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, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), American Presidents, Defined Contribution Benefit Plans, Economic Issues, Employee Benefits, Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, Government Regulations, Health Insurance, Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA), Healthcare financing, Individual Market, Large group insurance market, Medical Costs, medical inflation, News From Washington, DC & Related Shenanigans, out-of-pocket costs, Policy Issues, Portable Insurance, Price Tansparency, Uncategorized

Trump could revolutionize the private health insurance market

Some believe the Individual Market is too weak to revive, given the hit it took as as result of the ACA.

I am optimistic that this ruling to utilize HRA is this manner will be a “shot in the arm” and revitalize the market again.

This article below highlights the benefits of a defined contribution approach as a means to purchase health insurance. Anything that makes us less dependent on ESI and gives more portability & options, freeing the labor market from job-lock is a good thing. – Forum for Healthcare Freedom

Avek Roy

“Last week, the White House finalized a rule that allows employers to fund health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) that can be used by workers to buy their own coverage on the individual market. This subtle, technical tweak has the potential to revolutionize the private health insurance market…

The council found an elegant way to give employers the opportunity to voluntarily convert their health benefits from a defined benefit into a defined contribution. For example, an employer could fund an HRA for each worker and their family, which they could then use to shop for a plan that best suits their needs.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-revolutionize-the-private-health-insurance-market/2019/06/17/bc8ccce4-9124-11e9-aadb-74e6b2b46f6a_story.html

Posted in Access to healthcare, Economic Issues, Free-Market, Healthcare financing, Medical Costs, out-of-pocket costs, Patient Choice, Price Tansparency, Uncategorized

Deflate the Healthcare Bubble!

Deflate the Healthcare Bubble!

I recently spoke to a colleague who needs a cystoscopy for stone retrieval and/or stent placement.

Local hospital quote is $25,000 for just use of facility, not counting anesthesia & urologist’s fee; with estimated patient responsibility of $5,000.

@Surgery Center of Oklahoma same procedure is $3,600 INCLUDING anesthesia & surgeon’s fee! Surgery Center Of Oklahoma

Suggested she use the extra $1,400 to pay for her trip to OK City and still save a few hundred dollars!

Posted in Access to healthcare, Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), American Presidents, big government, British National Health Service, Consumer-Driven Health Care, Dependency, Economic Issues, Education, Free Society, Free-Market, Government Regulations, Health Insurance, Healthcare financing, Leadership, Medical Costs, medical inflation, Medicare, outcomes, Policy Issues, Price Tansparency, Reforming Medicare, Uncategorized

4 Questions for Politicians Claiming Single-Payer Will Lower Health Care Costs – Foundation for Economic Education

Unfortunately, outrage buys fewer tongue depressors than one might hope. The top health insurers averaged 4.1 percent profit in 2017 (per Yahoo Finance). That’s taken on half (at most) of spending for-profit insurers handle. Eliminating those profits would save about 2 percent. Since health care gets 4.5 percent more expensive every year, that would in effect roll prices back to last August.


The UK saw costs risewhen it launched the National Health Service (NHS) in 1948. Health Minister Aneurin Bevan bought doctors off (“stuffed their mouths with gold”) to win support for it. Pent-up demand put it over budget immediately. In the first year, it spent 32 times what it had planned for eyeglasses. It had to raise salaries to attract more nurses. Prime Minister Clement Attlee pleaded over the radio with citizens not to overburden the system.

https://fee.org/articles/how-we-know-single-payer-wont-lower-health-care-costs/

Posted in Access to healthcare, Direct-Pay Medicine, Direct-Pay Practice Models, Economic Issues, Employee Benefits, Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, Free-Market, Health Insurance, Medical Costs, Medical Practice Models, Price Tansparency, primary care, Self-Insured Companies, Self-Insured Plans, Uncategorized

DPC and Self-insured Employers: A Benefits Trifecta


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. The savings can be substantial even after accounting for membership costs.

http://ushealthmedia.com/part-2-a-marriage-made-in-healthcare-heaven/

Posted in Economic Issues, Government Regulations, Influence peddling, Medical Costs, medical inflation, Organizational structure, Policy Issues, Price Tansparency, Uncategorized

Government-Enabled Kickbacks Escalate Medical Prices, Worsen Shortages, Stifle Innovation | PressReleasePoint


While there are more than 600 GPOs in various industries, only a few GPOs dominate the medical market,” Dr. Singleton writes. “The current fee structure raises an obvious conflict of interest: … since vendors pay the fees as a percentage of the product cost, the higher the price, the higher the GPOs’ fees.”

http://www.pressreleasepoint.com/government-enabled-kickbacks-escalate-medical-prices-worsen-shortages-stifle-innovation

Posted in Access to healthcare, advance-pricing, Economic Issues, Healthcare financing, Medical Costs, Network Discounts, Policy Issues, Uncategorized

Carrier Networks and the Cartel-ization of Healthcare

Agenda-May-15-margins-of-error-figure-2.pngby Robert Nelson, MD

 

When we have a situation, as we do in healthcare, where the networks have cornered the market and control the pipeline of patients, along with the magnitude & directional flow of money in the system, that which follows is a de facto CARTEL of very unequal participants; one where the disconnect between the ability of the supply side and demand side to send meaningful price signals to each other is necessarily suppressed by the financial design of the network payment/reimbursement mechanism.

What characterizes the network as a consumer/buyer benefactor by way of “negotiated discounts” for services rendered, in reality ends up suppressing the only forces (price signals) which are capable of determing value and controlling prices. All this being to the detriment of end users and/or first order buyers of healthcare resources.