by James A. Bacon
Citing fiscal reasons, General Assembly Republicans have blocked Medicaid expansion that would have extended medical coverage to 400,000 uninsured Virginians. But they have tried to enact other measures to make medical care more accessible and affordable. Among other ideas, they have fought for expanding medical clinics, rolling back Certificate of Need restrictions on competition, and pooling insurance company data to create databases that allow analysts to spot inefficiency and poor outcomes in the health care system.
This year, a bill sponsored by Del. R. Stephen Landes, R-Verona, would have eliminated legal ambiguities discouraging physicians from contracting directly with their patients to provide primary care services for a fixed monthly fee. The bill declared that the contracting arrangement, commonly known as Direct Primary Care (DPC), did not constitute insurance and, thus, was exempt from insurance regulation. DPC proponents say it provides a cheaper alternative to accessing primary care through health insurance, which adds layers of bureaucracy and cost.
But Governor Terry McAuliffe vetoed the bill last week, saying, “While I applaud the patron’s desire to increase access to care, I feel this concept needs further scrutiny and study. … Not only would a product like this deter an individual from purchasing health insurance, it would still not cover any catastrophic care or chronic conditions requiring a specialist.”
Landes’ bill passed the House 97 to 0 with broad backing from patients, family practice doctors, small business lobbies and chambers of commerce. But it ran into trouble in the Senate when the insurance industry began lobbying heavily against it. As reported by the Associated Press:
Insurance companies don’t oppose the idea of direct primary care in principle, but don’t want imperfect legislation rushed through, said Doug Gray, executive director of the Virginia Association of Health Plans. This legislation, he said, is unnecessary and provides no consumer protections.
“There’s no problem that needs to be solved,” Gray said.
Does the insurance industry really want time to craft more perfect legislation — or kill the bill and any threat of competition? Does McAuliffe really want to give the issue further study — or is his veto payback to Republicans for blocking Medicaid expansion? I don’t know the answers, but I think those are fair questions to ask.
The AP described last week how Direct Primary Care works in practice:
In January, Dr. Maura McLaughlin started a new type of primary care practice in central Virginia. Instead of getting payments from insurance companies for each appointment, her patients pay her directly, and get unlimited visits for a fixed monthly fee.
McLaughlin has joined a tiny but growing movement of doctors nationally — there are only a handful in Virginia — who have begun to provide subscription-like service to patients, a model known as direct primary care.
Similar to concierge medicine for the rich, direct primary care can appeal to middle and low-income patients who struggle with high deductibles or can’t afford insurance at all. McLaughlin charges $60 a month for people over 31, $30 for 30 and under and $15 for kids whose parents are enrolled.
The change from typical primary care has been “wonderful,” McLaughlin said: She can focus on fewer patients, spend more time with each one, and worry less about dealing with insurance companies. Other doctors are taking notice, she says, including young ones, who might otherwise avoid going into primary care because of its relatively low profit margins and high-volume demands.
“This can change the trajectory of our whole system,” McLaughlin said.
That may be the real problem with Direct Patient Care — it would change the trajectory of the system. Many players in the health care industry are vested in the status quo and don’t want to see the system change, except on their own terms. And many politicians are so ideologically committed to an expanded role for government in health care that they want to grind out market-based alternatives before they can prove their efficacy. Meanwhile, legal uncertainties may discourage other physicians from following McLaughlin’s example, and Virginia consumers will be denied a choice that might benefit them.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.