Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> a hospital still makes money when a resident sees and treats you

Hospitals lose money on residencies. That's why there aren't enough and the ones that do exist need to be subsidized by the federal government.



How does this actually work? I have never worked in a medical context and am ignorant of their internals so this is a genuine question.

I _have_ been a patient going to a specialist appointment where the only doctor I saw was a resident, and I don't think I or my insurance were charged any less. So if their work brings in the same amount of revenue for the same services, and if resident often do a lot of hours (I seem to recall several years ago their hours were capped to not be _dangerous_ but are still a lot), and they're paid less during their residency than after it ... why _don't_ hospitals make money off residents? Is there some training going on parallel to seeing/treating patients which is really expensive?


My source is my father who is a physician who chairs a residency. He’s always complaining about the business analysts wanting to cut the program because it’s not making enough. My understanding is that yes there are a lot of highly paid doctors at the residency who are basically just supervising the residents so you end up in a situation where you have just as many full doctors plus the resident costs to treat the same number of people. The residency also does a bunch of non revenue generating stuff like retreats and training every Friday which hurts margins.


I looked for a credible source for this claim. Hospitals say they’re losing money on residencies but there doesn’t appear to be an easy way to verify this. What if the federal government is falling for/complicit in a big lie (wouldn’t be the first time, see PPP “loans” when COVID started)?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: