Medi-Share gives its Christian take on DPC downstream cost savings: $31 — a year.

Christian Care Ministry (“Medi-Share”), whose 400,000 members account for more than a quarter of health cost sharing members nationally, recently acted to allow some of its members to receive credit for their entire direct primary care membership fees up to $1800 per year. That there is a certain synergy between DPC and health cost sharingContinue reading “Medi-Share gives its Christian take on DPC downstream cost savings: $31 — a year.”

Medicare, dual coverage, and opt-out. The cherry on top of the cherry-picking machine for employer-based direct primary care.

In 2016, the share of people between 65 and 74 who were still working was over 25%. Any of them working at employers with more than twenty employees covered by group health plans are required by law to be included in the employer’s plan. They may also enroll in Medicare Part B. Some employer plansContinue reading “Medicare, dual coverage, and opt-out. The cherry on top of the cherry-picking machine for employer-based direct primary care.”

Two new DPC brags failed to show bona fide risk-adjusted savings; together, they make clear that DPC brags rely on cherry-picking.

Two recent DPC brags fit together in a telling way. Nextera Healthcare reported non-risk-adjusted claims data indicating that employees of a Colorado school district who selected Nextera’s DPC option had total costs that were 30% lower than those who selected a traditional insurance option. But that employer’s benefit package confers huge cash advantages (up toContinue reading “Two new DPC brags failed to show bona fide risk-adjusted savings; together, they make clear that DPC brags rely on cherry-picking.”

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.”

DPC and the pandemic: more capable than FFS? Or less?

DPC advocates are talking a lot these days about how a pandemic shows the superiority of direct primary care. There are aspects they don’t talk about. The Milliman study’s survey — the same survey DPC advocates turn to when emphasizing, for example, how much telemedicine DPC clinics do — indicated that over a third ofContinue reading “DPC and the pandemic: more capable than FFS? Or less?”

A moment of clarity about selection bias – at a DPC summit.

At 2019 Summit, Mike Tuggy, MD, FAAFP, presented this: What Have Primary Care Practices Provided to Employers Who Invested in Primary Care? The Results Speak for Themselves–Reports from Across the U.S.2019 DPCSummit62019 Direct Primary Care (DPC) Summit His presentation began with high praise for Qliance and others. He suggested that these models might be usedContinue reading “A moment of clarity about selection bias – at a DPC summit.”

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.”

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.”

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.”