While I have not had any rants on retainer medicine recently, the movement continues to grow. As I had assumed, this movement stems from dissatisfication in our current system. This dissatisfaction occurs in both physicians and patients. Appeal of retainer practices: Boutique care goes mainstream
After 11 years in hurried motion as an emergency physician, Daniel Frank, MD, decided he wanted to treat all of his patients as if they were his own family members. The Seattle internist liked the idea of starting a boutique practice — one in which patients are charged a set fee for certain extra services — so he could spend more time with a smaller set of patients. But he wasn’t interested in following the boutique tradition of catering only to the wealthiest members of society.
So, for what he considers a reasonable price of $99 a month — which equals about $3.30 a day — Dr. Frank offers extended-time and same-day appointments, e-mail and easy phone access, routine check-ups that might not be covered by insurance, a wellness program and a monthly newsletter. He also offers home visits for an additional charge. The way he figures it, the cost of membership to his practice is comparable to what his patients would spend each day on a grande Iced Caffe Mocha at Starbucks.
“My goal is to make it widely available to the middle class,” Dr. Frank said. “For the patients who pay that extra $99, it makes their experience unbelievably better.”Dr. Frank isn’t the only physician bringing boutique practices to the masses. Boutique practices arrived on the health care scene in the last decade as a fringe benefit for the wealthy, but they have become much more mainstream in recent years. The $20,000 annual fees that were characteristic of the first practices are far outnumbered now by those that charge between $1,000 and $1,500 a year.
I have written about the potential advantages of such practices. These paragraphs summarize those thoughts.
The additional income and lighter schedules allow physicians to spend more time with each patient, but most are hesitant to say their patients are treated better than if they visited a traditional practice. But some doctors point out that the extra time spent with a patient could equal better health down the line.
“In seven and a half minutes, I’m not saying I can offer the same exact care that I can in 30 minutes,” said Brent Agin, MD, who opened a retainer practice last year in Palm Harbor, Fla., with Michael O’Neal, DO. “We’re not better doctors, but we’ve created a system that allows us to spend more time with each patient.”
Retainer medicine is about money, but it is also about time. I have written about time repeatedly. Time is the curse of internal medicine and family medicine. We cannot provide the highest quality care without sufficient time. Since time is money, current reimbursement rates combined with increasing overhead makes it nigh impossible to spend enough time with each patient. In rushing through patients several things happen.
Shorter times tend to diminish the doctor-patient relationship. Short visits make physicians develop undesirable skills, like not giving patients the opportunity to raise new issues. The shortened times also decrease our ability to think through all the details of the patient. We should provide cognitive services, working through complaints logically, rather than ordering a few expensive tests, or referring quickly to a subspecialist.
Patients have several complaints. As I talk with non-physicians, they often complain of the difficulty the have in finding a physician. When they find a physician, they then complain of not being able to get a timely appointment.
The greatest compliment that I hear from patients is that a doctor spent so much time with them. Patients want to talk with their physicians. They understand the quickies are not satisfying. They (patients) need to tell the physician all their concerns, not just answer the questions that the physician wants to pose.
I think this movement will continue to grow. The cited article does a nice job of presenting both the pros and cons of this movement. The opponents are fighting a losing battle (in my opinion). This practice solution makes too much sense. It will continue to grow.
Related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
9 Responses to Retainer medicine spreads
R.G. Lacsamana
July 28th, 2003 at 9:44 am
Whatever euphemism you want to employ, boutique or concierge medicine is not going to smell as sweet as a rose.
I have heard or read all the rationalizations for this hybrid medical practice; they simply amount to crass commercialism and abandonment of all the ideals that have made medicine a unique and respected profession. I don’t deny the gradual bastardization of medical care that has taken place over the years, but
this “retainer” medical practice has leapfrogged over what I feel are the outer boundaries of what we expect physicians to do as trusted guardians of their patients.
I disagree with AMA that this is an ethical practice. Any type of practice that discriminates against those who cannot afford the fees is unethical and further perpetuates the perception that those with the financial wherewithal are entitled to a special type of medical care.
To paraphrase the late Winston Churchill, this is a matter up with which we should not put.
Time and money? Come on. This is all about money. Physicians who really care about their patients should have the time to do that, unless we care more about making more money and turn our offices into mass-production plants seeing 40 to 50 a day.
I did general Internal Medicine for 33 years, saw an average of 20 to 25 patients a day, spent enough time with all of them, and still made a decent living. Working earlier and having an efficient support staff in the office made all that possible,
not any worse than the hours we all spent during our residency days.
There is one further observation here: Patents enrolled in these “retainer” practices should not be under the delusion that they are going to receive better care.
Physicians, regardless of how many patients they see daily, should be available all the time to their patients,
and must make accomodations to decide on what to do for them under all circumstances. The extra time offered to concierge patients may be tantalizing, but it does not mean much for patients who put more value in the caring approach and type of care rendered by their personal physicians.
Somebody was mentioning that this was another type of insurance. This is another deception. This type of “insurance” does not take care of hospitalization, drugs, or other expenses unless one has traditional health insurance. That should be made clear to enrollees up front.
Although I have been a long-standing member of AMA, I do not support its stand on this issue and feel that the bill offered by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida to ban participating concierge physicians from collecting fees from Medicare is the right thing to do.
“Retainer” medicine is not about giving better care to the public; it is about changing the lifestyles of a tiny minority of physicians.
Lisa Williams
July 28th, 2003 at 12:52 pm
It’s horrible, terrible, reprehensible!
Now where do I sign up?
bill reith
July 28th, 2003 at 3:30 pm
Retainer medicine *can* be just for the money, and it *can* be to provide better service without losing money or working longer hours. It can even be both. What comes out the other end depends on what’s put into the mix.
Bernie Simon
July 28th, 2003 at 8:34 pm
You don’t realize how strange this all sounds to me. A homeopathic doctor is expected to spend an hour and a half minimum on new patient intake and half an hour on follow up visits. How on earth can you take a new case in half an hour, let alone seven and a half mintues? Does the patient even have time to sit down in the chair before the interview is over?
Is this how it works?
Patient: I get a pain in my back when I stand up.
Doctor: Here’s a prescription for NSAIDs. Schedule another apointment if the pain doesn’t get better.
God help the poor patient!
CHenry
July 28th, 2003 at 9:18 pm
The truth is, retainer medicine is about the money. It is about collecting the full charge at the time you deliver the service, or beforehand, in some cases. It is about not allowing a third party, the federal government, a state government, or an insurance entity get the money first, take its cut, and pay you whatever and whenever it feel like, regardless of what your costs might be. It is also about transparency, knowing beforehand that you as a patient will have to pay a fee (and not expect someone else to pay it for you) and for that fee, get a quantity of service that you expect, not a truncated facsimile of a service, necessitited by the predation of some third party.
The truth is that the third party payment system has become enormously costly in and of itself, with tremendous staffing, information, compliance, investment, profit and waste burdens added. There just isn’t enough money to pay for it all and have enough left over to buy the services themselves. Who can blame these doctors for opting out. No doubt they will soon have lots more company.
Bard Parker
August 2nd, 2003 at 4:54 pm
May I assume Dr.Lacsamana that you are no longer “doing” internal medicine? I haven’t posted on retainer medicine because it really can’t be applied to a surgical practice. But in speaking with my primary care friends they have had to turn their practice into a “mass production plant” because that is the only way to insure solvency of their practice, given how reimbursement has fallen. They would love to spend about a half-hour with each patient (given 20 patients over an eight hour day). But in a practice with ANY substantial percentage of medicare/medciaid it just can’t be done. I doubt an appeal to my patients if I could pay my liability insurance would be met like George Bailey’s need was met in “A Wonderful Life” .
Kathleen Carlton
August 17th, 2003 at 4:06 pm
I hope physicians in my area start this concept. I am tired of the “doc in the box” type of medicine. If a doctor wants to give quality medicine and still be able to afford to pay his malpratice, go for it!!
Old fasion quality, one on one, home visits and being able to actually speak with my doctor on the phone. Oh call me crazy, I guess I will just have to pay my insurance company less and give myself better care.OOH could that be why there is such an uproar?
Think about it.
Dr. Lorne Stitsky
August 27th, 2003 at 9:37 pm
In July of 2003, I started my own “boutique style” practice. I charge $1500 per patient, offer house calls and business calls, 24/7 avail, and I love medicine again. I am not taking HMO’s, only PPO’s and could not be happier with my decision. I offer this plan to patient’s with or without health insurance. Those without health insurance obtain catastrophic coverage and use my office for their health needs. I use to see 30-40 patient’s per day and started to question why I chose to be a family doctor. I didn’t get to know any of my patients or their family in 10 minute visits. I now spend 30-60 minutes with each patient and look forward to my future in medicine. If some people feel it is unethical to do this, talk to my patients.
It’s nice to love medicine again and feel like the family doctor I always wanted to be.
Laura
September 24th, 2003 at 2:30 pm
My generation is “BI” (Before Insurance) and we never had a problem. The Insurance industry inserted itself into the medical marketplace based on the greed in us all. “Just pay us a fee and we will cover all your costs”. The old “something for nothing” inticement. Then the monster took over, sucked the life out of medicine and made every man an insurance addict. This is the beginning of the end of the Insurance MONSTER! And they KNOW it! Look for them to pull out all the stops – legal and otherwise – to keep us maintain this system!