Mentioning the recent ruling that was reported on OTW, even Dr. Famous felt that its self-aggrandizing to preach how bright of a businessman one is when physicians can selectively choose the patient that they operate on. He equated it to running an insurance company, using the former US Healthcare as an example, where they were willing only to underwrite policies that were not over a specific age, and, had minimal health risk. The argument that I posed was that this country was built on a free market economy and physicians should be able to own a hospital if they choose to. His response was, "if they're willing to take care of everyone, including medicare patients and the destitute, he has absolutely no qualms about physicians owning their own hospital." Obviously, Dr. Famous has some integrity and a code of ethics.
The most interesting aspect of our conversation was his observation that if physicians had the right to own facilities without restrictions, most companies would find out how quick the pricing of implants would come down, and, that there probably would not be a need for physician owned distributorships, nor would there be all of these fictitious consulting agreements. Yet, even he questioned the legality of such a business model asking whether there is a difference between state and federal laws that are applicable to POD's. So TSB wants to know what our readers think? Would the delivery of healthcare be more efficient both medically and financially if physicians were allowed to continue to build and own hospitals without restrictions, or, would it become a reflection of how poorly they run their business, magnifying the current climate in healthcare?
"I know you deceived me but here's a surprise, I know that you have because there's magic in your eyes, I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles, oh yeah"