Interesting

[Anonymous]

Here is a letter from the Office of the attorney General in SC addressing TC/PC arrangments in the state.

http://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uplo...-pc-anatomic-pathology-arrangements-in-sc.pdf

A brief history: The medical board in SC in 2010 issued a statement discouraging urologists and gastroenterologists from engaging in TC/PC. The board subsequently petionined the attorney general to weign in on the issue and the attached letter is their responce.

The attorney general concludes that TC/PC is only legal if the billing physician (i.e the urologist) directly supervises the pathologists. The attorney general states this is a determination of fact that they are not in a position to verify or refute. The reality is that in TC/PC arrangments there is no supervision of the pathologist by the physician taking the biopsy. The notion is ridiculous, how can one doctor incapable of doing another doctor's job supervise that doctor.

The original individuals who complained to the medical board in SC are now obtaining supporting evidence to prove that a doctor in one particular speciality is incapable of supervising a second doctor in another speciality to present to the state legislature.

TC/PC is on the way out in SC, other states will follow. Anyone working at PLUS be advised your grave train will be gone soon.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, the grave train is coming to an end. Idiot. Plus suck arse anyway, bunch of punks and Dianon castoff's.

 

[Anonymous]

That argument makes no sense at all . No doctors supervise any pathologist when they send a biopsy to a pathology lab , so whats the difference if its TC/PC or global. This is just insane! Does the doctor drive to Quests pathology lab and supervise the pathologists reading the biopsy at the AP lab they send to? Just makes no sense at all. So from now on in SC a urologist needs to do a biopsy, pack up the specimen and drive it to the AP lab, and watch the pathologist as he makes a diagnosis .. What a joke!

 

[Anonymous]

"grave train"
Either a typo or clever Freudian play on words. Gravy or not, the word grave is very applicable to PLUS's near future.

Get out why you can.

 

[Anonymous]

If supervision is an issue in employment of one physician by another, should gastroenterology groups also not be able to employ an anesthesiologist to administer propofol? Should an Ortho group not be able to employ a radiologist to read the films from their MRI? Should the same Ortho group not be able to employ a physiatrist or an anesthesiologist with pain management?

 

[Anonymous]

If supervision is an issue in employment of one physician by another, should gastroenterology groups also not be able to employ an anesthesiologist to administer propofol? Should an Ortho group not be able to employ a radiologist to read the films from their MRI? Should the same Ortho group not be able to employ a physiatrist or an anesthesiologist with pain management?

The gastroenterologist doesnt bill for nor collect the professional fee for the anesthesiologist in the scenario. Both do their own job, bill for it and collect payment. This is unlike TCPC, where gastroenterologist bills for the professional work of the pathologist.

This distinction is important and is why office surgery centers will survive, but TCPC will not.

 

[Anonymous]

Either way Plus is scum. Always trying to work the grey area. Just slime covered management.