Marshall on Dershowitz; or is he talking about me on DPC?

To put it baldly, if it’s a topic and area of study you know nothing about and after a few weeks of cramming you decide that basically everyone who’s studied the question is wrong, there’s a very small chance you’ve rapidly come upon a great insight and a very great likelihood you’re an ignorant andContinue reading “Marshall on Dershowitz; or is he talking about me on DPC?”

11% claims reduction, with no adjustment for selection bias, is pretty tame.

Paladina Health maintains a news and information page on its website. As of the start of 2020, Paladina’s most recent entry of favorable cost reduction results is entitled “Paladina Health gives Akron schools a cost-saving model” and links to this Crain’s business report of an 11% reduction in claims. There was no adjustment for selectionContinue reading “11% claims reduction, with no adjustment for selection bias, is pretty tame.”

A single-post critique of AEG/WP's recommendation on direct primary care.

1/13/2020 Update. See this post for some cost-adjusted data that suggests that direct primary care has net positive effects. Here’s a chronological list of posts relating to AEG/WP’s “Healthcare Innovations”.

A few brags from a few DPC companies is not a sound basis for public policy decisions.

Leave aside the specific critiques of the last twenty or so posts. The support for direct primary care in the report Healthcare Innovations in Georgia: Two Recommendations ultimately turns on the source material from which the report authors drew the key assumption that direct primary care reduces downstream care cost by 15%. That material comprisesContinue reading “A few brags from a few DPC companies is not a sound basis for public policy decisions.”

Total claims cost caution: when DPC is implemented primary care claims vanish. AEG/WP's 15% estimate is not conservative in the least.

When the direct primary advocates toss out figures about overall claims cost reductions, it’s important to carefully separate overall cost, downstream care claims costs, and overall claims costs. For example, the authors of the AEG/WP pitch for DPC in Georgia, have assumed a 15% reduction in downstream care costs and claimed that it “represents theContinue reading “Total claims cost caution: when DPC is implemented primary care claims vanish. AEG/WP's 15% estimate is not conservative in the least.”

A possible 11% reduction in overall care cost, adjusted for risk, is suggested by Union County's 2018 report.

Here’s some data that shows plausible overall cost reduction from direct primary care even after adjusting selection bias. It comes from the Paladina-operated clinic in Union County, North Carolina, the principal subject of two prior posts. The county employees choose either a high-deductible HSA under which primary care is received on a fee for serviceContinue reading “A possible 11% reduction in overall care cost, adjusted for risk, is suggested by Union County's 2018 report.”

To learn how much direct primary care can do, try it first in the ACA-compliant, full-benefit individual market.

If Georgia must mandate the availability of direct primary care, here’s how. For some future open enrollment period, the individual market will offer paired plans that differ only by how primary care is paid for and how it is received. Bigco, for example, offers Bigco Silver FFS and Bigco Silver Direct ; MajorCo probably offersContinue reading “To learn how much direct primary care can do, try it first in the ACA-compliant, full-benefit individual market.”

Three bad ways to bet the health of Georgia citizens on direct primary care.

Every published claim that direct primary care makes a significant dent in necessary health care spending is dubious at best. See, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. When the data from the Union County clinic — a Georgia Public Policy Foundation favorite — is age-adjusted, it indicatesContinue reading “Three bad ways to bet the health of Georgia citizens on direct primary care.”

AEG/WP's chosen actuary did not validate the assumption that direct primary care reduces downstream care costs.

AEG/WP report declares that “[Nyhart, an independent] actuary determined that “(1) the modeling assumptions are reasonable for this type of analysis and (2) the illustrative projections and savings are reasonable outcomes based on the modeling assumptions and data inputs selected.” This statement sounds like powerful support for report’s key assumption that direct primary care bringsContinue reading “AEG/WP's chosen actuary did not validate the assumption that direct primary care reduces downstream care costs.”