The AEG/WP plan still isn’t likely to work. A $95 PMPM fee, increasing at the same rate as other medical expenses, and coupled to a 12.6% reduction down stream would evaporate all of AEG/WP’s claimed billion savings. “Healthcare Innovations in Georgia:Two Recommendations”, the report prepared by the Anderson Economic Group and Wilson Partners (AEG/WP) forContinue reading “Attn: AEG/WP. Milliman study implies 12.6% downstream care cost reductions for DPC.”
Tag Archives: GPPF
The Nextera/DigitalGlobe study design made any conclusion on the downstream effect of subscription primary care impossible.
The study indiscriminately mixed subscription patients with pay-per-visit patients. Selection bias was self-evident; the study period was brief; and the study cohort tiny. Still, the study suggests that choosing Nextera and its doctors was associated with lower costs; but the study’s core defect prevents the drawing of any conclusions about subscription primary care. ADDENDUM ofContinue reading “The Nextera/DigitalGlobe study design made any conclusion on the downstream effect of subscription primary care impossible.”
A single-post critique of AEG/WP’s recommendation on direct primary care.
In “Healthcare Innovations in Georgia:Two Recommendations”, the report prepared by the Anderson Economic Group and Wilson Partners (AEG/WP) for the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, the authors clearly explained their computations and made clear the assumptions underlying their report. The report’s authors put a great deal or energy into demonstrating that billion dollar savings could beContinue reading “A single-post critique of AEG/WP’s recommendation on direct primary care.”
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.”
Nextera’s marketing presentation establishes huge selection bias, while revealing modest evidence that Nextera cuts cost for some of its patients. But the data set is tiny, old, and contaminated by results for fee for service patients!
UPDATE 5/31/2019. This needs a correction, but I want to leave it intact below for the record. I have in the title above and the text below that the Nextera data is contaminated by FFS patient data. This is not correct. To preserve HSA tax advantages, many of the Nextera patients did not want toContinue reading “Nextera’s marketing presentation establishes huge selection bias, while revealing modest evidence that Nextera cuts cost for some of its patients. But the data set is tiny, old, and contaminated by results for fee for service patients!”
The two largest and most current AEG/WP examples of downstream cost reduction failed to adequately address selection bias.
“Healthcare Innovations in Georgia:Two Recommendations”, the report prepared by the Anderson Economic Group and Wilson Partners (AEG/WP) for the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, makes some valuable contributions to deliberations about direct primary care. The AEG/WP team clearly explained their computations and made clear the assumptions underlying their report. This facilitates the public discussion that theContinue reading “The two largest and most current AEG/WP examples of downstream cost reduction failed to adequately address selection bias.”
Why did Wilson Partners’ research into DPC cost-reduction bypass uniquely available and pointedly relevant data?
“Healthcare Innovations in Georgia:Two Recommendations”, the report prepared by the Anderson Economic Group and Wilson Partners (AEG/WP) for the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, makes some valuable contributions to deliberations about direct primary care. The AEG/WP team clearly explained their computations and made clear the assumptions underlying their report. This facilitates the public discussion that theContinue reading “Why did Wilson Partners’ research into DPC cost-reduction bypass uniquely available and pointedly relevant data?”
Selection bias infected the best documented argument that direct primary care reduced downstream costs.
An update appears at the bottom of the page. “Healthcare Innovations in Georgia:Two Recommendations”, the report prepared by the Anderson Economic Group and Wilson Partners (AEG/WP) for the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, makes some valuable contributions to deliberations about direct primary care. The AEG/WP team clearly explained their computations and made clear the assumptions underlyingContinue reading “Selection bias infected the best documented argument that direct primary care reduced downstream costs.”
The marketplace reached a judgment about direct primary care pioneer, Qliance.
Note: In 2020, I posted an updated assessment of Qliance. Washington State is deservedly recognized as the birthplace and one of the most prominent frontiers for DPC, in large part because of Qliance. The Seattle-based DPC conglomerate is recognized as an exemplary market force in the private sector of health care. Major investors such asContinue reading “The marketplace reached a judgment about direct primary care pioneer, Qliance.”
DPC Referee 