If we're blaming Medicaid being unsustainable on nursing homes and rural hospitals existing, can we at least think about maybe bringing the salary of LCMC's CEO into the discussion? - eviltoast
  • Basic Glitch@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    I’m not saying we should be rasing pay for other employees at all. I’m saying the reason Medicaid is becoming unsustainable is because we have so many CEOs making insanely huge salaries like this.

    The point of healthcare is to provide care to patients. Not to create hospital monopolies.

    If Medicare is unsustainable that means healthcare cuts.

    When you’re looking for where you should be making healthcare cuts what makes the most logical sense to you?

    At least having a discussion about how these administrative salaries and positions are actually justified?

    Or

    •Slash and burn policy eliminating doctors that were already accepting Medicaid

    •Reducing care offered to patients so that the patients will then indeed become less healthy, rely on emergency services and require more costly care in the long run

    •Claiming Medicaid is unsustainable bc “no doctors want to accept Medicaid patients.”

    If you abruptly eliminate all the doctors that do accept Medicaid and then claim you need to increase the Medicaid budget to incentivise doctors in order to get them to accept Medicaid patients, then yes, by default it becomes easy to make the argument that no doctors in your hospital “want to accept Medicaid.”

      • Basic Glitch@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        So maybe we need some legislative action to push for caps on CEO salaries and number of CEO/administrative positions per hospital to receive any federal or state funding.

        Why tf does one giant monopoly of hospitals need a CEO for each campus?!

          • Basic Glitch@lemm.eeOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 days ago

            The whole point of having a giant monopoly is that all hospitals are under the same control with the same policy and regulations.

            This is not normal.

            • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 days ago

              Yes, it is. The CEO is the top executive at that company. In a conglomerate the CEOs are still answering to the parent company and/ir board of directors.

              • Basic Glitch@lemm.eeOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                Then what is the point of having a monopoly control everything in the first place? If every campus needs its own CEO to be making decisions what exactly is the benefit of having LCMC or Oschner controlling all of these hospitals?

                It seems like you could be providing better healthcare with less bureaucracy if you just let individual hospitals take care of patients. Especially since most of these hospitals already existed before these companies came in and saved the day by purchasing all of these hospitals.

                • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  Then what is the point of having a monopoly control everything in the first place?

                  Larger corporations can negotiate for better pricing and the economies of scale can make bigger more effective.

                  If every campus needs its own CEO to be making decisions what exactly is the benefit of having LCMC or Oschner controlling all of these hospitals?

                  Not every single decision needs to be made by the board or top executive. Sometimes you need a person to lead on site and be the top dog there but who actually answers to others.

                  It seems like you could be providing better healthcare with less bureaucracy if you just let individual hospitals take care of patients.

                  Not really? You still need people running it. What would help is removing the for profit elements of medicine.

                  Especially since most of these hospitals already existed before these companies came in and saved the day by purchasing all of these hospitals.

                  They could buy these hospitals vecause they couldn’t be managed effectively. To me that suggests medicine should be a service that isn’t profit driven and not a business.

                  • Basic Glitch@lemm.eeOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 days ago

                    Great, I’m actually trying to find a new primary care doctor right now.

                    Tried to call my old office to see if they could help me and it rang and rang until it eventually hung up on me.

                    Just tried to contact one the main number to make an appointment and got a voicemail telling me to leave briefly message.

                    Tried to call a third number the nurses help hotline provided me and it rang once and hung up.

                    I’ll probably just end up going to CVS again and using their minute clinic, which actually seems to have a better handle on healthcare at this point than the giant corporation that has purchased every hospital in the area.

                    But I’m glad we have CEOs at every campus making sure everything runs so smoothly even though there are no doctors available to provide healthcare.