Physicians have often argued that physician clinical-charging for nephrology is not the right way to go about running their practice. While it is true that this method is the fastest way to earn money in this specialty, doctors need to be aware of the potential pitfalls. The lack of transparency in this field has hindered the federal government’s efforts to overhaul the dialysis payment system. Since most doctors have little incentive to make the change, there are conflicts of interest.
The current reimbursement system is based on historical charges, and it discourages physicians from implementing cost-effective processes for treating patients. Moreover, these rates often do not reflect the actual costs and outcomes of the procedures. The method is also inaccurate, leading to oversupply of highly reimbursed services and inadequate delivery of services that are poorly reimbursed. In addition, doctor clinical-charging for nephrology speeds up the process, as it allows physicians to compare and contrast different processes.
In Conclusion
In a recent study, researchers have shown that doctor clinical-charging for nephrology speeds up the process. The findings showed that this practice model was less effective than originally thought. In a new study, researchers have discovered that doctors are underpaying their employees for their expertise. This has led to a disproportionate increase in malpractice claims. In the current climate, the healthcare industry should consider physician clinical-charging as a way to improve care quality.
