Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / February 2006
Healthcare for the Rich and Spoiled
|
|
Thread rating:  |
NorthShoreCEO - 31 Jan 2006 19:09 GMT http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6885323/site/newsweek/
This concept of "concierge physicians" has now made it to my town, and will probably become quite popular due to the number of rich and spoiled people living here. How mad do you think these pampered poodles are going to be when they're faced with a serious illness requiring a specialist who won't have this kind of time for them?
shorteze@msn.com - 31 Jan 2006 22:43 GMT AKA Laziness. Hopefully there are doctors specialized in this, not doctors with normal offices who go out certain days.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6885323/site/newsweek/ > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > serious illness requiring a specialist who won't have this kind > of time for them? NorthShoreCEO - 01 Feb 2006 02:44 GMT > AKA Laziness. Hopefully there are doctors specialized in this, > not > doctors with normal offices who go out certain days. It varies, depending on whether or not they're doing this within their group, or are part of a larger corporation and doing this. Some people pay smaller amounts in addition to their insurance, in other cases it sounds like they're no longer paying insurance. Could people be that stupid? I say yes.
Part of it is laziness, but I think a larger part of it is wanting to feel that they're in some elite group. I live in a rather affluent area and I tell you, if one person has a broken garage door that's closed at a 30 degree angle, others will think it's a new look and ask where they got it. It's sick.
One of the doctors quoted in the article said, "Is it health care for the rich? I guess so," he says. "But when you come to my clinic, I'm not concerned about the national health-care picture. I'm concerned about you."
Gee....and all this time his patients believed he was concerned about them and apparently he wasn't. Swell guy.
00doc - 05 Feb 2006 18:52 GMT >> AKA Laziness. Hopefully there are doctors specialized in this, not >> doctors with normal offices who go out certain days. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > like they're no longer paying insurance. Could people be that stupid? I > say yes. As you point out the schemes vary. In some cases the doc still bills the insurance but basically charges a premium in exchange for limiting his patient panel (and presumably giving better access). I think this is the less common option because most insurers have clauses in the contracts forbidding billing the patient anything extra. Usuallu this means not billing the patient for the amount that is "disallowed" by the insurance company (really the amount in excess of what the doc agreed to take) but I'll bet most insurers would include extra premiums to stay in the practice in this.
In other cases the doc takes no insurance. There is almost always a fee up front and then waht happens after that varies (all visits included - pay as you go- etc). In this case many, if not most, people will still have insurance. They either will keep the regular insurance and just submit the bills themselves (which raises another interesting wrinkle*) or just keep a relatively low premuin high deductible "catastrophic" policy.
* The interesting wrinkle is that one of the factors (of many) that brought this whole thing about is that one of the insurance company's favorite cost cutting measures is to simply unfairly deny payments to the docs. It will be interesting to see what arguing directly with their client instead of the doc does with some of their payment policies.
> Part of it is laziness, but I think a larger part of it is wanting to feel > that they're in some elite group. I don't see it as laziness. I'm sure the docs that are doing this tend to be the more entrepreneurial of the bunch and as such are usually more driven, not less. As for feeling like they are part of an elite group, I'm sure that goes for botht he patients and the docs involved.
> One of the doctors quoted in the article said, "Is it health care for the > rich? I guess so," he says. "But when you come to my clinic, I'm not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Gee....and all this time his patients believed he was concerned about them > and apparently he wasn't. Swell guy. I don't think he meant that in the other cases he didn't care about the patient and now he does. What he meant was that in the old system he cared about the cost of healthcare, presumably to society, and now he doesn't. The implication is that while before he was fettered by cost now he is free to provide higher quality care. Of course, all the assumptions there are not true. Spending more does not necessarily bring higher quality care and he is no more free to spend now than he was before. The people willing to pay out of pocket have always been free to do so.
This is a natural and predictable outcome of several factors. The divergence of wealth and excesses of insurance companies (lowering payments and via several means - some above board and some not) combined with a free market system have made this expected if not inevitable. It is a problem for several reasons:
1) Medicine does not function well as a free market. For a free market to function people must be able to judge value and be free to not buy the good or services. Neither really applies to medicine. Similar things are happening with these radiology "life scans" and direct to consumer marketing. All of it should be severely limited for the same reasons.
2) The "business of medicine" probably already has too much of a corrupting influence on practice. This just increases it.
3) It is not smart for medicine as a profession. It is great for the docs who can do it but if it leads to shortages of care in some areas for people who cannot afford it (or just refuse to pay) then what will happen is either there will be a greater leeway given to alternative practioners (meaning mainly PA's and nurse practitioners) to fill the voids or legislation limiting or forbiding it. It would be much smarter for the profession to police itself in this regard. Not that I think that will happen.
 Signature 00doc
NorthShoreCEO - 05 Feb 2006 19:33 GMT >> Part of it is laziness, but I think a larger part of it is >> wanting to feel that they're in some elite group. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they are part of an elite group, I'm sure that goes for botht > he patients and the docs involved. Laziness (and being part of some elite group) on the part of the patient, not the doctor. The photo accompanying the article had a doctor making an office call and checking the vitals of a guy sitting in his office at his desk. In other words, too lazy to go into the doctor - everyone wants everything delivered to their doors these days.
SJF - 31 Jan 2006 22:55 GMT > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6885323/site/newsweek/ > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to be when they're faced with a serious illness requiring a specialist who > won't have this kind of time for them? Good point -- that the concept applies only to the primary care physician. This aspect is never mentioned in the standard presentations made to promote the programs that I have attended. In seminars provided by my former internist before his switch to this program, conversation with the attendees indicated a common belief that the two physicians making the change were doing it primarily for their own benefit. I don't need a lot of hand holding and found a new family doctor.
For what it's worth, I asked an advanced medical student if that's the way things are going. She said she didn't think so.
The program has been around for several years but apparently has a rather meager representation in most communities -- nationwide, a very small percentage. Here in the Las Vegas area, they only listed four physicians the last I heard. My impression is that the program was originated in Florida and has been thinly franchised across the country. There may be other similar franchise sponsors but the news I have read indicates one organization.
SJF
NorthShoreCEO - 01 Feb 2006 02:48 GMT > Good point -- that the concept applies only to the primary care > physician. This aspect is never mentioned in the standard [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > SJF I don't think this will become a widespread trend, either, but will be big in certain wealthy areas, as you point out. Baltimore has a large group (good thing doc is away this week), and I doubt that's the one you mention in Florida.
The article raises some great points. People are paying thousands of dollars for anywhere from 8 hours to three days of intensive testing. This testing may not be necessary and in some cases, can be detrimental to a persons health. And if these people are forgoing their insurance policies for this, they're really nuts.
I swear people would pay someone to chew their food if they could.
SJF - 01 Feb 2006 04:00 GMT >> Good point -- that the concept applies only to the primary care >> physician. This aspect is never mentioned in the standard presentations [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > I swear people would pay someone to chew their food if they could. The way it was presented here was that all our payments for services (by insurance or at personal expense) would remain the same except for an additional $1500 per year, per person, to the doctor. For this you get an expanded physical examination once a year. And you get hints that the doctor will always have time for you -- available 24/7 -- incredible. My analysis was that if you have an emergency, you'll still head for the emergency room and they'll still contact your doctor -- when he is available. To me, it appeared to be fine marketing but a questionable product.
SJF
NorthShoreCEO - 01 Feb 2006 13:32 GMT > The way it was presented here was that all our payments for > services (by insurance or at personal expense) would remain the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > SJF The way the docs are presenting it here in IL is sort of like yours. "Would you pay ($1,500 - 2,400) per year to your doctor, above and beyond insurance, to have your doctor available to you 24/7 and to personally take responsibility for all of your medical records to be more aware of all your medical needs?"
I thought having records from my specialists sent to my internist kind of took care of that, and as you say - if something comes up after hours, I'll either speak to the doctor on call, head to the ER, or call an ambulance. What benefit am I getting here?
The article, however, makes it sound more complex, with anywhere from 8 hours of testing to three days of testing each year. They don't make mention of insurance, so I'm thinking insurance isn't part of the picture. I don't know how insurance could be dropped, though.
I just looked at the article again and at Pinnacle, at least, "Members can get fast-track appointments with overbooked specialists, too." The express lane for the rich, and don't think the fear of a pandemic or some other catastrophe that's bound to take place, for which we are ill prepared, isn't playing a part in people doing this.
The funny thing about this is, that doctors are already so overworked in their offices, that the trend is adding "hospitalists", thus cutting out their need to go into the hospital, which takes time away from the office (or their family). If even a small percentage of doctors go this route with concierge service, they'll be reducing their patient base which will further tax the rest of the doctors. I guess that's when we'll see Physician Assistants used more. Unfortunately, we could find ourselves in a situation where doctors can pull away from managed care and charge whatever they like (some docs are also doing this here - accepting no insurance and their rates are really high), as they find themselves free agents who will dictate to the hospital and patient what the rates will be for various procedures. Kind of like Catholic priests do now, due to the shortage of priests. (I'm not being facetious, I'm Catholic and priests interviewing at parishes want to know everything from what kind of meals the cook provides, to what benefits they can expect with regard to country club and health club memberships donated by parishioners, etc.)
00doc - 05 Feb 2006 19:10 GMT > The way it was presented here was that all our payments for services (by > insurance or at personal expense) would remain the same except for an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > available. To me, it appeared to be fine marketing but a questionable > product. The problem is that if you are paying that premium the doc is likely to be less willing to order the generic rather than expensive new brand name drugs or to not order tests that really are not needed. I'll bet that "expanded" physical includes plenty of testing that is not indicated but will be billed to the insurer. Really, it does not take all that long to do all the physical examination and order all the tests that are indicated so these expanded exams almost have to be including things that aren't.
Consumer Reports just had an article on shortcuts docs often take during complete physicals advising people to make sure the docs do them. It totalled something like 4 physical exam items that probably would make less than 3 minutes difference in the length of the exam.
 Signature 00doc
00doc - 05 Feb 2006 19:05 GMT > I don't think this will become a widespread trend, either, but will be big > in certain wealthy areas, as you point out. It could become fairly widespread on a lower scale. In my area many practices are full and not taking new patients. I can easily envision them deciding to charge a fee to join (or stay with) the practice when they decide to re-open their panels. I doubt many communities could support the kinds of fees the articles are talking about but it could become common in some form.
> Baltimore has a large group (good thing doc is away this week), and I > doubt that's the one you mention in Florida. Huh, I didn't know that. I've never heard of it. I am near Annapolis so I am betting it is around here. if not maybe I should rethink things. Hmmmmm.......
Really, though, I hadn't heard of it beiong franchised either. I think most offices that are doing this are on their own. I mean, part of the whole point is to not be tied to outside companies.
> The article raises some great points. People are paying thousands of > dollars for anywhere from 8 hours to three days of intensive testing. > This testing may not be necessary and in some cases, can be detrimental to > a persons health. And if these people are forgoing their insurance > policies for this, they're really nuts. That much testing is certainly not necessary for hardly anyone. As I said in another post, most are probably not completely foregoing their policies. This brings up an interesting problem that shows why it is not between just the doc and his patient and should be the business of society to regulate this:
Right now when people self pay for these radiology whole body physicals (basically where they either CT the head, chest, abdomen, and pelvis or do a combination of different scans) the insurers don't pay for the original scans but do pay for the follow-up evals on any abnormalities found - and abnormalities of some kind are commonly found. The vast majority of these findings are of no consequence. So the problem is that when these people have something come up on their extensive three days of (unindicated) testing chances are it will provoke more studies and procedures that will be billed to insurance. Also, they will submit some of these bills to insurance and try to get some reimbursement for them and some of it will be paid.
The end result is that it is not just between the doc and his patient and chances are it will result in increased cost for everyone.
 Signature 00doc
NorthShoreCEO - 05 Feb 2006 19:53 GMT >> Baltimore has a large group (good thing doc is away this >> week), and I doubt that's the one you mention in Florida. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > mean, part of the whole point is to not be tied to outside > companies. Pinnacle Care International in Baltimore. They have three membership levels - silver, gold and platinum. Silver costs $5,000 per year per member and requires a $10,000 initial fee. Platinum costs $25,000 per year per member and requires a $30,000 initial fee. Gold lies somewhere in between those two. They have contractual relationships with Johns Hopkins (not John Hodgkins...lol), University of Chicago Hospitals, Harvard,Cleveland Clinic, Emory, Cedars-Sinai and Emory. They have informal agreements with MD Anderson Cancer Center, Columbia-Pres in NY, Mayo Clinic, National Cancer Institute (also in MD) and the NIH. And the NIH!!!! Anyone else have a problem with this?
Some corporations are buying these memberships as perks for their upper level executives, and 20% of the members are outside the U.S.
Yes, you may want to rethink your new job, after all.....
00doc - 06 Feb 2006 13:32 GMT >>> Baltimore has a large group (good thing doc is away this week), and I >>> doubt that's the one you mention in Florida. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Yes, you may want to rethink your new job, after all..... Nah.
In residency I spent a half day a week in a community pratice that had a lot of white collar workers. They usually came in with a list of wants* and really just saw the doc as, at worst, the impediment they faced to getting what they wanted or, at best, the waiter with whom they placed their order (preferably to go).
I decided that it was demeaning, often required bad medicine (to stay in business), boring, frustrating, etc, etc. They made it be known as I was leaving (finishing residency) that they were considering increasing their numbers by one. I didn't apply.
So I think we are going to see more of this in some form - mostly lower level fees to join otherwise closed practices and things like that and more "concierge" services for the rich (apparently there is still untapped market out there) - but it will not become universal for a vartiety of reasons. Some of those reasons have to do with the matients but some of it will be that it will not appeal to at least some docs.
* Usually they would come in with several minor ailments that could have been easily managed in the office and demand referals to specialists, demand tests that they didn't need, and demand meds that they either didn't need or were flat out a bad idea.
 Signature 00doc
00doc - 06 Feb 2006 14:05 GMT >>> Really, though, I hadn't heard of it beiong franchised either. I think >>> most offices that are doing this are on their own. I mean, part of the >>> whole point is to not be tied to outside companies. >> >> Pinnacle Care International in Baltimore. You might be interested in this one from their site:
"Do my Membership fees cover the cost of treatment? Membership fees do not cover the cost of medical treatment. Executive Physicals are paid by PinnacleCare regularly depending on the level of Membership. The Member must pay all treatment costs, either through their insurance coverage or personally. Fees won't exceed usual and customary charges for such services."
This is why this is a problem for everyone. The guy pays his gazzilion thousand dollars for his super elite president, CEO, or world leader membership and wants a super-duper-mega/meta nuclear scan to find out why he feels tired every time he flies from Baltimore to Japan. Do you think his doc is going to say "You have jet-lag and this is how you can minimize it (including advice to sleep instead of work and not have the cocktail on his first class flight)" or is he just going to order it? Since they don't include it in their services the bill will be sent to the insurer along with a (highly embellsheed) letter detailing why he needs it and often it will be payed - by you - the other policy holders.
>> They have three membership levels - silver, gold and platinum. Silver >> costs $5,000 per year per member and requires a $10,000 initial fee. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Columbia-Pres in NY, Mayo Clinic, National Cancer Institute (also in MD) >> and the NIH. And the NIH!!!! Anyone else have a problem with this? It looks like they are mostly a referal service. It sounds like they contract with certain organizations to give improved access in return for referals. This already goes on more than you know. Of course, it does hurt the access for everyone else while they make room for these guys.
>> Some corporations are buying these memberships as perks for their upper >> level executives, and 20% of the members are outside the U.S. Yep, which means not only are they referring paitents they are referring patients with better payor mixes (often the best - cash) which just makes them all the more attractive for the organizations they are contracting with with.
>> Yes, you may want to rethink your new job, after all..... I hate to break it to both of us but I may already be working for them and just not know it. The web site already mentions a relationship with Johns Hopkins and I'm sure that when an exec from out of town is looking for someplace to be seen our organizations has the impressive sounding name they are looking for and the access to give them (multiple sites and a lot of docs). I may have already seen some of their people and just not known where the referral came from.
 Signature 00doc
NorthShoreCEO - 06 Feb 2006 14:44 GMT > You might be interested in this one from their site: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > embellsheed) letter detailing why he needs it and often it will > be payed - by you - the other policy holders. I don't think it works that way. The members go into it with a list of tests that will be administered over their 8 hour to 3 day "medical spa" (lol) treatment and they know that anything outside those parameters are not covered in the fee. If, during those tests, additional testing outside those listed are necessary, the member should also know those are not part of the fee. If it's determined that something is found during testing that requires treatment, then that treatment will bear an additional cost, if it's something like cancer. If it's something like diabetes, the contract may or may not include treatment for that - it depends on the contract each of these services comes up with, and what level the membership is. That's my understanding of this, and the terms are spelled out to the member, and these outfits really push what they say are benefits to this: 1) keeping track of all medical records in one place, 2) recommendation of tests that are needed to assess one's health, 3) coordinating all tests to save time and trouble for the member, 4) having your doctors cell phone number so he/she are available to you 24/7, and 5) having priority access to get appointments.
>>> They have three membership levels - silver, gold and >>> platinum. Silver costs $5,000 per year per member and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > you know. Of course, it does hurt the access for everyone else > while they make room for these guys. No, they're not really a referral service, but they had to make arrangements with some facilities that agreed to get their patients in for testing or treatment within a shorter period of time, and so far, these are the organizations that have agreed to it.
>>> Yes, you may want to rethink your new job, after all..... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > docs). I may have already seen some of their people and just > not known where the referral came from. No, the physicians doing this have an agreement with Pinnacle and do all the basics themselves - they have no reason to refer anyone to an internist outside of the Pinnacle group of doctors, whether they're with Johns Hopkins or not, unless it's to see someone specializing in a problem that Pinnacle doesn't have in their group in that part of the country, or to get them in for hospital testing/treatment. The facility agreements are meant to expedite hospital testing and results and treatment. Even if you were part of an MSA owned by Johns Hopkins, you would have to be aware of the arrangement with Pinnacle, you'd have to sign a Pinnacle contract, and you would be paid a larger salary while cutting some of your patient base. Unless this all happened and they haven't told you because they think you're still the new kid on the block (what - 10 months later?).
MGB - 02 Feb 2006 21:00 GMT > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6885323/site/newsweek/ > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > serious illness requiring a specialist who won't have this kind > of time for them? i don't see this as anything that will catch on. as a physician, i can understand the frustrations of dealing with the health care system which is driving doctors away But this didn't catch on in Ohio, and except for a few elite areas (Hollywood, etc) it really is a dead end. as for me, I think I'd like to chuck this re-imbursement game (once I am out of debt) and buy a pub in key west.
Bob - 02 Feb 2006 22:36 GMT >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6885323/site/newsweek/ >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >me, I think I'd like to chuck this re-imbursement game (once I am out of >debt) and buy a pub in key west. Once you are out of debt? ROFLMAO!
|
|
|