Future billing issue

[rmcraw]

My daughter will be entering college in the Fall and is considering PA as a career.  A doctor friend of mine has heard that changes are coming for PA billings (but not for NPs).  I'm not sure whether he meant by insurance companies or thru government regulation, but essentially he said that the allowable billing levels for PAs would be cut significantly, making them less attractive options as compared to NPs.  I assume if anyone knows anything about it, it would be this group.  Any info for a concerned dad?

[PACdan]

Ask your "doctor friend" to cite his sources and give you copies, friends do that for each other. Sounds like BS to me.

 

But when it comes to rumors, believe half of what you read, and nothing of what you hear.

 

 

Sent from the Satellite of Love using Tapatalk

 

 

[rmcraw]

Ask your "doctor friend" to cite his sources and give you copies, friends do that for each other. Sounds like BS to me.

 

But when it comes to rumors, believe half of what you read, and nothing of what you hear.

 

 

Sent from the Satellite of Love using Tapatalk

 

 

I am quite certain that my friend would not intentionally give me misinformation, and he really couldn't recall where he heard it or the exact details.  If he could remember, he would have told me.  So he recommended that I look into it, which I am trying to do.  I fully expected that looking to a group of professional subject matter experts to either corroborate or debunk such "rumors" would be wise, only I didn't expect a smartass response to be part of the deal.  If I don't get any valuable feedback here maybe I'll try to get him brought up on charges of some sort - like unintentionally providing vague information in a casual conversation between friends - do friends to that for each other?  BTW a simple "hadn't heard anything about it" would have sufficed instead of an explanation on source verification.

[EMEDPA]

I'm fairly involved in pa politics and think I would have heard if this were true. I think your friend is confused. we have former presidents of the aapa, leaders of PAFT, etc on this board and no one has mentioned anything about this.

[PACdan]

I am quite certain that my friend would not intentionally give me misinformation, and he really couldn't recall where he heard it or the exact details. If he could remember, he would have told me. So he recommended that I look into it, which I am trying to do. I fully expected that looking to a group of professional subject matter experts to either corroborate or debunk such "rumors" would be wise, only I didn't expect a smartass response to be part of the deal. If I don't get any valuable feedback here maybe I'll try to get him brought up on charges of some sort - like unintentionally providing vague information in a casual conversation between friends - do friends to that for each other? BTW a simple "hadn't heard anything about it" would have sufficed instead of an explanation on source verification.

It's a forum on the internet buddy, not your personal palace of platitudes.

 

And for the record, I think you're just trying to stir the pot. They way you phrased "but not for NPs" led me to surmise that your next round of questions would have been asking if your daughter should go that route.

 

 

...making them less attractive options as compared to NPs.

 

Call me a cynic, because I am. I wanted to shut it down quick.

 

Next time try a simple Google search. If nothing comes up there (which is does not), it's a safe bet it isn't factual.

 

 

Sent from the Satellite of Love using Tapatalk

 

[cbrsmurf]

I am quite certain that my friend would not intentionally give me misinformation, and he really couldn't recall where he heard it or the exact details.  If he could remember, he would have told me.  So he recommended that I look into it, which I am trying to do.  I fully expected that looking to a group of professional subject matter experts to either corroborate or debunk such "rumors" would be wise, only I didn't expect a smartass response to be part of the deal.  If I don't get any valuable feedback here maybe I'll try to get him brought up on charges of some sort - like unintentionally providing vague information in a casual conversation between friends - do friends to that for each other?  BTW a simple "hadn't heard anything about it" would have sufficed instead of an explanation on source verification.

i like you

[ventana]

the only thing I can think of that they might be referring to is the never ending battle that NPs have in trying to get the 100% reimbursement as compared to the 85% - this would  be a 15% raise.....  but makes great political fodder 

 

Or maybe the who SGR thing where the fear of the specialists taking a huge hit in reimbursement  (geez they sort of have it coming)

 

As a small practice owner I am pretty aware of pending stuff and the PCP world looks bright (brighter then the specialists world)

[burnpac]

 

I'm fairly involved in pa politics and think I would have heard if this were true. I think your friend is confused. we have former presidents of the aapa, leaders of PAFT, etc on this board and no one has mentioned anything about this.

 

Agree with EMEDPA. There have been times in the past in California where we have fought this off (WC Reimbursement), but we convinced the state that a service, is a service, is a service, regardless of who delivers it. There have been no further movement in this regard in California. I bill first assist and outpatient directly, and what I get paid depends on my contracts with the IPAs, and carriers. I get the same deal that a physician would get, and no one has ever suggested that I should get less because I'm a PA delivering the service / or doing the procedure.