Academic retainer medicine: an innovative business model for cross-subsidizing primary care

Do VIP medical services damage efficiency? New evidence of medical institutions' total factor productivity using Chinese panel data

This study examines the causal impact of very important person (VIP) medical services on hospital total factor productivity in Deyang, a prefectural-level city in western China, spanning the years 2015-2020. This aims to offer empirical evidence and policy recommendations for the implementation of VIP practices in the medical field. A secondary unbalanced panel dataset of 416 observations was collected from the annual reports of the Health Commission and 92 eligible medical institutions were included. This study utilized a two-stage strategy. First, the Global Malmquist index was used to calculate the total factor productivity and its decomposition terms for hospitals from 2015 to 2020. In the second stage, two-way fixed effects models and Tobit models were used to identify the relationship between VIP medical services and hospital efficiency; instrumental variables were used to solve potential endogeneity problems in the model. The results showed that VIP medical services had a significantly negative impact on medical institutions' efficiency. The technological advances and pure technical efficiency related to VIP medical care may help explain these negative impacts, which were heterogeneous across groups divided by the nature of the hospital and the outside environment. It is imperative to prioritize the standardized provision of VIP medical services for medical institutions, optimize management and service process, enhance the training of clinical and scientific research capabilities of medical personnel, and scientifically allocate resources for both VIP and general medical services. This will help mitigate health inequality while improving the overall quality of medical services.

On resource allocation in health care: The case of concierge medicine

Resource allocation generally involves a tension between efficiency and equity, particularly in health care. The growth in exclusive physician arrangements using non-linear prices is leading to consumer segmentation with theoretically ambiguous welfare implications. We study concierge medicine, in which physicians only provide care to patients paying a retainer fee. We find limited evidence of selection based on health and stronger evidence of selection based on income. Using a matching strategy that leverages the staggered adoption of concierge medicine, we find large spending increases and no average mortality effects for patients impacted by the switch to concierge medicine.

Keeping candles lit: The role of concierge medicine in the future of primary care

Universal coverage and financial sustainability are two competing aims in primary care. Patient empowerment and patient engagement have been suggested as essential ingredients of the recipe for innovative primary care models aimed at sustaining universal coverage. Concierge medicine is achieving a growing popularity among both scholars and practitioners as a direct primary care practice which allows to bridge the gap between patient empowerment and patient engagement. However, ethical and legal concerns hinder the diffusion of concierge models in the current primary care practices. This manuscript is aimed at providing an evidence synthesis of extant contributions in the field of concierge medicine in order to discuss its attributes and to examine its expected effects on universal coverage and sustainability. For this purpose, a systematic literature review involving 29 manuscripts was performed. The findings of this study pointed out that concierge models could play a significant role in enhancing the access to primary care and in improving the sustainability of the healthcare service system. However, the existing institutional arrangements which regulate the access to primary care should be revised to allow more spaces for the implementation of concierge practices.

Assessing the Patient Care Implications of "Concierge" and Other Direct Patient Contracting Practices: A Policy Position Paper From the American College of Physicians

As physicians seek innovative practice models, one that is gaining ground is for practices to contract with patients to pay directly for some or all services-often called cash-only, retainer, boutique, concierge, or direct primary care or specialty care practices. Such descriptions do not reflect the variability found in practices. For the purposes of this paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) defines a direct patient contracting practice (DPCP) as any practice that directly contracts with patients to pay out-of-pocket for some or all of the services provided by the practice, in lieu of or in addition to traditional insurance arrangements, and/or charges an administrative fee to patients, sometimes called a retainer or concierge fee, often in return for a promise of more personalized and accessible care. This definition encompasses the practice types previously described. The move to DPCPs is based on the premise that access and quality of care will be improved without third-party payers imposing themselves between the patient and the physician. Yet concerns have been raised that DPCPs may cause access issues for patients who cannot afford to pay directly for care. This ACP position paper, initiated and written by its Medical Practice and Quality Committee and approved by the Board of Regents on 25 July 2015, assesses the impact of DPCPs on access, cost, and quality; discusses principles from the ACP Ethics Manual, Sixth Edition, that should apply to all practice types; and makes recommendations to mitigate any adverse effect on underserved patients.

From personalized medicine to personalized science: uniting science and medicine for patient-driven, goal-oriented research

We developed a new model for initiating, coordinating, funding, and managing biomedical research projects. The concept involves engaging the patients with chronic conditions with no known cures into goal-oriented research activities. In this model, the patient seeks the help of a research organization to bring together a multidisciplinary team of research scientists and physicians to initiate research projects using the patient's grant funding, samples, as well as the management expertise. This model may be of interest to other research institutions because it has many benefits, including new sources of private research funding, when government funding is getting scarce, motivating scientists and physicians to work closely together on goal- and patient-oriented research projects, and using patients' management skills.

Uninsured patient opinions about a reduced-fee retainer program at academic health center clinics

BACKGROUND

Access Assured, an experimental program to deliver primary care to uninsured patients using a monthly retainer payment system, has been shown to provide a financially viable method of delivering primary care services to people without health insurance. This qualitative study was designed to assess patient attitudes and concerns about this program and to identify ways to improve it.

METHODS

We conducted telephone interviews with 40 purposefully selected Access Assured members between May and June of 2009. This population was stratified to include a sample of 20 patients from those who had elected to renew enrollment in the program after their first 6-month enrollment period. The other 20 patients were selected from those enrollees who had not re-enrolled in the program after this initial period. The semistructured interviews were based on an original list of 19 standardized questions, which were asked of each participant. All interviews were audio taped. The interview tapes were transcribed verbatim and content analysis was conducted using immersion-crystallization methods.

RESULTS

Content analysis identified 9 themes related to patient attitudes and concerns about this program. (1) Patients could not understand why they needed to remain enrolled if they were healthy. (2) Patients had variable levels of personal agency or responsibility for their own care. (3) Patients reported they had no choice and needed to enroll in the program to have access to care. (4) Patients liked that the program allowed them to choose their provider and see that provider with continuity from visit to visit. (5) Patients felt they were respected and treated the same as other patients. (6) Patients expressed appreciation for the program. (7) Patients had a range of comments about the quality of care and service they received. (8) Patients reported confusion about the rules of the program and often did not understand its terms and benefits. (9) Patients were under personal and family economic stress. Twenty of the subjects in our study had re-enrolled in Access Assured and 11 of the 20 patients who had not re-enrolled expressed an intention to do so.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study population expressed gratitude and other positive opinions about the retainer-based program for uninsured patients in 2 academic family medicine clinics. Conversely, some were concerned about the perceived lack of choice related to enrollment. Significant gaps in patient understanding about the program were identified. Based on these results, we have made improvements to the program and plan to continue to offer this care model to uninsured patients in our practices.