We have done this. The success rate is low, and in some instances, we could not tolerate the plan, and so dropped it. (If more docs paid attention, and dropped intolerably low reimbursing plans, they would raise their fees or disappear - THAT is the free market. The same could be said of government programs - until they are compulsory).

But some did raise their rates to keep us on panel.

reports or observations of usually unscientific observers - Merriam-Webster

Notice the plural.

I would agree that PCPs do have to fill their schedule, just as any other service professional. I was under the impression that your assertion was that in order to succeed and not to be acquired a PCP had to stack their schedule.

I would be happy to give examples of operational efficiencies in private practice. A doctor may choose to partner up with some other physicians to consolidate administration. I set up up an office that contained an administration base for a number of my physician clients. We consolidated bookkeeping, payroll, HR. I also showed three of my physician clients the benefits of combining their practices. In that case, we saved the practice over $200K per year and it allowed them to grow by bringing on new docs. Last time I talked with them, they had gone from 3 struggling practices to a top-tier practice with 5 partners and 4 physicians practicing under the partners.

I am not a doctor, I am a businessman with years of experience dealing with insurance, financial advising, consulting, and investment banking. The last three almost exclusively with physicians. While you may be able to cure the various ails of your patient, I cure the ails of business. If you had brought someone like me into your practice before it went under, we might have been able to salvage it.

We both deal with people, so get off your high horse. I make sure people can make a living and provide for their employees. If you are not looking at the bottom line of your business, you have no place running a business, and have no call for sour grapes. If you do not focus on your bottom line, you fail in your responsibility of stewardship. There are tough decisions to be made in life, but they are decisions which must be made.

But still, abundance of anecdote is NOT evidence of anything, other than that you have an abundance of anecdotes.

Also, while we may not have the ability (not really true, negotiation DOES occur) to control what insurance companies reimburse, we do have control over what we will accept as payment. Given that control we can each decide, individually, how much “pro bono” care we can give. It is NOT anecdotal that declining reimbursements reduce the amount of charity care freely given. Just as it has been documented that lower taxation is correlated to higher charitable contributions to social welfare programs (in excess of the reduction in tax revenue). [ Cite: RALPH BRADLEY, STEVEN HOLDEN, ROBERT MCCLELLAND (2005) A ROBUST ESTIMATION OF THE EFFECTS OF TAXATION ON CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS
Contemporary Economic Policy 23 (4) , 545–554 doi:10.1093/cep/byi040 ]

To blindly take whatever you can get, be it less than your costs, or whatever, is irresponsible to yourself, your family, your employees, and your community. Every business owner in a comunity is

Your evidence was anecdotal unless you conducted a scientific sampling of a number of practices. I don’t know if you did or not, but from this conversation it doesn’t seem likely.