Re:Seattle doctors try flat-rate no-limit primary care
by jcromartie on Monday October 12, 2009 @06:06PM
(#877774)
A for-profit model using stock shares to entice doctors? It's already failed. They might be more efficient, but as long as profit is the motive and not spending money on treatment is the way to make a profit, it's only going to go downhill from here. Having shareholders demand more profit from a healthcare provider certainly doesn't sound revolutionary.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Seattle doctors try flat-rate no-limit primary care
by zaphar on Monday October 12, 2009 @06:41PM
(#877831)
Accept that this model at least allows market forces to shape it a little. As opposed to Insurance Companies who get locked in customers due to deals with an Employee. Since the doctors alone are responsible for getting customers and have to compete against insurance companies for those customers there is a good chance that this could succeed. After all if it doesn't work they'll just go under. But if it does then you have improved healthcare for at least a portion of the population. Doesn't sound like a net lose to me.
Re:Seattle doctors try flat-rate no-limit primary care
by Dove on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @10:28PM
(#880526)
Well, they've been around for 10 years and their patients seem to like them. I like them. So I don't think they have incentive problems.
They make a point of keeping any treatments they offer are revenue neutral. I just got a tetanus shot there today, and they sold it to me at cost. I like that, really -- it means they have no incentive or disincentive to give me medication.