/about/facepalmbear-5804f2af3df78cbc28913ff7.PNG)
Look, I've been a big fan of Direct Primary Care (DPC) and its cousin, Concierge medicine, for a very long time. But it is not a panacea. And under the ACA, it makes very little economic sense for most people.
Here's why:
On Twitter, Dr Matt McCord published a very cool graphic about the benefits of DPC. I replied that yes, the model does make financial sense for many providers, but not for most patients.
He replied "Not true in our growing High-deductible health care marketplace. Buy your own #healthcare fiduciary for $50/month."
And I responded "uh-hunh. Now do chemo."
To which the good doctor replied "A classic argument. Cancer, Trauma, Acute MI..these are not elective/preventative events. That is what Insurance is for."
Bingo.
Because that's the whole point: DPC doesn't provide for serious health issues (nor does it claim to, of course). That's up to the insurance. But under the ACA, plans must include most primary care already, so one is paying for it...twice.
How does this make financial sense?
And this is the issue I have with a number of DPC proponents: they're making the wrong argument. As long as ObamaCare remains the law of the land, there is never going to be a good economic rationale for DPC.
But there's a darned good health reason, and regular readers are already nodding their heads in agreement:
DPC guarantees quick access to care. It's why Britons, who have "free healthcare" willingly pay bigbucks pounds for the private version.
I wonder if/when our DPC friends will figure that out?
Here's why:
On Twitter, Dr Matt McCord published a very cool graphic about the benefits of DPC. I replied that yes, the model does make financial sense for many providers, but not for most patients.
He replied "Not true in our growing High-deductible health care marketplace. Buy your own #healthcare fiduciary for $50/month."
And I responded "uh-hunh. Now do chemo."
To which the good doctor replied "A classic argument. Cancer, Trauma, Acute MI..these are not elective/preventative events. That is what Insurance is for."
Bingo.
Because that's the whole point: DPC doesn't provide for serious health issues (nor does it claim to, of course). That's up to the insurance. But under the ACA, plans must include most primary care already, so one is paying for it...twice.
How does this make financial sense?
And this is the issue I have with a number of DPC proponents: they're making the wrong argument. As long as ObamaCare remains the law of the land, there is never going to be a good economic rationale for DPC.
But there's a darned good health reason, and regular readers are already nodding their heads in agreement:
DPC guarantees quick access to care. It's why Britons, who have "free healthcare" willingly pay big
I wonder if/when our DPC friends will figure that out?
Posts
