query from former regular
From: Bryan Jick (drbryan@earthlink.net)
Sun Oct 31 01:17:43 2004
Hello everyone.
I haven't been on the list much, but I have a question if you don't mind.
What do the members think of implementing an annual administrative fee for
each patient (except Medicare, I know this is illegal)?
I am seriously considering sending a letter to 2,000 patients, that starting
Jan. 1, 2005, I am going to charge $50 per year per patient for
administrative overhead (copying records, filling out forms, calling
pharmacies and insurance companies), basically the stuff we spend a lot of
time doing but do not get reimbursed separately for. I'd appreciate any
comments/criticisms.
Thanks very much.
--
Bryan Jick, M.D., FACOG
Pasadena, CA
http://www.drjick.com
>----- Original Message -----
From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
To: "Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L" <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 6:32 PM
Subject: OB-GYN-L digest 3406
> OB-GYN-L Digest 3406
>
> Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) Re: Bowel obstruction in pregnancy
> by DoctorJoe@aol.com
> 2) Re: Bowel obstruction in pregnancy
> by evsono@pipeline.com (art fougner, md)
> 3) RE: Rubber checks
> by "Richard Chudacoff, MD" <rchudacoff@mylinuxisp.com>
> 4) Lovely Newborn Babies ...
> by "" <dean@thehuffpeople.net>
> 5) Re: Rubber checks
> by hribot@mindspring.com (Hugo D Ribot Jr)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:52:50 EDT
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: DoctorJoe@aol.com
> To: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
> Subject: Re: Bowel obstruction in pregnancy
> Message-ID: <147.3783f4c1.2eb46a12@aol.com>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="part1_147.3783f4c1.2eb46a12_boundary"
>
> --part1_147.3783f4c1.2eb46a12_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> In a message dated 10/29/04 18:15:11, GIN11153@aol.com writes:
>
>> I have always seen tocolytics used after abdominal surgeries during
>> pregnancy.
>>
>
> I would use them perioperatively "just because" to keep even
> "inconsequential" uterine contractions to a minimum, if only for the
> benefit of the coronary
> arteries of the caregivers involved.
>
> The use beyond the first 24 hours or so is, of course, open to discussion
> . .
>
> Joe P.
>
> --part1_147.3783f4c1.2eb46a12_boundary
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR="#000000"
> FACE="Gen> eva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
> In a message dated 10/29/04 18:15:11, GIN11153@aol.com writes:<BR>
> <BR>
> <BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT:
> 5px; > MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE="CITE"></FONT><FONT
> COLOR="#0> 00000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">I have always seen
> to> colytics used after abdominal surgeries during pregnancy.<BR>
> </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva"
> FAMILY="SANSSE> RIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
> <BR>
> I would use them perioperatively "just because" to keep even
> "inconsequentia> l" uterine contractions to a minimum, if only for the benefit of the
> coronar> y arteries of the caregivers involved.<BR>
> <BR>
> The use beyond the first 24 hours or so is, of course, open to discussion
> . > . . .<BR>
> <BR>
> Joe P.<BR>
> <BR>
> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
> SIZE="> 2"></FONT></HTML>
> --part1_147.3783f4c1.2eb46a12_boundary--
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 07:57:43 -0500 (CDT)
> ------------------------------
> From: evsono@pipeline.com (art fougner, md)
> To: OB-GYN-L@OBGYN.net
> Subject: Re: Bowel obstruction in pregnancy
> Message-ID: <200410301258.i9UCwD514681@dns.obgyn.net>
>
> and steroids?
>
> art
>
> At Fri, 29 Oct 2004, DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>In a message dated 10/29/04 18:15:11, GIN11153@aol.com writes:
>>
>>> I have always seen tocolytics used after abdominal surgeries during
>>> pregnancy.
>>>
>>I would use them perioperatively "just because" to keep even
>>"inconsequential" uterine contractions to a minimum, if only for the
>>benefit of the coronary
>>arteries of the caregivers involved.
>>
>>The use beyond the first 24 hours or so is, of course, open to discussion
>>. .
>>
>>Joe P.
>
> --
> art fougner, md
> ich bin ein New Yorker
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:03:48 -0500
> ------------------------------
> From: "Richard Chudacoff, MD" <rchudacoff@mylinuxisp.com>
> To: <ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net>
> Subject: RE: Rubber checks
> Message-ID: <200410301603.i9UG3uP25147@web.mylinuxisp.com>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Good question. I was only commenting on the office stuff. I've never found
> a
> person who is going to pay with a bad check to actually send it in. The
> bad
> checks are written at the office. The villain, who is going to write a bad
> check in the office, tends to ignore the statements.
>
> Richard Chudacoff, MD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of Lynn D.
> Montgomery, M.D.
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 4:29 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
> Subject: RE: Rubber checks
>
> Richard,
> The problem with that is if you send them a bill, they pay with a check.
> Obviously one way around this is for the billing person to figure what
> each
> patient's responsibility is and require payment up front - do you do that?
> Lynn
>
> Lynn D. Montgomery, M.D.
> Maternal-Fetal Medicine, OB/GYN
> Rocky Mountain Women's Health
> 2835 Fort Missoula Rd., Suite 304
> Missoula, Montana, 59804
> 406-549-0978
> fax 406-549-0987
> e-mail: apgar10@montanadsl.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of
> rchudacoff
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 7:23 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
> Subject: RE: Rubber checks
>
> However nothing bad occurs if these patients are reported to a collection
> agency nor if you get a judgement against them...unless you place a lien
> against their home. Then you have to wait until they want to sell. A
> negative credit report from a hospital or physician's office does not
> negatively effect a credit rating.
>
> We do not accept checks. Period. Cash, credit cards or money orders.
>
> Richard Chudacoff, MD
>
>> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: "Allen, Christina R." <callen2@wellspan.org>
> To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
> Sent: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 07:56:46 -0500
> Subject: RE: Rubber checks
>
>> Service charge of $25.
>>
>> If no pay after 90 days or you are getting returned mail (statements)
>> , turn over to collection agency.
>>
>> Chris x15746
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of
>> RModugno@aol.com
>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 8:49 AM
>> To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
>> Subject: Rubber checks
>>
>> What do you do regarding patients who write bad checks?
>>
>> Robert Modugno MD MBA FACOG
>> Marietta, GA
>> http://www.novaobgyn.yourmd.com
>>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
>>
>> This email may contain confidential health information that is legally
>> privileged. This information is intended for the use of the named
>> recipient(s). The authorized recipient of this information is
>> prohibited from disclosing this information to any party unless
>> required to do so by law or regulation and is required to destroy the
>> information after its stated need has been fulfilled. If you are not
>> the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
>> copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of
>> this email is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail message
>> in error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange disposition
>> of the information.
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:51:27 -0700
> ------------------------------
> From: "" <dean@thehuffpeople.net>
> To: "" <ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net>
> Subject: Lovely Newborn Babies ...
> Message-ID: <1099165887.4183f0bfe39cb@webmail.thehuffpeople.net>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> .
>
> I have what is (at least to me) an interesting story.
>
> Both of our daughters are adopted. They are both NICU graduates (and since
> we
> did not have a court order for custody for either until they were out of
> the
> NICU, we had to pay a dollar on the dollar for their hospital bills).
>
> Anyway, Joanne was not willing to even look at Becky until we had the
> court
> order. She did not think she could handle it if she saw the baby and then
> we
> did not get her. A male adoption had fallen through the morning Becky was
> born.
>
> When Becky was discharged to the lawyer, who delivered her to us at home,
> they
> took the usual pictures, which we purchased.
>
> Joanne thought Becky was the prettiest baby in the workd when she first
> saw her
> in the hospital that Friday morning, and this was confirmed when Becky was
> delivered to us at home on Saturday morning. She thought people would stop
> her
> in the mall and tell her how beautiful that baby was.
>
> About a year later, we looked at the hosptial picture of Becky. Actually
> she was
> kind of ugly -- she looked like a plucked chicken. But we did not see it
> at the
> time. (In all truth, once Becky gained her body fat, which was missing at
> her
> pre-term delivery, she DID look like a lovely new baby, and she is now a
> lovely
> -- most of the time -- teenager.) But our love for the newborn baby that
> we had
> just adopted overwhelmed our objectivety at the time.
>
> Dean Huffman
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:16:23 -0500 (CDT)
> ------------------------------
> From: hribot@mindspring.com (Hugo D Ribot Jr)
> To: OB-GYN-L@OBGYN.net
> Subject: Re: Rubber checks
> Message-ID: <200410302016.i9UKGNq12580@dns.obgyn.net>
>
> At Fri, 29 Oct 2004, RModugno@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>What do you do regarding patients who write bad checks?
>>
>>Robert Modugno MD MBA FACOG
>>Marietta, GA
>>http://www.novaobgyn.yourmd.com
>
> Robert:
>
> We recently acquired the technological means to verify whether there
> were sufficient funds in the account on which the check was written
> BEFORE the patient is seen for care that office visit (ideally) but
> certainly before she leaves the office.
>
> There is a special checking account verification modem analogous to the
> card swiper we use to instantly verify whether a Georgia Medicaid card
> we are presented is valid. I believe many retail businesses who accept
> checks have a similar device.
>
> Have your office manager call my office manager, Janet Rosser, at
> 770-383-8111 to get the details.
>
> --
> Hugo D. Ribot Jr., M.D., FACOG
> Cartersville, Georgia
> Private practice since 1990
> 2 MDs/3 CNMs
>
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
> End of OB-GYN-L Digest 3406
> ------------------------------
> ***************************
