Anyone working for FMC annoyed by this? - Page 2

Register Today!
  1. Nov 15, '09 by
    I've worked for FMC off and on for years. Used to get the sign-on bonus for 1 year then quit when it was up, go to work for Davita for a year (with a bonus), quit and flip back to FMC for another bonus...

    I'm working agency now at a clinic which has a nurse in training. I'm supposed to be done when she's trained up. Anyway, she told me the other day that she's not going to stay when her orientation is complete

    Chairside what a *******' waste! All the $$ they wasted on that crap and all the crap they sent out to clinics during the "roll-out". Posters, paperweights, doo-dads... Gotta love it when the computers sh!t the bed at shift change That's an automatic extra hour for the whole staff because everything goes to he!! and you have to play catch-up at the end of the day...

    And band-aids and raises aren't in the budget

    Gotta FMC!!

    They're paying for my hotel right now... My mileage check usually covers the hookers!

    Just kidding. Yea, I feel your pain. Just take care of your patients the best you can and try to make their time with you GOOD. Don't let your frustrations bleed over onto your patients!

    Remember you DON'T HAVE TO BE THERE. You can take a sick day or PTO. YOUR PATIENTS CAN'T.
    NDXUFan likes this.
  2. Nov 15, '09 by
    Quote from CocoaGirl
    I too received the union letter, but no one has approached me yet. Do you think a union will make any difference? One of the "old timers" at a nearby clinic told us to be careful about this union issue because in the past employees have been fired or "ran out" for trying to organize. Something needs done & soon.
    There is a bill afoot in Congress that would allow unions to have you sign a card that you are interested in a union. There would be no vote. The card you signed would count as your vote.

    There would be no secret ballot. The union will know where you stand on unionization. That law will NOT protect you. It will take away your freedom to vote the way you want without anyone knowing how you voted unless you tell them.

    Fresenius is protecting you from unethical union activity. Of course they would like it also if you didn't unionize. Although, I wonder how that works with a German company.

    If you are interested google . Union card check. You'll find info there.
    Last edit by Onekidneynurse on Nov 15, '09 : Reason: afterthought
  3. Nov 17, '09 by
    The only thing I can add (I don't work for FMC) working in a large dialysis corporation is to remember that they are all mostly for profit. I don't like it anymore than anyone else does when I see big annual reports that boast for huge financial success and very little, if any, filters down to me. But when it happens I just remind myself that I chose to work in a for profit dialysis company, and having been an administrator I know exactly what that looks like. I've done everything from being a reuse/patient care tech to staff nurse, PD nurse, charge nurse, administrator, etc. So I've seen every single side of it. As an administrator I hated having to put into place cost saving measures that I didn't necessarily agree with. But a flip side of that is to keep in mind that Medicare reimbursement for most dialysis treatments is only about $125, and then we only get 80% of that. Most of our patients don't have a secondary insurance to make up the difference and we all know they can't afford to pay it either- so we are having to dialyze most of them for very little money. Sad thing is that every other type of medical procedure (even doctor visits) are automatically adjusted upward every year- but not dialysis treatment reimbursement. It literally takes a vote in congress to get it increased, and they typically vote no because our care provided to their loved ones is the biggest drain on Medicare that there is. All the major kidney care providers have joined together to basically lobby Washington, so my suggestion is to find out what your company is doing and join forces with them to help your local US Senator and Representative see what changes need to be made. And if you're ever put in a position that forces you to go outside of the regulations or standard of care to do what has to be done remember that most companies have a compliance hotline that you can always call anonymously to make them aware of what is having to happen.
  4. Nov 17, '09 by
    I have been working for FMC for 6 years and seems it is the same --- short staffed, small or no raises and central admissions is a waste of money! I was thinking our area manager was the worst one but seems she has company. I am currently looking for change of employment and since I really do love dialysis I regret that FMC has such poor working conditions that this is necessary. Poor staffing and quality of care in outpt units has already put patients at risk! At this point union has been mentioned but I have not been contacted. Our unit would welcome a union at this time.
    Ceil
  5. Jan 4, '10 by
    In the good old days we had several choices of who to work for. Now the choices are very limited. I do not like how nephrology nursing has become entwined with for profit monopoly companies like FMC and DaVita. It's time for antitrust!
  6. Jan 9, '10 by
    Quote from rick3114
    In the good old days we had several choices of who to work for. Now the choices are very limited. I do not like how nephrology nursing has become entwined with for profit monopoly companies like FMC and DaVita. It's time for antitrust!
    Yes, I would agree, I am a capitalist. The dialysis chains are in need of serious competition. Normally, in the economic process, the more profit, the more competition will appear to make money. You are lucky, at least, you can leave, dialysis patients cannot leave. This is why I left Fresenius and made the switch to home dialysis. I agree with the Nursing staff, I was not impressed with Fresenius, absolutely lousy. The Nursing staff did the best that they could with what they had, which was not much. However, in about the next 5 years, I sincerely doubt dialysis clients will be coming to clinics to run on the machines. Technology is starting to progress to the point that in a number of years, this process is going to be a thing of the past. With the new technology, dialysis consumers will refuse to be institutionalized, as they are in the current situation. In fact, the dialysis industry is going to go thru a cost reduction period, because with the new technology, they will not need as many employees, not even close to what they have now. Yes, Obama is pushing his health care reform. However, the Democrats are going to pay for it, with their political lives, they are going to die in 2010 at the ballot box. If this plan is soooo wonderful, why are Obama, Pelosi, and Reid exempt, why are the rules for us and not for them? Ted Kennedy pushed for Universal Health Care, yet, that is not how he lived his life. Ted had the best health care in the world and while he had the best health care in the world, he believed that we, the common individuals, should wait months or years for our health care. Can we say Hypocrisy?

    I do not blame the clinic staff, I blame corporate management. I hear the applause for "Non-profit" status. Yes, the non-profit status does have benefits. Every company, at some point, non or for profit companies must make money at some point in time. Many non-profits and for profit companies have lousy management. How do non-profits stay in business if they lose money, year, after year, after year? Poorly run dialysis clinics regardless of profit status need to go out of business for the sake of the dialysis consumer, the Nursing staff and for society, whose resources they are wasting, day after day.
  7. Jan 9, '10 by
    Quote from NDXUFan
    Yes, I would agree, I am a capitalist. The dialysis chains are in need of serious competition. Normally, in the economic process, the more profit, the more competition will appear to make money. You are lucky, at least, you can leave, dialysis patients cannot leave. This is why I left Fresenius and made the switch to home dialysis. I agree with the Nursing staff, I was not impressed with Fresenius, absolutely lousy. The Nursing staff did the best that they could with what they had, which was not much. However, in about the next 5 years, I sincerely doubt dialysis clients will be coming to clinics to run on the machines. Technology is starting to progress to the point that in a number of years, this process is going to be a thing of the past. With the new technology, dialysis consumers will refuse to be institutionalized, as they are in the current situation. In fact, the dialysis industry is going to go thru a cost reduction period, because with the new technology, they will not need as many employees, not even close to what they have now. Yes, Obama is pushing his health care reform. However, the Democrats are going to pay for it, with their political lives, they are going to die in 2010 at the ballot box. If this plan is soooo wonderful, why are Obama, Pelosi, and Reid exempt, why are the rules for us and not for them? Ted Kennedy pushed for Universal Health Care, yet, that is not how he lived his life. Ted had the best health care in the world and while he had the best health care in the world, he believed that we, the common individuals, should wait months or years for our health care. Can we say Hypocrisy?

    I do not blame the clinic staff, I blame corporate management. I hear the applause for "Non-profit" status. Yes, the non-profit status does have benefits. Every company, at some point, non or for profit companies must make money at some point in time. Many non-profits and for profit companies have lousy management. How do non-profits stay in business if they lose money, year, after year, after year? Poorly run dialysis clinics regardless of profit status need to go out of business for the sake of the dialysis consumer, the Nursing staff and for society, whose resources they are wasting, day after day.
    We all have to realize that Fresenius does NOT make money from dialysis treatments. Break it down at $125 per treatment. With salaries, utilities, supplies etc it's probably a break even process. Where Fresenius makes money is with it's manufacturing of dialyzers, lines, and machines among other things. I too believe home hemo is the way to go but I don't see it in the near future. Some Fresenius units are trying to start units in NH's. Seems like a good idea except CMS regs consider NH patients as Home patients and they require each patient to have their own machine. So only one shift a day unless you want to have more machines. Also, a Home/NH patient must have a 1 months supply of lines, NS, dialyzers, needles, gauze available to them. If the patient goes home, say a rehab total hip, in 2 weeks those supplies have to be thrown out. So it's a real stretch to start that type of a program.

    Home hemo would be a $$$$ saver. Let the patient pay for electricity,water etc. No daily nursing expenses. Many around here have techs doing HH when the patient doesn't have a partner.

    With reform I see family doing much more care for the patient. With MRSA, c-diff, and e-coli pneumonia close to rampant in hospitals now they are becoming as dangerous as they were before practitioners realized hand washing was a good thing. I see home care in all instances blooming but with family doing the bulk of the care. I see hospitals only getting the ICU type patients and then only if there is a high probability of a cure.

    Reform in and of itself, as it's being touted now, will not bring down costs. And that is the real problem.. People need to take care of themselves literally and figuratively.
    NDXUFan likes this.
  8. Jan 9, '10 by
    Quote from Onekidneynurse
    We all have to realize that Fresenius does NOT make money from dialysis treatments. Break it down at $125 per treatment. With salaries, utilities, supplies etc it's probably a break even process. Where Fresenius makes money is with it's manufacturing of dialyzers, lines, and machines among other things. I too believe home hemo is the way to go but I don't see it in the near future. Some Fresenius units are trying to start units in NH's. Seems like a good idea except CMS regs consider NH patients as Home patients and they require each patient to have their own machine. So only one shift a day unless you want to have more machines. Also, a Home/NH patient must have a 1 months supply of lines, NS, dialyzers, needles, gauze available to them. If the patient goes home, say a rehab total hip, in 2 weeks those supplies have to be thrown out. So it's a real stretch to start that type of a program.

    Home hemo would be a $$$$ saver. Let the patient pay for electricity,water etc. No daily nursing expenses. Many around here have techs doing HH when the patient doesn't have a partner.

    With reform I see family doing much more care for the patient. With MRSA, c-diff, and e-coli pneumonia close to rampant in hospitals now they are becoming as dangerous as they were before practitioners realized hand washing was a good thing. I see home care in all instances blooming but with family doing the bulk of the care. I see hospitals only getting the ICU type patients and then only if there is a high probability of a cure.

    Reform in and of itself, as it's being touted now, will not bring down costs. And that is the real problem.. People need to take care of themselves literally and figuratively.

    Fresenius does not make money on Medicare patients, they make money on private insurance patients. My point is that at some place or at some point, Fresenius must make a profit. In the current form, the "health reform" of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will not save money, costs are going to explode. Obama, Fancy Nancy Pelosi, and Reid denounce the health care industry as "greedy." I wonder if Obama, Pelosi, and Reid work for free? Home dialysis is much better for the consumer and much cheaper in the realm of costs. To greatly reduce costs, we need a free market medical system, no, the current one is NOT a free market medical system. Insurance companies are protected from competition, this has raised premiums thru the roof. In addition, over 2,000 government mandates and regulations place the health insurance policy out of the price range of individuals with a chronic health condition. In other words, the political elite is buying votes, while stabbing the health consumer in the back. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid pat themselves on the back and think, "How great we are." Yes, they think they are great as long as someone else is paying the bill, we, the people. Yes, compassion to them is when they are reaching into someone else's pocket and they are not paying the bill. Quite honestly, home patients, within reason, do not need a home partner. This is an excellent site by Dr. John Agar, Professor of Nephrology, and Director of the Barwon Clinics, he is considered the patron saint of home dialysis.

    http://www.nocturnaldialysis.org
  9. Jan 9, '10 by
    Quote from NDXUFan
    Fresenius does not make money on Medicare patients, they make money on private insurance patients. My point is that at some place or at some point, Fresenius must make a profit. In the current form, the "health reform" of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid will not save money, costs are going to explode. Obama, Fancy Nancy Pelosi, and Reid denounce the health care industry as "greedy." I wonder if Obama, Pelosi, and Reid work for free? Home dialysis is much better for the consumer and much cheaper in the realm of costs. To greatly reduce costs, we need a free market medical system, no, the current one is NOT a free market medical system. Insurance companies are protected from competition, this has raised premiums thru the roof. In addition, over 2,000 government mandates and regulations place the health insurance policy out of the price range of individuals with a chronic health condition. In other words, the political elite is buying votes, while stabbing the health consumer in the back. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid pat themselves on the back and think, "How great we are." Yes, they think they are great as long as someone else is paying the bill, we, the people. Yes, compassion to them is when they are reaching into someone else's pocket and they are not paying the bill. Quite honestly, home patients, within reason, do not need a home partner. This is an excellent site by Dr. John Agar, Professor of Nephrology, and Director of the Barwon Clinics, he is considered the patron saint of home dialysis.

    http://www.nocturnaldialysis.org
    There aren't enough private pay patients to cover as much profit as Fresenius makes. Medicare is the bulk of their patient revenues.

    How do you figure they don't need someone present when they do HD at home. What happens if they mistakenly enter the wrong goal and crash? Who'd gonna give them saline to revive them? They certainly don't need a paid partner.

    Premiums have been raised because costs are up. Is your car insurance cheaper? Is your home insurance cheaper. I just find it weird that people think healthcare will get cheaper. So many seem to think the USA has an unending pot of money somewhere. We don't. I also have problems with people who think their lives and the preservation of that life should come cheap.

    Another thing is that many have insurance company stocks in their 403b/401k retirement funds. Now they don't send the money they've made off those profits back to the insurance companies do they?
  10. Jan 9, '10 by
    Quote from onekidneynurse
    there aren't enough private pay patients to cover as much profit as fresenius makes. medicare is the bulk of their patient revenues.

    how do you figure they don't need someone present when they do hd at home. what happens if they mistakenly enter the wrong goal and crash? who'd gonna give them saline to revive them? they certainly don't need a paid partner.

    premiums have been raised because costs are up. is your car insurance cheaper? is your home insurance cheaper. i just find it weird that people think healthcare will get cheaper. so many seem to think the usa has an unending pot of money somewhere. we don't. i also have problems with people who think their lives and the preservation of that life should come cheap.

    another thing is that many have insurance company stocks in their 403b/401k retirement funds. now they don't send the money they've made off those profits back to the insurance companies do they?


    i meant that they make money off of the private insurance consumer, i never said that their entire profit was from the private insurance patient, just that they do make profits from that consumer. my other point is that consumers do not need a partner during nocturnal dialysis.

    dr. agar:

    in our experience, this is more often an issue of ‘partner burn- out’ when the partner is trained as the dialysis ‘carer’ and thus must take responsibility for the dialysis as well as for most other family tasks. it is not our practice to train the partner as ‘carer’ but to always train the patient to self and sole care. it is of note that nhhd drop-out rates are far higher in the us which requires (carer-led nhhd) than in australia which encourages patient self-care nhhd.

    the benefits of nhhd include:

    no more of the usual side-effects of chd

    no more ‘crashes’ from falling blood pressure

    minimal (alternate nights) or no (5-6 nights/wk) fluid or dietary restrictions

    no need for phosphate binding medicines if ~4-5 sessions or more are given per week

    no need for bp medication for most patients

    no need for a dialysis partner (see below) – solo, home, overnight dialysis is not only possible but is practical in un-partnered people.

    further benefits include:

    stress on the heart is diminished

    calcium deposits in blood vessels regress

    sleep patterns normalize to generally refreshing rest

    sleep apnoea improves or resolves

    thinking clears and memory improves

    sexual drive/function improves


    and … as the biggest benefits of all:

    day-time and waking hours are given back

    day-time activities return to normal without dialysis interference

    energy to work and work capacity is restored

    employment opportunity is again equal with people not on dialysis

    independence and self-esteem is restored


    costs are up, what is the current rate of inflation? how many individuals do you know that are not looking for a deal when they are buying a car, car insurance, a big ticket item, or any other consumer good or commodity? costs in the medical field will be reduced when the health care consumer has some responsibility for paying the medical bill. costs do not increase at infinite pace, forever. "if current trends continue........." the problem is, they do not always continue, they must end at some point. in the past, the medical community has not been questioned about costs, however, now, we are starting to see push back. many parts of the medical community are simply just big business, without a proven health benefit to the health care consumer, such as cholesterol medication, mammograms, exercise programs, etc. in fact, many of the newer medications are not better than older drugs. the vast majority of sectors of the american sector have undergone cost cutting, except for the health care field. costs are up, because it is what health administrators decide to spend resources on x, y, and z. the same kind of games are played at the universities.

    in fact, the largest amount of money spent by the drug companies is on marketing, not research and development. the vast majority of drug reps have backgrounds in marketing, not chemistry or biology. the first goal of a drug corporation is to make a profit, not to help the health care consumer. if most patients only knew how the medical community is on the take from the drug industry............. the medical community says, "we cannot be be bought." oh really? why do you think it is that the drug industry spends over $20 billion per year wining and dining the medical establishment, because they love to give out free things? they do because it works! my r.n. sister and r.n. aunt have told me that the drug industry caters free lunches to their offices, 5 days per week. do you believe it is right for the consumer who is struggling to pay their drug bill to be paying for the medical staff's free lunches of cheesesteak subs, pizza, and danish??? the money is coming from that poor patient. the medical establishment should be ashamed. then, the poor patient goes to the appointment only to be lectured about everything under the sun, which many of those things have not been proven, the bmi index, cholesterol theory, exercise, and many other things. i have read many outstanding hard science people, including from m.i.t. and the new england journal of medicine that do not agree with these theories. if cheesesteak subs and pizza are soooooo terrible, why is the medical staff stuffing in their mouth, day after day? many individuals have started to have kidney issues from taking statins.

    professor of nephrology and clinical chemistry uffe ravnskov:

    "in the may 16 issue (2001) of the journal of the american medical association an expert panel from the national cholesterol education program has published new guidelines for "the detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol"(read the paper). their writing seems to be an attempt to put most of mankind on cholesterol-lowering diets and drugs. to do that, they have increased the number of risk factors that demands preventive measures, and expanded the limits for the previous ones.
    but not only does the panel exaggerate the risk of coronary disease and the relevance of high cholesterol, it also ignores a wealth of contradictory evidence. the panel statements reveal that its members have little clinical experience and lack basic knowledge of the medical literature, or worse, they ignore or misquote all studies that are contrary to their view.

    professor emeritus of organic chemistry joel kauffman, ph.d. m.i.t. 14 drug patents and 100 peer reviewed publications:

    relative risk reduction (rrr) is used to magnify results when
    the absolute risk reduction is small. if a drug, test, or device cuts
    the subjects with the medical condition from 2 in a million to 1 in
    a million, the rrr = 50%. but in such a case, why bother?

    . many clinical trials study mostly or entirely men, but the results
    are applied to women as well.

    . subjects in clinical trials may be 40-60 years old to start, but the
    results are then applied to those 70-90 years old and children.

    . key findings often are not in the abstracts of the articles
    reporting on clinical trials.

    [color=#a0522d]excerpts:
    "cholesterol is always present in our blood, and is necessary for life as an essential component of membranes, of nerve junctions, and of brain function (mauch et al., 2001), and as a source of hormones."

    "there was never satisfactory evidence that lowering tc or ldl in most people would be of the slightest benefit. while a correlation does not necessarily prove a cause, a lack of correlation necessarily proves a lack of cause. pretending otherwise is the scam."

    dr. jerome kassirer, former head editor of the new england journal of medicine(nephrologist) "statins are worthless." my primary care physician had dr. kassirer in med school said, "he is awesome."

    [color=#a0522d]this video is an eye opener:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udzq7tn6dm4

    [color=#a0522d]so, when you spend money are you looking to spend the most or the least amount possible? by the way, my auto insurance rates have not increased in a few years. why would you spend an excessive amount of money for no significant benefit or no statistical benefit?