Anybody who is in the business of selling the idea of direct primary care (DPC) to patients, employers, or politicians can anticipate the usual pushback that will arise in any Q and A format.
By Katherine Restrepo
Anybody who is in the business of selling the idea of direct primary care (DPC) to patients, employers, or politicians can anticipate the usual pushback that will arise in any Q and A format. “Why would I want to pay twice for health care?” “Are these doctors just cherry-picking patients?” “Is this health care delivery model just for the wealthy?” It’s nice that physicians are able to spend more time with their patients, but won’t a smaller patient panel exacerbate the physician shortage problem?” “If DPC is so great, why isn’t there more data to prove it?”
It couldn’t be more predictable. Really.
For those who need a quick explanation of direct primary care, it works like a health care gym membership. In exchange for a membership fee (the industry average monthly payment ranges from $25 to $85), patients have access to around-the-clock primary health care. They can even schedule same-day appointments and longer office visits with their doctors as needed. A major reason why monthly fees are affordable for the masses is because many DPC practices follow a micro-practice philosophy in which most resources focus on patient care. By opting out of insurance contracts and accompanied claims personnel, a DPC practice can sustain itself while devoting just one-third of revenues towards overhead.
So, how about those DPC myths? Let’s tackle the skepticism that DPC physicians have a vested interest in cherry-picking healthy patients to ensure lucrative business.
Dr. James Breen, co-founder of Vitral Family Medicine, a direct primary care practice located in Greensboro, NC, is one of many providers I’ve interviewed on the cherry-picking sticking point. He turns this notion on its head by providing an example of how DPC provides fast access to care for patients who need lots of medical attention. One of his current patients, a 50-year old male, initially scheduled a visit with an insurance-based primary care practice to be seen for complaints of blurry vision and was referred to an ophthalmologist. He left his specialist appointment without a diagnosis.
Dissatisfied, the patient decided to see what Vitral Family Medicine had to offer. At his initial assessment, he was diagnosed with diabetes for the first time in his life. His blood sugars read above 500. “It’s pivotal moments like these where DPC doctors can get back to the heart of doctoring,” says Breen.
The practice coordinated prescriptions for a glucometer, diabetic testing devices, and insulin. That same evening, the patient and his wife picked up these supplies at a nearby pharmacy after work and proceeded to spend two hours learning about effective diabetes management in his direct primary care doctor’s office; everything from administering insulin to checking blood sugar levels.
“For the first two weeks, we were in daily communication with him, either by phone or our electronic portal. As he improved, we were able to space out our communications. Now a few months into treatment, he is doing exceptionally well and we’re excited to anticipate the improvement in his quarterly labs for glucose control,” said Breen.
When asked about how DPC compares to the conventional health care system regarding access to care and treatment for medically needy patients, Breen expressed that the conventional system’s insurance demands and limited patient interaction make it difficult for physicians to practice to their full capabilities.
“I don’t want this to be a matter of ‘oh, we’re better diagnosticians or anything. It goes beyond that. We’re talking about a system of care. The processes of care in most conventional practices are unwieldy and make it difficult to allot the kind of high-touch and timely care that we were able to provide in this case.”
Anecdotes like this one matter for the purpose of dismantling the perception that DPC providers avoid dealing with complex patients. However, while qualitative stories are indeed important, the argument goes that if DPC is to ever become mainstream, more quantitative data is needed. The US health system has an obsession with patient treatment process measures and data-driven evidence based medicine.
Fortunately, large-scale DPC organizations like Paladina Health have compelling numbers suggesting that patients who are chronically ill find that direct care is more beneficial compared to accessing care in the traditional health system.
Union County, a self-insured employer located outside of Charlotte, has contracted with Paladina to offer its workers an additional health benefit option to seek direct primary care at Paladina’s near-site clinic. I’ve written about how the local government saved $1.28 million on health care claims in one year when board-certified physicians provided care for 44 percent of Union County’s 2,000 covered lives. This is what can happen when primary care physicians opt out of insurance-contracts. Less paperwork means more time to spend with patients as needed to effectively prevent at-risk health conditions or manage comorbidities. More time means better access which yields fewer specialist referrals, unnecessary hospital admissions, and emergency room visits. Studies show that in the traditional system of care, 43 percent of physicians spend more than one-third of their day on data entry and other administrative tasks. Other surveys say primary care physicians spend upwards of 50 percent of a patient’s office visit on the computer. 87 percent of surveyed physicians feel professional burnout due to these administrative demands.
The calculated savings is equivalent to the difference between the average per employee per month (PEPM) cost that consists of both medical and prescription claims incurred by employees who subscribe only to their consumer-driven health plan and those who choose to access care at Paladina’s clinic alongside their consumer-driven plan. That $1.28 million comes out to an average savings of over $260 per employee per month.
What do we know about that “44 percent” patient population? The end-of-year results indicate the following:
- Based on in-person office visits, 59 percent of Paladina members have at least one chronic illness, while 35 percent are diagnosed with multiple – the leading diseases being high blood pressure and hyperlipidemia.
- Of the 55 percent of Paladina members who have moderate to severe chronic conditions, over 90 percent of them are defined as being heavily engaged with their health care. Paladina defines “engagement” as having at least one in-person office visit per year at the near-site clinic. Patients with more than 3 chronic conditions averaged more than 5 visits in one year, while those with more than 1 chronic illness averaged over 3 visits.
- Paladina members with more than one chronic condition cost on average 28 percent less than the control group enrolled in Union County’s consumer-driven health plan.
Although control group data is not available at this juncture to compare the number of average annual in-office visits for chronically ill patients with Paladina’s statistics, it’s important to point out that Paladina’s patient population, including those who have complex medical needs, are voluntarily electing direct care. DPC attracts these patients because this method of health care encourages them to feel more empowered over their health care. The evidence also tells us that patients realize the value direct care has to offer and can make good medical decisions for themselves.
Katherine Restrepo is the Director of Healthcare policy at the John Locke Foundation. The Georgia Public Policy Foundation, an independent think tank that proposes market-oriented approaches to public policy to improve the lives of Georgians. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before the U.S. Congress or the Georgia Legislature.
© Georgia Public Policy Foundation (January 6, 2017). Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the author and her affiliations are cited.
By Katherine Restrepo
Anybody who is in the business of selling the idea of direct primary care (DPC) to patients, employers, or politicians can anticipate the usual pushback that will arise in any Q and A format. “Why would I want to pay twice for health care?” “Are these doctors just cherry-picking patients?” “Is this health care delivery model just for the wealthy?” It’s nice that physicians are able to spend more time with their patients, but won’t a smaller patient panel exacerbate the physician shortage problem?” “If DPC is so great, why isn’t there more data to prove it?”
It couldn’t be more predictable. Really.
For those who need a quick explanation of direct primary care, it works like a health care gym membership. In exchange for a membership fee (the industry average monthly payment ranges from $25 to $85), patients have access to around-the-clock primary health care. They can even schedule same-day appointments and longer office visits with their doctors as needed. A major reason why monthly fees are affordable for the masses is because many DPC practices follow a micro-practice philosophy in which most resources focus on patient care. By opting out of insurance contracts and accompanied claims personnel, a DPC practice can sustain itself while devoting just one-third of revenues towards overhead.
So, how about those DPC myths? Let’s tackle the skepticism that DPC physicians have a vested interest in cherry-picking healthy patients to ensure lucrative business.
Dr. James Breen, co-founder of Vitral Family Medicine, a direct primary care practice located in Greensboro, NC, is one of many providers I’ve interviewed on the cherry-picking sticking point. He turns this notion on its head by providing an example of how DPC provides fast access to care for patients who need lots of medical attention. One of his current patients, a 50-year old male, initially scheduled a visit with an insurance-based primary care practice to be seen for complaints of blurry vision and was referred to an ophthalmologist. He left his specialist appointment without a diagnosis.
Dissatisfied, the patient decided to see what Vitral Family Medicine had to offer. At his initial assessment, he was diagnosed with diabetes for the first time in his life. His blood sugars read above 500. “It’s pivotal moments like these where DPC doctors can get back to the heart of doctoring,” says Breen.
The practice coordinated prescriptions for a glucometer, diabetic testing devices, and insulin. That same evening, the patient and his wife picked up these supplies at a nearby pharmacy after work and proceeded to spend two hours learning about effective diabetes management in his direct primary care doctor’s office; everything from administering insulin to checking blood sugar levels.
“For the first two weeks, we were in daily communication with him, either by phone or our electronic portal. As he improved, we were able to space out our communications. Now a few months into treatment, he is doing exceptionally well and we’re excited to anticipate the improvement in his quarterly labs for glucose control,” said Breen.
When asked about how DPC compares to the conventional health care system regarding access to care and treatment for medically needy patients, Breen expressed that the conventional system’s insurance demands and limited patient interaction make it difficult for physicians to practice to their full capabilities.
“I don’t want this to be a matter of ‘oh, we’re better diagnosticians or anything. It goes beyond that. We’re talking about a system of care. The processes of care in most conventional practices are unwieldy and make it difficult to allot the kind of high-touch and timely care that we were able to provide in this case.”
Anecdotes like this one matter for the purpose of dismantling the perception that DPC providers avoid dealing with complex patients. However, while qualitative stories are indeed important, the argument goes that if DPC is to ever become mainstream, more quantitative data is needed. The US health system has an obsession with patient treatment process measures and data-driven evidence based medicine.
Fortunately, large-scale DPC organizations like Paladina Health have compelling numbers suggesting that patients who are chronically ill find that direct care is more beneficial compared to accessing care in the traditional health system.
Union County, a self-insured employer located outside of Charlotte, has contracted with Paladina to offer its workers an additional health benefit option to seek direct primary care at Paladina’s near-site clinic. I’ve written about how the local government saved $1.28 million on health care claims in one year when board-certified physicians provided care for 44 percent of Union County’s 2,000 covered lives. This is what can happen when primary care physicians opt out of insurance-contracts. Less paperwork means more time to spend with patients as needed to effectively prevent at-risk health conditions or manage comorbidities. More time means better access which yields fewer specialist referrals, unnecessary hospital admissions, and emergency room visits. Studies show that in the traditional system of care, 43 percent of physicians spend more than one-third of their day on data entry and other administrative tasks. Other surveys say primary care physicians spend upwards of 50 percent of a patient’s office visit on the computer. 87 percent of surveyed physicians feel professional burnout due to these administrative demands.
The calculated savings is equivalent to the difference between the average per employee per month (PEPM) cost that consists of both medical and prescription claims incurred by employees who subscribe only to their consumer-driven health plan and those who choose to access care at Paladina’s clinic alongside their consumer-driven plan. That $1.28 million comes out to an average savings of over $260 per employee per month.
What do we know about that “44 percent” patient population? The end-of-year results indicate the following:
- Based on in-person office visits, 59 percent of Paladina members have at least one chronic illness, while 35 percent are diagnosed with multiple – the leading diseases being high blood pressure and hyperlipidemia.
- Of the 55 percent of Paladina members who have moderate to severe chronic conditions, over 90 percent of them are defined as being heavily engaged with their health care. Paladina defines “engagement” as having at least one in-person office visit per year at the near-site clinic. Patients with more than 3 chronic conditions averaged more than 5 visits in one year, while those with more than 1 chronic illness averaged over 3 visits.
- Paladina members with more than one chronic condition cost on average 28 percent less than the control group enrolled in Union County’s consumer-driven health plan.
Although control group data is not available at this juncture to compare the number of average annual in-office visits for chronically ill patients with Paladina’s statistics, it’s important to point out that Paladina’s patient population, including those who have complex medical needs, are voluntarily electing direct care. DPC attracts these patients because this method of health care encourages them to feel more empowered over their health care. The evidence also tells us that patients realize the value direct care has to offer and can make good medical decisions for themselves.
Katherine Restrepo is the Director of Healthcare policy at the John Locke Foundation. The Georgia Public Policy Foundation, an independent think tank that proposes market-oriented approaches to public policy to improve the lives of Georgians. Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before the U.S. Congress or the Georgia Legislature.
© Georgia Public Policy Foundation (January 6, 2017). Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the author and her affiliations are cited.