It's high time that medical professionals drop their `our schedule is so jammed up' posturing. Plus: rueful ruminations on last week's `impactful' lapse.
My mother had a big hang-up even with "impacts" as a verb, let alone in adjective form. The "approval" lines were very much drawn there, and my sister and I knew that if we slipped it counted for more than one loss in the standings. Silly, but that's the way a lot of people are with rules, of which grammar is just a subset.
One choice that causes my nose to go in the air these days is "comfortability," a favorite of sportscasters, who would be better not to try so hard and to remember plain old "comfort." I suppose "comfortability" is supposed to be extreme comfort, like with the athlete who's really settled in (I checked with ChatGPT recently, and it encouraged me not to go out of my way to avoid ending sentences with a preposition, by the way).
i have found trouble getting quick appointments, especially with specialists, and friends say the same thing. But I don't notice any bait and switch as you allege. I often say -- Remember how much trouble we had getting appointments now if and when our country (hopefully) turns to a more socialized medicine situation like the rest of the world and you start complaining the delays are all because of government involvement.
I blame corporate ownership for the whole appointment thing. They have doctors on a time clock now. They expect doctors to see a new patient every 8 to 12 minutes. Madness. One time, my doctor had to cancel an appointment for an emergency, no big deal. But on the reschedule they must have squeezed me in to this overbooked urologist. I arrived 15 minutes early (I don't know why we do that anyway as it's not productive for us really), and then after waiting 40 minutes past my appointment time, I asked the desk clerk how much longer. She gave me some lame excuse and I asked loudly if it would be okay if I showed up at my appointments 40 minutes late. I was led inside shortly thereafter. There's too much assembly line care these days. When my primary retires in the next few years my wife and I are going to probably bite the bullet and pay for concierge care. That'd probably be more impactful for us ;)
First of all Matt, I'm not a "provider" ... I'm a doctor. Second of all, maybe do your homework. You're a journalist. Right? Well act like one. You might want to start with Dan P's comment and then go from there. Oh by the way, if you think "national health" is the cure all to your dilemma maybe you should check out the elective surgery waiting times in the UK and Canada.
By the way, did your insurer pay for your car? Did you have to wait in line to buy your car? If you want to see your so called "provider" ASAP, do what Dan P is thinking of doing: pay for it out of pocket.
And another thing. A pet peeve of mine. Given that your profession is based upon wordsmithing, I'm surprised you don't understand how the profession has been degraded by lumping in "physicians" with mere "providers" and the implications of doing so.
Your assumption that Matt's appointment was with a physician is wrong, Bruce. And "provider" is the proper term as it encompasses more than just physicians. Physicians are not the only ones who provide healthcare. Go watch a good comedy. Laugh a little. It's good medicine. 😏
And NO, provider is NOT the appropriate term. "Provider" denigrates two time honored professions - physician and nurse - by using terms more in keeping with mere business transactions - as if health care was something that can be provided much like Amazon is a PROVIDER of stuff - rather than the time honored terms of Physician and Nurse who practice medicine and nursing. He did not see a provider. He saw or attempted to see a nurse practitioner (NP, since in Illinois PAs can not practice independently) ... NOT a provider. This is nothing more than the denigration of two time honored professions by the bureaucratic wordsmiths in the insurance industry and the federal government - for which you and Matt are obviously falling. And yes it is indeed laughable ... in a tragicomedic sort of way.
That being said, regarding Matt's original complaint, there are clear and obvious reasons, why he could not see an NP (or MD) in a timely fashion and why the situation is likely to get worse.
My mother had a big hang-up even with "impacts" as a verb, let alone in adjective form. The "approval" lines were very much drawn there, and my sister and I knew that if we slipped it counted for more than one loss in the standings. Silly, but that's the way a lot of people are with rules, of which grammar is just a subset.
One choice that causes my nose to go in the air these days is "comfortability," a favorite of sportscasters, who would be better not to try so hard and to remember plain old "comfort." I suppose "comfortability" is supposed to be extreme comfort, like with the athlete who's really settled in (I checked with ChatGPT recently, and it encouraged me not to go out of my way to avoid ending sentences with a preposition, by the way).
i have found trouble getting quick appointments, especially with specialists, and friends say the same thing. But I don't notice any bait and switch as you allege. I often say -- Remember how much trouble we had getting appointments now if and when our country (hopefully) turns to a more socialized medicine situation like the rest of the world and you start complaining the delays are all because of government involvement.
I blame corporate ownership for the whole appointment thing. They have doctors on a time clock now. They expect doctors to see a new patient every 8 to 12 minutes. Madness. One time, my doctor had to cancel an appointment for an emergency, no big deal. But on the reschedule they must have squeezed me in to this overbooked urologist. I arrived 15 minutes early (I don't know why we do that anyway as it's not productive for us really), and then after waiting 40 minutes past my appointment time, I asked the desk clerk how much longer. She gave me some lame excuse and I asked loudly if it would be okay if I showed up at my appointments 40 minutes late. I was led inside shortly thereafter. There's too much assembly line care these days. When my primary retires in the next few years my wife and I are going to probably bite the bullet and pay for concierge care. That'd probably be more impactful for us ;)
First of all Matt, I'm not a "provider" ... I'm a doctor. Second of all, maybe do your homework. You're a journalist. Right? Well act like one. You might want to start with Dan P's comment and then go from there. Oh by the way, if you think "national health" is the cure all to your dilemma maybe you should check out the elective surgery waiting times in the UK and Canada.
By the way, did your insurer pay for your car? Did you have to wait in line to buy your car? If you want to see your so called "provider" ASAP, do what Dan P is thinking of doing: pay for it out of pocket.
And another thing. A pet peeve of mine. Given that your profession is based upon wordsmithing, I'm surprised you don't understand how the profession has been degraded by lumping in "physicians" with mere "providers" and the implications of doing so.
Your assumption that Matt's appointment was with a physician is wrong, Bruce. And "provider" is the proper term as it encompasses more than just physicians. Physicians are not the only ones who provide healthcare. Go watch a good comedy. Laugh a little. It's good medicine. 😏
Exactly, that is precisely the problem.
And NO, provider is NOT the appropriate term. "Provider" denigrates two time honored professions - physician and nurse - by using terms more in keeping with mere business transactions - as if health care was something that can be provided much like Amazon is a PROVIDER of stuff - rather than the time honored terms of Physician and Nurse who practice medicine and nursing. He did not see a provider. He saw or attempted to see a nurse practitioner (NP, since in Illinois PAs can not practice independently) ... NOT a provider. This is nothing more than the denigration of two time honored professions by the bureaucratic wordsmiths in the insurance industry and the federal government - for which you and Matt are obviously falling. And yes it is indeed laughable ... in a tragicomedic sort of way.
That being said, regarding Matt's original complaint, there are clear and obvious reasons, why he could not see an NP (or MD) in a timely fashion and why the situation is likely to get worse.