Category: Politics

Journalists know that envy sells papers, and people can’t resist a bit of wealth porn (see Super Rich or Super Angry). But publishing doctors’ incomes also serves a deeper purpose. On average, doctors’ billings prove that some workers earn more than others. Physicians’ incomes demonstrate that income disparity exists, and publishing them presupposes the gap warrants discussion. Except for ardent capitalists, salacious CEO incomes give most of us pause. But is income disparity intrinsically bad?

Beyond envy and idle curiosity, income comparisons rest on the belief that all workers should earn a similar wage. Some people think that skilled workers who contribute more to production should be paid more. Marx disagreed. He saw factories automated to increase profits for owners while decreasing wages for labourers. He believed income disparity to be evidence of capitalist corruption, and many still agree with him.

We miss the point when we debate whether incomes are fair. If we accept the idea that wages should be set in comparison to other wages, we presuppose Marx was right. He believed that all work had intrinsic value that should determine wages. Capitalists believe that demand for a product or service should determine income. If a particular skill or service is in high demand, then wages for that skill will be high.

If we agree that all income disparity is inherently bad, we accept a core tenet of socialist ideology.  Our country grew strong on democratic capitalism. We did not become prosperous by pursuing socialism.

Prosperity allows us to create some socialized services. But we must not confuse socialized medicine with socialism.

Within socialized medicine, every worker labours for an income, for profit. Highly trained professionals earn more than those with less training and responsibility. Healthcare wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for intimate ties with industry to build, supply and service institutions. Socialized medicine is not the same as statewide socialism.

Income equality stands at the pulpit of socialized medicine to preach socialist ideology. Most people agree with helping those who cannot help themselves. But this does not require socialist economics. Socialism has been tried and failed repeatedly over the last 100 years. It refuses to die. If we accept the belief that all income disparity is bad, we lose the debate about doctors’ incomes before it begins.

Dear Esteemed Colleagues,

I write to you as some of the very best physicians. You have deep concern for the poor, oppressed and marginalized in society. You find economic collapse an unnecessary hardship for all your patients.

Your concern comes from the most noble aspirations. You cannot ignore pain and suffering in your clinic. You cannot pretend it does not exist in society. You believe civilized nations help those less fortunate. You see abundance as an opportunity to help.

These are good things. Most doctors share your concerns. But none of this makes you a socialist.

A socialist promotes elimination of income inequality as an end in itself, not just as one way to help the poor. Socialists believe the state offers the best hope to eliminate hardship and provide for citizens. Socialists seek to erase inequality and competition, not just to help those less fortunate.

You do not have to be a socialist to support some form of Medicare. But you cannot sit quietly while others push for income equality, state ownership of all healthcare and greater state control without being a socialist. Silence supports socialism.

Socialists see income differences as evidence of moral failure, not industry and effort. Physicians represent a societal class; they should be just one provider among many undifferentiated others.

If socialism was a medical treatment, we might ask how has it helped other patients? Dozens of countries have tried varying doses of socialism. How have they fared? Beyond a very low dose as part of a mixed economy, socialism causes more suffering than it eliminates. Large doses of socialism lead to communism as Marx predicted.

I write to you, my socialist-friendly colleagues, on the belief that you genuinely want the best for your patients, your families and community. If you truly believe socialism offers the best path for us to follow, come out and say so. Become socialist champions and spokespeople. Let’s debate socialism, the whole program. Don’t take idealistic bits of socialist thought and disguise them as noble social movements. It’s misleading at best.

On the other hand if you like pieces of socialism but worry about the whole package, I encourage you to follow your position wherever it leads. It does not create human flourishing. Acquiescing to socialist presuppositions lends support to the whole movement.

You might start asking questions. What do people mean by ‘income inequality’? Is all inequality bad? Do the poor and less fortunate do better with more socialism or with a stronger economy? Who gets hurt the most when governments run out of money? Do governments improve the economy by creating new jobs with tax dollars?

Socialist ideals overlap with the very best social aspirations. But we must not confuse socialism with honourable social goals. Socialism by itself will not provide what our patients need. There is a better way.

With highest regards, your colleague,

 

Shawn

Nurse practitioners (NPs) make twice as much as family doctors per patient. It costs between $130,000-$140,000 to hire one full time NP.  That is, an employer must fund  salary + benefits + salary for replacement staff when NP is on holidays.  This is a standard calculation for all salaried positions in hospitals, industry and private practice.  An NP experiences this as an annual income of around $110,000 plus benefits.

In capitated practices, individual providers roster (enroll) patients into their practice. Clinicians care for their rostered patients and see their colleagues’ patients if urgent needs arise.

Note: capitation pays doctors an annual fee, in monthly instalments, for all the care each patient requires. Docs can work towards earning small bonuses if they meet screening targets. These are bundled into the calculations below.

A full time family doctor (FP) rosters 1,600-2,000 patients, some carry more. A full time NP rosters 300-400 patients and cares for them as their primary provider with a physician serving as back-up. An NP receives the same salary regardless of their roster size.

Nurse Practitioners Pay/Patient

$130,000 income / 400 patients = $325 per patient/year.

If 300 patients, NPs earn $433 per patient/year.

Family Doctors Pay/Patient

$200,000 (net) / 1,600 patients = $125/patient/year.

For 2000 patients, an FP will net around $240,000 = $120/patient/year.

At $125/patient, family docs would earn $50,000 annually to see the same 400 patients as an NP. This equates to $40,000 + 20% benefit package. Per patient, family doctors get paid 38% – 29% of nurse practitioners.

In addition, nurse practitioners

• Do not have headache of paying overhead.
• Do not spend unpaid time managing overhead/office and do not assume legal risks of owning an office.
• Do not prescribe narcotics or controlled substances distancing them from a challenging group of patients.
• Have doctors for backup decreasing liability.
• Leave the most complex patients for FPs to sort out.
• Get lunch breaks.
• Do not take call after hours.
• Can forget the office when they go on vacation.

Many family doctors tell me the NP deal looks attractive. These docs would love a slower pace. If the government offered to pay NP rates for a roster of, say, 500-600 patients with the same benefits, I know many physicians would jump at the opportunity ($325 x 600 patients = $195,000).

But NPs spend so much time with patients! They practice unhurried holistic care. Family doctors rush and treat people like cattle.

Many family doctors would love to practice the same unhurried holistic care completely insulated from any concerns about anything beyond the 7.5 hour work day.

Income Inequality

Some doctors work faster, roster more patients and earn four times as much as an NP. People then assume that all doctors are fat cats.  No one cares about how hard a doctor works to earn a larger income.  Voters see doctors working harder in terms of cheating patients with shorter appointments. They assume that taking longer to provide care equals more care overall.

Doctors feel incensed at the injustice that NPs get paid twice as much per patient.  Marxists feel equally incensed that any worker could earn a much higher total income in the same industry.

Insurance vs. Managed Care

Government has changed Medicare from health insurance into managed care. Central planners obsess over inputs instead of outputs, costs instead of service and quality. Time becomes a key component of any input-centered system. Longer care becomes quality care. Obsession with input combines with an ideological commitment to income equality. Perverse incentives arise when central planners arbitrarily fix incomes to meet chic social promises.

In the end, patients lose out. When one provider makes twice as much per patient for easier work, the lower paid provider adjusts his or her service accordingly. He or she does not do it consciously, but it happens nonetheless.

Nurse practitioners provide enormous value when properly trained to use all their abilities as part of an interdisciplinary team. But they are not cheap. Governments know that.  For primary care, family doctors offer an incredible bargain. Politicians just won’t admit it.

[Photo credit: torontosun.com]