthcare, and some of the other things you mentioned are interesting, like using Watson, but I disagree with your assertions for this part
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Relatedly, I'm boggled by the number of medical group startups I see adds for in sf. If anything else, it shows how much money must being skimmed off the top of the system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:I watched the video just to be sure of what you are taking about, and automated dispensary systems won't change nursing staffing needs. There are mandated nurse:patient ratios, usually 4:1 on a regular floor and 2:1 or 1:1 in the ICUs.Even if there is increased automation, you need a physical person to be able to lay eyes on a patient, physically examine them, administer medications, draw labs, clean them, etc... Even with increased automation, one person can only be aware of so much at a time, and increasing nurse:patient ratios is a great way to increase medical errors. Erm...what mandated ratio are you talking about? There's no Federal mandate. Only California has a mandated ratio written into law for nursing in general, Massachusetts for ICU. The rest of the states either have a requirement for staffing committees or have no legal mandates at all. And that automation goes well beyond just things like MedRover. Just-in-time staffing is already an established thing at many hospitals, and shifts are routinely cancelled if the situation changes - often without the nurse being notified. Every single one of my RN friends (10+ of them) routinely share stories on their Facebook about driving as much as 2hrs to get to the hospital they were assigned a shift at only to arrive and find out they were cut because the staffing needs changed - which is just becoming the industry norm now. Finally arguing that prior automated charting had problems therefore all future automated charting will have problems is just patently absurd. Even without full automation things like predictive charting already exists, which speeds up workflow and reduces the number of nurses needed. There is zero indication that improvement will not continue to the point that charting nurses are mostly obsolete outside really specific instances - like a patient undergoing some kind of experimental treatment or similar. And that's all just in the hospital realm. Smaller group practices can use software like Antworks to effectively turn the traditional professional partnership office model on its head. It's not outright automation, but it's streamlining a *lot* of processes and has the potential to drastically cut the number of jobs needed in healthcare administration. ---- Things like Medrover are just a single snapshot. Combine it with the automated pharmacy system, which works with automated delivery bots the same company makes, which is linked into a computerized charting system - and you've cut a huge number of jobs. The doctor orders the medication directly on his tablet. You don't have techs filling scripts - the robotic pharmacy does that. You don't have a pharmacist manually reviewing every tech's work - the pharmacist just reviews and signs off on it remotely. You don't have an orderly moving the meds to the ward. You don't have a nurse checking over the meds again to make sure the right thing was delivered. You don't have a nurse needed to hand those meds to the patient - a low-paid general worker can handle it. I mean just what I've linked has everything I just described and it eliminates a massive chunk of highly educated and skilled workers. The only human the patient has to see is the person who uses the barcode scanner to scan the patient's ID wristband, the MedRover opens the slot with the right medication on the ring from the pharmacy, the tech scans the pill bag, the tech hands the medication to the patient who takes it, and then the tech scans the patient's wristband again to confirm it was taken...now off to the next patient. It's basically Amazon's human picker system, but with medicine going to patients rather than packages. Crashrat fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Sep 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Relatedly, I'm boggled by the number of medical group startups I see adds for in sf. If anything else, it shows how much money must being skimmed off the top of the system. Medical startups are really common. Right now, the heart valve space is very active, with a large number of startups that have been bought out within the past couple of years, and dozens more working on some new technology. Different technologies have different boom and bust phases where everyone starts working on a problem at more or less the same time as soon as something becomes feasible or is proven viable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
I think RNs are fairly safe; they're the first line of defense against iatrogenic infections and having more RNs on staff has been shown to improve patient outcomes. It's also a position that has pretty high educational requirements. I've never worked at a place that used the on-demand staffing systems but they do sound like absolute hell. Well, even moreso than nursing already is (12 hour shifts in a high-stress environment, it sucks.) Admin staff, though? If you don't have specific expertise like charge capture or medical coding then you're probably going to be automated out of a job within two decades (or whenever the US gets national health care, which is going to decimate stuff like patient business services.) At the last hospital I worked at, we had managed to reduce admin staffing requirements by something like 30% (80% in some departments) over a decade simply because of EMR/billing SaaS applications.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Medical startups are really common. Right now, the heart valve space is very active, with a large number of startups that have been bought out within the past couple of years, and dozens more working on some new technology. Different technologies have different boom and bust phases where everyone starts working on a problem at more or less the same time as soon as something becomes feasible or is proven viable. I'm not talking about medical technologies, but medical groups, ie groups of doctors.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Crashrat posted:Alright so now that we're past the most recent GOP attempt to wreck everything I was curious if this would be the place to discuss the effect of current efforts to disrupt the health care industry. I think about this a lot, because I'm considering investing in further education to advance a healthcare career. Bureau of Labor Statistics says that nursing is going to continue to grow, but I'm concerned that most of that will be wiping the asses of the elderly in SNFs for the lowest wages owners can get away with paying. I think that point of patient care work is still going to be around for a while, I don't expect that the future where glorified janitors wheel in the machine that starts IVs, does tests, skin checks, changes dressings, etc. as needed is happening soon, mostly because patients won't accept it, but the large number of people going into nursing and contracting need for paperwork will have downward pressure on wages. I think the real losers will be MDs, as a few MDs working with an expert system to supervise the work of NPs and PAs will be the new norm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2017 23:44
|
|