Waits to see Hub doctors grow longer: Busiest practices have no openings for a year

Despite Boston's abundance of top-notch medical specialists, the waits to see dermatologists, obstetrician-gynecologists, and orthopedic surgeons for routine care have grown longer - to as much as a year for the busiest doctors.

A study of five specialties shows that the wait for a nonurgent appointment in the Boston area has increased in the past five years, and now averages 50 days - more than three weeks longer than in any other city studied.

Patients in Boston and other areas of Massachusetts for years have faced notoriously long delays, according to earlier surveys of physicians' offices. A number of factors contribute, doctors said, but the 2006 health insurance law, which has required hundreds of thousands of state residents to obtain coverage, probably has worsened the waits.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/05/15/waits_to_see_hub_doctors_grow_longer/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed3

Boston had the longest delays to see dermatologists, obstetrician-gynecologists, and family practitioners, and was second after Dallas in delays to see orthopedic surgeons. Waits increased since 2004 for appointments with dermatologists, obstetrician-gynecologists, and orthopedic surgeons, but patients can get in faster now to see cardiologists; Boston ranked fourth in waits for heart doctors, behind Minneapolis, Miami, and San Diego. The company did not survey family practitioners in 2004.

Average times to get appointments with doctors in Boston ranged from 21 days for cardiologists to 70 days for obstetrician-gynecologists. But when surveyers called, some dermatology and family practice offices said they couldn't get an appointment for a year.

The survey did not address whether delays hurt patients, or why Boston is generally worse than other cities.

------------------------------

I am one of those who waits six months to see my GP, let alone a specialist. My ob-gyn books eight months out, as does my dermatologist. My ortho guy is great and I can usually get into see someone in the practice in 4-5 weeks. I can see a Physician's Assistant in usually 2-3 days.

For all those who are against single-payer or 'socialized medicine', if you think our system is more efficient or doesn't have egregious waiting times, do some research. My GP is for single-payer, and has told me stories about how she is monitored for writing too many scripts for pain meds, even though some of her elderly patients are in chronic pain from cancer or other diseases.

:dem:

-Laelth

i can get an appointment with my primary care doc within days. my dermatologist is about a 3 week wait.

We are running out of Dr.s to deal with our aging population. All these Baby boomers are coming up on the years where routine medical needs are needed.. 10 yrs ago, they went barely once a year for a physical. We do have a shortage.. and with the cost of a dr. degree, we will continue to face shortages.

Really, it wouldn't. You just need more doctors, and to get more doctors you have to put more into the system.

The organization doing the monitoring for the pain meds IS the federal government. The DEA. My doctor told me about it (not that I take pain meds - I forget how it came up).

Everything depends on implementation. Single payer could be worse or could be better, but if you want lower wait times, you are going to have to increase reimbursements whether it's single-payer or multi.

How can anyone live with an 8-month wait to see a gynecologist? Can you get an emergency appointment faster, or do you have to go to the ER? With wait times like those, I can see why Mass may be having such problems balancing the budget. They put a whole lot of money up for this, and if people end up going to the ER anyway it would defeat the purpose and raise costs.

I'm not against single-payer, I've just grown tired of people thinking it will automatically solve every problem. You can have a very good single-payer system if you put enough money into it, and you can have a very bad single-payer system if you don't. If you add a whole bunch of people to the system, you'd better be funneling enough money to the doctors to see them.

It's a recession. Mass. is better off than most states, believe it or not. It's still got one of the best educational systems. It's a densely populated state with most of it's population within 50 miles of Boston, which may account for the crunch to see doctors.

I don't believe single-payer will cure all ills, but I do believe that taking insurance companies out of the mix will help.

Excellent idea. Make people wait a year to see a dermatologist about that pesky mole. That way, they'll need an oncologist, too! :sarcasm:

But then she just looks at that one, instead of doing a complete mole check, because she is so booked that she only allows 5-10 minutes for an emergency.

We are sorely lacking when it comes to preventative medicine in this country.

(benign tumor, all gone, yea!)


Anyways, I was struck by all the ads around the waiting room for wrinkle removers. Many dentists make money with cosmetic procedures, too. Getting your teeth straightened makes a difference in chewing , but it's a shame to see dentists whitening teeth in when kids in the same town are losing teeth due to lack of dental care!

People say that single-payer will lead to rationing and waiting lines. Everybody should know they already exist.

Here people die because they can't afford treatment.

and you probably already know, but we already have rationing - if you don't have insurance, you usually also don't have the money to see a doctor.

:wtf:

When it's a matter of life or death, all the insurance company thinks about is paying for the treatment.

Just as those who are ill-informed about Canadian wait-times and many other things, I was unaware of the wait-times in the US. It is helpful for ALL of us to know the facts and this article certainly educated me!

Recommended.