Can you explain how an expensive professional that generates 100-300 in a 10 minute visit constitutes a loss for 2 years?
All practices simply cannot just not hire enough doctors unless they want to be unable to service business and lose our long term they have to hire collectively they can't all afford to insert their heads into their anus so smart money is they simply keep hiring like before and nothing changes.
Doctors, unless they are high end specialist surgeons in hospitals, do not make net even close to $100 per 10 minutes. That's nonsense.A doctor making $100 per hour would represent
$600 per hour x 166 hours = $1.2M in revenues per year. There is no specialty in the US that will drive that much collections in the first 2 years.
But, don't take my word for it. Go look up the avg reimbursement for Level 3 office visit, which is defined as 30 mins. This varies by state and specialty, but its around $90 for medicare or $130 for privates. Again , that is 30mins
Now, consider are talking gross revenue, not actual net profit. So now, lets' talk losses.
The reality is the doctor is really making at best 1/3 of your speculative amount in the 1st year, but only if he's a good doctor with a hot speciality that pays well. SO say $400k best case. If we are talking your avg Pediatrician, slice that by half. The former doctor's salary is somewhere between $250k-300k, the latter prob $200k depending on your market.
That leaves $150k best case, or $0 , respectively.....before COGS and OPEX.
Since neither scheduling nor billing appear to be different for a doctor in their first year vs 17th can you explain why a first year doctor whose salary is less but whom insurers pay just as much for you to see represents a loss?
RE: scheduling actually is better for established doctors. A doctor will move much faster and squeeze in more patients in Yr 3 vs Yr 2, same difference btw Yr 2 and Yr 1.
In my experience, doctors will plateau somewhere around year 3 unless they are actively iterating around software/personnel for smaller improvements.
In addition, the new doctor does not have an established footprint in the community, online (social media, ads) or a trail of good reviews> In short,no book of patients.
The established practice will help filling the schedule of a new doctor, but ultimately it comes to skill with referrals + word of mouth + time.
This example is nonsense. Your math includes only the reimbursement for the office visit. It doesn't include reimbursement of interpreting tests, interpreting imaging or doing procedures.
Yes, but those increase times, and increase costs. Some procedures are not paid (ded, coins), some are not covered (payor), some are not done (no shows). Plus, many times of the day may be idle without patients coming in thru the door.
Plus, my example specifically mentioned revenue. Factoring in procedures, you are still not even close to hitting the per minute profit that was mentioned by parent.
I was only trying to make a point with easily relatable numbers without getting into the thick of it with procedures , reimbursements, specialty avgs, utilization, etc.
Doctors typically come out of medical school with an eye-watering amount of debt, and most doctors don't make anywhere near as much money as people imagine they do (you can't really tell their pay rate by how much your bill is).
All practices simply cannot just not hire enough doctors unless they want to be unable to service business and lose our long term they have to hire collectively they can't all afford to insert their heads into their anus so smart money is they simply keep hiring like before and nothing changes.