Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6280)	3/7/2009 4:40:45 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

State tells doctor to halt retainer fee for medical care By Jennifer Peltz ASSOCIATED PRESS NEW YORK — Veteran doctor John Muney says his flat-fee, $79-a-month medical practice is a formula for making health care affordable and patient- friendly. But state regulators see it as self-styled insurance and have told him to shut it down. The dispute, which emerged this month, reflects a rising issue in what is sometimes called “retainer” medical care. At least two other states have grappled with whether to consider such arrangements insurance, reaching different conclusions. The question could become more pressing as jobs disappear in the ailing economy, taking many workers’ traditional health insurance plans with them. The debate “makes no sense to me . . . I feel that my flat-rate memberships provide a great service,” Muney said at a news conference Wednesday. He is negotiating with the state Insurance Department to try to keep the service at his five AMG Medical Group centers around the city. Supporters say flat-fee plans let doctors strip away insurance company costs and red tape to make everyday medicine more accessible and less hectic. Critics say they siphon much-needed primary care doctors from insurance networks and raise questions about equity — especially models that promise to make doctors more available to the fee-paying patients. The American Medical Association says retainer practices raise ethical concerns but also expand health care options. Muney, a former surgeon, started offering the $79-a-month plan last year. About 50 patients have signed on, not yet enough for the plan to break even; the rest of AMG’s more than 7,000 patients use traditional insurance. The monthly fee buys unlimited office visits, including certain tests and in-office surgeries and even a prescription-discount card. It doesn’t cover treatment requiring hospitalization or specialized care. AMG’s Web site says the arrangement isn’t insurance, but the Insurance Department says it meets the definition: charging a regular fee to provide a benefit in case of an unforeseen event, such as an illness or injury. Insurers are required to submit to a licensing process that examines their finances and capacity to deliver what they promise. “It’s not just a technical requirement to bust his chops — it’s to protect consumers,” said Troy Oechsner, the agency’s deputy superintendent for health. “I applaud innovation, but we also have got to do it in a way that protects consumers.” The department told Muney in a Feb. 2 letter to end the monthly fee service. His lawyer has since proposed adding $33- per-visit charges for all but preventive care; a department spokesman said the agency wouldn’t comment on the ongoing discussions. Other states have split on similar questions. The Maryland Insurance Administration concluded last month that offering unlimited office visits for a single fee might constitute an unauthorized form of insurance, though retainer practices offering more restricted services did not. But the Washington state insurance commissioner’s office concluded several years ago that such arrangements didn’t amount to insurance, because they concerned only primary care, spokeswoman Hilary Young said. buffalonews.com The "protect consumers", by not letting them buy a useful service they want. Some protection... H/T TideGlider

To: Lane3 who wrote (6280)	3/8/2009 6:17:42 PM
From: i-node	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Huh? I can see not reading it because its POV gets your dander up. But publications of all persuasions can and do contain useful and accurate information. All of them make mistakes and all of them contain bias, too, but the discriminating reader picks through that. Even publications with bias usually only display it on pet topics. Any publication can give you the facts on matters of fact and matters not politically loaded. Time included. I will not read any article in Time nor will I purchase the magazine. Their bias is so ridiculous as to make the publication worthless. Personally, I avoid ANY of these retail publications that have built-in bias whether it is Time or Salon or The American Spectator or whatever. I believe these publications serve only to confuse people who are too lazy or unable to do the work to discover facts for themselves. I much prefer to read serious publications. An excellent one on the business of health care is "Skin in the Game" by John Hammergren (CEO of McKesson). This is probably the most articulate, straightforward analysis of the healthcare business in America you cant find anywhere. It is a short book, easy read, that addresses the problems and proposes some reasonable approaches to solutions. But the writers for Time or the NYT or Newsweek simply do not have a sufficient understanding of the issues (whether health care or most any other fiscal matter) to discuss it competently. IMO, of course.