Posted in Access to healthcare, advance-pricing, Economic Issues, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Independent Physicians, Medical Costs, Medical Practice Models, out-of-pocket costs, Patient Choice, Price Tansparency, primary care, Uncategorized

Wealth Extracting “Insurance” Bureaucracy vs Real Value-based Care: #DPC

From Dr. Lee Gross, Epiphany Health:

“New patient in the office today had a CT scan ordered by his urologist for presumed symptomatic kidney stones, which was denied by his insurance for 2 months. I ordered the study stat, cash pay. Done 30 minutes later, $220 cost paid by the patient. Stone identified, results given same day. Treatment and care plan initiated. Now that we have a diagnosis, the urologist has the insurance logjam relieved to proceed with a care plan if our conservative therapy is ineffective. Insurance is frequently an obstacle to health care.” #DPC

https://www.facebook.com/groups/DPCdocs/permalink/3473547759342175/

Posted in Access to healthcare, advance-pricing, Economic Issues, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Medicaid, Medical Costs, medical inflation, Medical Practice Models, Medicare, out-of-pocket costs, Patient Choice, Price Tansparency, Quality, Uncategorized

G. Keith Smith, M.D. — Health “Coverage” as a Distraction


I think it is good to be alert to any discussions that are “downstream of a flawed premise.” Let me explain.

When I hear, for instance, that the “flat tax” is preferable to the current income tax, I think to myself that this is a discussion of the knife versus the axe, a conversation far downstream of one addressing government spending or the very legitimacy of denying someone their earnings. After all, victims don’t generally care what the mugger does with their money. They just resent being mugged and no discussion about whether the mugger used a knife or a gun will likely provide any solace.

Similarly, I would argue that arguing for everyone to have health “coverage” is far downstream of the more original problem: the cost of healthcare. To provide “coverage” for everyone in the current climate of gross overcharging primarily serves the interests of those who employ the “what can I get away with” method of medical pricing.

The fierce push back against true price transparency by the cronies in the medical industry makes more sense in this context, as price honesty denies them access to everyone’s blank checkbook as the health cronies are well aware.

Supporters of government-guaranteed “coverage” object with the following arguments.

First, coverage is equated with healthcare. While millions of Canadians streaming across the border to secure their health needs could be used to refute the idea that coverage is synonymous with care, this disconnect has become more apparent in this country. Each passing day reveals Medicaid and Medicare “coverage” to be a “black mark,” an actual obstacle to obtaining care, as these government programs and their associated rationing through price controls and hassles are creating the lines the central planners intended. Physicians are either dropping out of these programs altogether or they are limiting their exposure to patients with this “coverage.”

Another objection points to the relief from financial devastation that having “coverage” represents. Keep in mind that not only are well over half of the bankruptcies in this country medically related, but almost three quarters of those filing for medical bankruptcy have insurance. This points powerfully to cost as the root cause of medical economic ills.

Acknowledging this is a slippery slope for the objector, however, for no economic system better provides for resource allocation than the market and the cronies and their government pals know this as well as anyone.

The market is the only source of price deflation with simultaneous improvement in quality. This powerful competitive mechanism has brought affordability to countless products and services in all industries and has begun to bring rationality to health care pricing as more physicians and facilities honestly post their prices for all to see.

Rather than focus on “coverage,” which allows the cronies to continue their financial feeding frenzy, we should remain unalterably focused on cost. The competition unleashed will result in a medical price deflation the likes of which will cause even the most skeptical objector to re-evaluate the role of “coverage” in the provision of payment for health care.

This is no prediction. This is exactly what is happening here in Oklahoma where so many health professionals have embraced the same market discipline every other industry must endure. The reasonable prices and high quality of care, have had such a wide appeal that Oklahoma City has evolved into a medical tourist destination for many patients far from here, while simultaneously bringing savings in the millions of dollars to those who actually pay for healthcare, locally.

This is my answer to another objection from those who claim the inapplicability of market competition to health care.  Whether the focus on “coverage” is a deliberate distraction by the crony propaganda machine or a well-meaning but misguided attempt to provide better access to care, we must keep our eyes on the “price transparency ball.” The Oklahoma market is already harshly judging those attempting to avoid this gaze and I believe this trend will continue as long as we identify, challenge and reject conclusions downstream of their flawed premises.

Posted in Access to healthcare, advance-pricing, Direct-Pay Medicine, Direct-Pay Practice Models, Entrepreneurs, Healthcare financing, Independent Physicians, Medical Costs, Medical Practice Models, out-of-pocket costs, Patient Choice, Patient Safety, Patient-centered Care, Policy Issues, Price Tansparency, Quality, Uncategorized

Transparent Pricing for Medical Emergencies | The Emergency Center

What the status quo apologists and the naysayers said was impossible, is a reality:

Emergency services with transparent pricing and NO surprise bills!

“Always staffed with board-certified physicians, ICU- and ER-trained nurses, X-ray technologists and helpful administrative personnel, The Emergency Center offers the same comprehensive emergency care and treatment as a hospital ER, without the wait. State-of-the-art CT, ultrasound, x-ray, and lab services on-site combined with compassionate care provides an unparalleled patient experience.

The Emergency Center and OnDEC Health have partnered together to offer direct contracts for emergency room visits, urgent and primary care, plus telemedicine. OnDEC Health’s innovative direct contracting opportunities save employers significant dollars on ER claims, while offering their members 24/7, no-wait access to premier concierge style freestanding ERs and more.”

Peyton Vooletich

Director of Business Development

https://www.theemergencycenter.com/fort-worth-er/

Posted in Access to healthcare, advance-pricing, Direct-Pay Medicine, Direct-Pay Practice Models, Entrepreneurs, Healthcare financing, Independent Physicians, Medical Costs, Medical Practice Models, out-of-pocket costs, Patient Choice, Patient Safety, Patient-centered Care, Policy Issues, Price Tansparency, Quality, Uncategorized

Transparent Pricing for Medical Emergencies | The Emergency Center

What the status quo apologists and the naysayers said was impossible, is a reality:

Emergency services with transparent pricing and NO surprise bills!

“Always staffed with board-certified physicians, ICU- and ER-trained nurses, X-ray technologists and helpful administrative personnel, The Emergency Center offers the same comprehensive emergency care and treatment as a hospital ER, without the wait. State-of-the-art CT, ultrasound, x-ray, and lab services on-site combined with compassionate care provides an unparalleled patient experience.

The Emergency Center and OnDEC Health have partnered together to offer direct contracts for emergency room visits, urgent and primary care, plus telemedicine. OnDEC Health’s innovative direct contracting opportunities save employers significant dollars on ER claims, while offering their members 24/7, no-wait access to premier concierge style freestanding ERs and more.”

Peyton Vooletich

Director of Business Development

https://www.theemergencycenter.com/fort-worth-er/

Posted in Access to healthcare, advance-pricing, Consumer-Driven Health Care, Direct-Pay Medicine, Direct-Pay Practice Models, Doctor-Patient Relationship, Economic Issues, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Independent Physicians, Medical Costs, Medical Practice Models, out-of-pocket costs, Patient Choice, Patient Compliance, Patient Safety, Patient-centered Care, Policy Issues, primary care, The Quadruple Aim, Third-Party Free Practices, Uncategorized, Wait times to see a doctor

More Patients Turning to ‘Direct Primary Care’ | Medscape

Christine Lehmann, MA

February 11, 2020

Having quick access to a primary care doctor 24/7 is very appealing to Mick Lowderman, 56, who is married with two children, ages 10 and 8. He pays a monthly membership fee to AtlasMD, a direct primary care practice in Wichita, KS.

Primary care is built on the long-term relationship between clinicians and patients. A 10- to 15-minute patient visit doesn’t support that relationship, Sullivan says.

When Kevin Boyd, 64, fell on his stairs in Wichita and broke three ribs, he didn’t go the emergency room. Instead, he called Umbehr, who told him to come to his office. He referred Boyd nearby for an X-ray and dispensed pain medications at his office. The total cost was $70.

In contrast, the first time Boyd fell and broke his ribs, he had Blue Cross Blue Shield and drove himself to the ER, where he saw the ER doctor, a radiologist for an MRI, and got shots for his pain. The total bill was $14,000, and he paid $2,600.

“I don’t put off care the way I used to because of the money I save,” says Boyd, who joined AtlasMD in 2015.
For his monthly membership fee of $75, Boyd gets several benefits, including unlimited 24/7 access to Umbehr by text, email, or phone, extended same- or next-day office visits, and free diagnostic tests and office procedures, such as EKGs, DEXA scans, and body fat analysis. If Boyd gets really sick and needs a house call, or if he needs a phone consult when traveling, those are also included in the fee.
Posted in Access to healthcare, advance-pricing, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), CPT billing, Deductibles, Dependency, Direct-Pay Medicine, Direct-Pay Practice Models, Economic Issues, Employee Benefits, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Individual Market, Medical Costs, medical inflation, Medical Practice Models, Organizational structure, outcomes measurement, Patient Choice, Policy Issues, Price Tansparency, Self-Insured Companies, Self-Insured Plans, The Triple Aim, Uncategorized

U.S. Healthcare: A Case Study of What Happens When “Insurance” Supplants Price-Transparent Markets

By Robert Nelson, MD

Our health insurance-based third-party payer protocols have pernicious and nefarious economic consequences on the cost of medical care; and in many ways has diminished access due to regulatory complexities that accompany these interventions.

The undeniable result continues to be a rampant increase in healthcare prices, which is catalyzed by the economic distortions of the 3rd party payer effect and perpetuated by the price-obscuring distortions of the CPT billing cycle.

We have taken the concept of insurance, designed to pay out rare higher-priced claims on unpredictable events, and turned it into a product whose design promotes an incentive for everyone to use it as often as possible.

Insurance is sustainable only when the financial risks of individually rare events are spread over a large population. When it also becomes a funding source for anticipated and affordable events, combined with a perverse incentive to utilize it to the margin, the result is the creation of a perpetual payout fund.

The costs of sustaining this model are never satisfied, being squeezed by patients who are chasing the benefits and providers who chase the billing codes to achieve maximal reimbursement.

As evidence for the negative consequence of misusing insurance as a pass-through system for virtually every healthcare expense (accelerated by passage of the ACA), we can examine the employer-sponsored group market premiums.

From 2007 – 2017 the average premium for family coverage increased by 55% and employee contribution rate as a share of premium cost increased by 74% over the same 10-year period; while median household income went up by only 3%.

To add financial injury to insult, the percentage of employees with an out-of-pocket maximum of greater than $3,000 doubled, going from 30% to 60% of employees.

“Eighty-one percent of covered workers have a general annual deductible for single coverage that must be met before most services are paid for by the plan. Among covered workers with a general annual deductible, the average deductible amount for single coverage is $1,505.” ~KFF.org

Between 2012 – 2017, the percentage of covered workers with a general annual deductible of $1,000 or more for single coverage has grown substantially, increasing from 34% in 2012 to 51% in 2017. Thirty-seven percent of covered workers in small firms are in a plan with a deductible of at least $2,000, compared to 15% for covered workers in large firms.

In the ACA individual market insurance exchanges, single coverage premiums (unsubsidized) increased by 62% and family coverage premiums increased by 75% just since implementation of ObamaCare!

Our third-party payer system has created a dependency paradox!

The same funding method that contributes to runaway costs also causes us to be more dependent on it for access. This guarantees that Healthcare will cost significantly more than the sum of its individual parts, and will continue to escalate faster than our ability to pay for it.

The costs associated with health plan premiums (aka insurance) have become a surrogate for health-care costs.

Now let that sink in!

In what other market does the cost of an insurance product act as substitute for the aggregate cost of the product or services that it insures?

Now apply a similar scenario to the auto insurance market. It doesn’t take much imagination to extrapolate how that would play out. But if you want some help visualizing the scenario, here’s a brief vignette. https://lnkd.in/eUGeCKv

Self-insured employer health plans are in a unique position to break out of this dependency paradox.

By contracting with a Direct Primary Care practice and re-routing subsequent encounters away from the more expensive insurance-based protocols, Self-insured employers can utilize creative plan designs to cut costs and improve employee satisfaction.

Data from the Qliance experience, and supported by other self-insured employer’s experiences, utilization of efficient primary care via the DPC model reduces unnecessary downstream care by approximately 50%, with the resultant aggregate cost savings of nearly 20%.

The caveat being, as we double the number of primary care visits combined with longer visits to adequately address problems, the need for emergent visits, ER visits and specialty intervention drop significantly.

A similar level of savings for direct-pay lab tests was noted in data published in 2014 by CMT journal comparing lab fees charged to a Direct Pay practice by the lab vs. the CPT billed charges by the lab (assuming patient had no coverage or had not met their deductible). For five common blood tests the savings was 89% by not using insurance, with lab billed charges of approximately $782 compared to a direct pay cost of $80. Plum Health, a direct primary care practice in Detroit, shows similarly impressive lab test savings of 87% on six common blood tests; $811 vs $106.

Many Self-insured companies are beginning to discover the value and savings in this approach, while breaking free of the coverage trap and the myth that health insurance equates to health care; and the realization that so-called “access” to inflated pricing and the phony discounts used to fleece the buyer is no longer a conversation they are willing to have.

Posted in Access to healthcare, advance-pricing, Consumer-Driven Health Care, CPT billing, Defined Contribution Benefit Plans, Direct-Pay Medicine, Direct-Pay Practice Models, Economic Issues, Government Regulations, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Patient Choice, Policy Issues, Uncategorized

Why Value-based Payment Methods Won’t Fix Healthcare

I’ve read several posts today on so called “Value-based payment” strategies and I couldn’t resist adding my 2-cents.

VBP can’t fix these fundamental problems because it is still based on a price-opaque shell game I like to call Fee-for-Coding, which results in:

1) Price insensitivity on the utilizer’s part.

2) Misaligned incentives on the provider’s part.

3) Lack of important price signals between buyers and sellers due to lack of advance pricing capabilities.

VBP utilizes the same fundamentally flawed economic system as our current billing model.

Moving to value-based care will require…

1) A system where prices are known in advance of care (not trauma or emergency care where extent of injuries or illness are unknown at onset – but even still a lot of those can be estimated ahead of time based on scenarios).

2) …that physicians be paid to be available to solve our problems, where payment is not tied to documenting work in a chart.

3) …that we move to a system that is based on defined contributions as opposed to defined benefits. As John C. Goodman is fond of saying, “money should follow people”, not programs and insurance policies.

Value will be elusive until we let the discipline of the market work in healthcare.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-value-based-payment-methods-wont-fix-healthcare-robert-nelson-md/

Posted in Access to healthcare, advance-pricing, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), CPT billing, Deductibles, Economic Issues, Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, Government Regulations, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Medical Costs, medical inflation, out-of-pocket costs, Patient Choice, Policy Issues, Uncategorized

On the Importance of Price Transparency

Dollar-under-magnifying-glass-1024x910On the importance of transparency… may I present exhibit A: https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/ethics/83459

Pay particular attention to the content of the last paragraph!!! 

“The Affordable Care Act mandates that health insurers cover all federally recommended vaccines…at no charge to patients,…

Kaiser Health News looked at what its own insurance carrier, Cigna, paid for those free flu shots. At the high end, it shelled out $85 for a flu shot given at a Sacramento, California, doctor’s office that was affiliated with Sutter Health, one of the largest hospital chains in the state. Further south, in Long Beach, Cigna paid $48 for a shot.

Prices in the Washington, D.C., area went even lower, to $40 per shot at a CVS in Rockville, Maryland, and to $32 per shot at a CVS in downtown Washington that’s less than 10 miles away from the Rockville location.

Picture1.pngOne expert told KHN that the variation has nothing to do with the cost of the drug, but stems from secret negotiations between health plans and providers. While patients are expected not to care since the shot is free to them, these costs come back to bite in the form of higher premiums — which is one of the major complaints about the ACA.”