Hi fellow LDSFFers!
I work for After Hours Medical, a Primary Care/Urgent Care company with 7 clinics along the Wasatch Front. The founder of the company is from Thailand, his name is Rachot Vacharothone. He is an MD and he really has a huge heart - he dedicates his life to helping others. He has come up with a plan that helps people that can't afford insurance obtain medical care for a low cost. He also believes that this is the answer for everyone's worries about the new Obamacare mandates.
Here's my pitch:
Health insurance premiums have gone through the roof. Employees find that paying for health insurance for their families takes too big of a chunk out of their paycheck and they have struggles making it financially. How did we get to this point?
100 years ago, healthcare worked completely different. You would call a doctor, they would come to your house, and you would pay them for their services directly. At the beginning of the previous century, insurance companies saw the opportunity to become the middle-man between patients and doctors and they took it. Since then, monthly premiums charged to patients have steadily risen and the insurance companies have formed their monopoly on the healthcare system.
Dr. Rachot's Health Benefits Membership Program goes back to the traditional method of direct patient-to-doctor exchange of payment. It works similar to a gym membership, only instead of being able to work out when you would like, you can receive basic healthcare when you like. You can pay a monthly payment to After Hours Medical under Membership and visit any one of the 7 clinics however many times you want for only $10/visit. Here are the details on payments: http://www.afterhoursmedical.com/membership-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This plan saves families without health insurance lots of money and gives them peace of mind. However, it is also designed to help those that do have health insurance. His logic is the following:
You don't bill your car insurance for oil and brake changes do you? No, you only use your car insurance for the "big stuff" like accidents. Can you imagine how much more your car insurance monthly payments would be if you used it for everything? THIS is why health insurance is so expensive, we use it for everything from a visit for a stuffy nose to major surgery.
People want low deductible health insurance and they pay a lot more for those plans. The truth is that most people don't even reach the deductible, meaning that their insurance doesn't even "kick in." They are essentially paying for nothing. Dr. Rachot says, look, if you're not even reaching the deductible, why not get a cheaper, high deductible plan, and use the Membership Program to cover the "little things" - 95% of all of your medical needs. There is a great chart on how this can save you money here: http://www.afterhoursmedical.com/membership-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
People that are members are reporting thousands of dollars saved each year - I am one of these people. This year my family has spent $1000 LESS than what I would have spent without the membership program. I am a big believer of this program, I think that it's great! Our members have nothing but praise for the program and we get new members every day. I would love to sign you and your families up with the program, just send me a PM or call me on my work phone: 801-260-1919 ext. 814. Also, [email protected]. I have a weird schedule with me studying at the university, so if I don't answer leave me a message.
DESERET NEWS STORY: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... tml?pg=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
CLINIC LOCATIONS:
DRAPER CLINIC
1126 East 12300 South
Draper, UT 84020
(801) 545-0600
AMERICAN FORK CLINIC
476 North 900 West #C
American Fork, UT 84003
(801) 492-1611
SOUTH JORDAN CLINIC
10433 South Redwood Road
South Jordan, UT 84095
(801) 501-0500
SANDY CLINIC
7998 South 1300 East
Sandy, UT 84092
(801) 255-2000
WEST VALLEY CLINIC
3451 South 5600 West
West Valley City, 84120
(801) 957-0900
LAYTON CLINIC
1550 North Main Street
Layton, UT
(801) 614-9030
HOLLADAY CLINIC
3934 S. 2300 E.
Holladay, UT
(801) 849-8500
Medical Membership - Cost-effective Healthcare
-
mes5464
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 29585
- Location: Seneca, South Carolina
Re: Medical Membership - Cost-effective Healthcare
I think this is a great idea and I would totally do it if I lived in the area!
So, I looked at the details on the web site and I still think the idea is great but I think this is too expensive.
Given, that the system will not cover hospitalization, mental health, etc I think he is charging too much.
Other than that, I think the idea is a sound one and it would be beneficial to people.
Given the types of services this plan would be able to cover a fee of $100-$200 a month is more appropriate.
In my case, I think $200/mth would average out for a year of medical treatment for my family of 8. That is
an estimate on my part based on paying cash and retail prices for services at a doctor's office. Add the fact
that the majority of people would not use any services for months or years (especially health young adults)
the clinics would be make a sizable profit. The problem with a plan like this is it doesn't help with the
problem of the majority of health expense in a person's life comes at the end of their life. Those services
would not be something this type of plan would cover (cancer treatment, heart surgery, other big ticket items).
Just my two cents.
So, I looked at the details on the web site and I still think the idea is great but I think this is too expensive.
Given, that the system will not cover hospitalization, mental health, etc I think he is charging too much.
Other than that, I think the idea is a sound one and it would be beneficial to people.
Given the types of services this plan would be able to cover a fee of $100-$200 a month is more appropriate.
In my case, I think $200/mth would average out for a year of medical treatment for my family of 8. That is
an estimate on my part based on paying cash and retail prices for services at a doctor's office. Add the fact
that the majority of people would not use any services for months or years (especially health young adults)
the clinics would be make a sizable profit. The problem with a plan like this is it doesn't help with the
problem of the majority of health expense in a person's life comes at the end of their life. Those services
would not be something this type of plan would cover (cancer treatment, heart surgery, other big ticket items).
Just my two cents.
Last edited by mes5464 on September 24th, 2013, 7:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
embryopocket
- captain of 100
- Posts: 522
Re: Medical Membership - Cost-effective Healthcare
There's a big push in marketing coming in the next couple of months - there is talk of going out of state. I imagine CO would be one of the first states considered if he is considering spreading his clinics Eastward. I'll keep you posted.mes5464 wrote:I think this is a great idea and I would totally do it if I lived in the area!
-
mes5464
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 29585
- Location: Seneca, South Carolina
Re: Medical Membership - Cost-effective Healthcare
Another thing I like about this is the doctor becomes the company owner instead of just an employee. They get to profit from the business directly instead of begin employees of the insurance company, which is what they basically are now.
-
embryopocket
- captain of 100
- Posts: 522
Re: Medical Membership - Cost-effective Healthcare
Yes, thanks for those 2 cents! The plan is not for everybody, some people may not find it practical for them (based on # of children, how often family members get sick, income, benefits offered at work, etc.). Hopefully someone that sees this on the forum will find it beneficial!
-
embryopocket
- captain of 100
- Posts: 522
-
jdawg1012
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1376
Re: Medical Membership - Cost-effective Healthcare
The problem with medical "insurance" is that it is no longer "insurance" (the mitigation of risk), but rather a subsidy.
So, now that we're talking one form of subsidized medicine over another, you have to look at costs. The cost of this subsidy appears to be $25 per month, per person, with a $10 copay.
Insurance I have had, has run between $25-35 per pay period, for a single person, and about double that for a family. The deductible on the last insurance I had was $500 per year (for the family), and had a $20 copay. So this plan is cheaper by about $300 per year for premiums/membership dues, and traditional insurance has $10 more per copay, but that disappears after 50 visits single or family (my last insurance was a $250 deductible for a single person, with an additional $250, at 80% coinsurance, until you reached the out of pocket maximum at $1000, IIRC).
Now, you'd have to compare the benefits. The only benefit I saw, was that for a minimum of $35 a month, you can get face time (for a few minutes) with a doctor. What of lab test, hospital stays, etc. You're right that in the olden days doctors made house calls, but doctors also weren't wealthy (according to my late father, who lived in the time period). If doctors made 50-75k a year, they'd make an hourly wage of about $25-$32.5 an hour. If they also got paid only for the time they were with me, they're only get paid about $5 (for 10-12 minutes that they now visit with people), NOT $35 a visit for a few minute visit, and $10 thereafter (until next month, when it's $35 again).
But I digress. I think there may be some limited use of this type of subsidy system (in which healthy people pay the profits that would otherwise be less realized by people who use the $10 fee often), as the current subsidy system fails more and more, but I don't know that it'll be very popular among the general populace, because, in my opinion, the lower costs wouldn't appear to be preferable with the accompanying lower coverage. I think that may be why there are no takers.
This appears to take the last, dwindling essences of "insurance" out, in favor of a subsidy. If there's no Insurance (mitigation of risk), against a great cost situation (like hospitalization), then there's no incentive (at least for healthy people, who'd have to bear the real costs) to buy this subsidy over simply paying cash when the need arises. It would, in fact, generally be cheaper for those who are healthy to simply do that, and for those that are not, to simply go with traditional "insurance." It takes healthy people to make this subsidy work, and if they have no perceived benefit, it won't last a long time.
The problem with the medical field is one of over regulation, creating limited supply, and an artificially high demand, coupled with tort laws, and socialism. If doctors simply charged an appropriate hourly free (contingent upon them actually being allowed to), at the time of their services, medical care would largely be affordable to all. They didn't used to make house calls because they were generous, they made house calls, because they had to cater to their clientele if they wanted to eat.
So, now that we're talking one form of subsidized medicine over another, you have to look at costs. The cost of this subsidy appears to be $25 per month, per person, with a $10 copay.
Insurance I have had, has run between $25-35 per pay period, for a single person, and about double that for a family. The deductible on the last insurance I had was $500 per year (for the family), and had a $20 copay. So this plan is cheaper by about $300 per year for premiums/membership dues, and traditional insurance has $10 more per copay, but that disappears after 50 visits single or family (my last insurance was a $250 deductible for a single person, with an additional $250, at 80% coinsurance, until you reached the out of pocket maximum at $1000, IIRC).
Now, you'd have to compare the benefits. The only benefit I saw, was that for a minimum of $35 a month, you can get face time (for a few minutes) with a doctor. What of lab test, hospital stays, etc. You're right that in the olden days doctors made house calls, but doctors also weren't wealthy (according to my late father, who lived in the time period). If doctors made 50-75k a year, they'd make an hourly wage of about $25-$32.5 an hour. If they also got paid only for the time they were with me, they're only get paid about $5 (for 10-12 minutes that they now visit with people), NOT $35 a visit for a few minute visit, and $10 thereafter (until next month, when it's $35 again).
But I digress. I think there may be some limited use of this type of subsidy system (in which healthy people pay the profits that would otherwise be less realized by people who use the $10 fee often), as the current subsidy system fails more and more, but I don't know that it'll be very popular among the general populace, because, in my opinion, the lower costs wouldn't appear to be preferable with the accompanying lower coverage. I think that may be why there are no takers.
This appears to take the last, dwindling essences of "insurance" out, in favor of a subsidy. If there's no Insurance (mitigation of risk), against a great cost situation (like hospitalization), then there's no incentive (at least for healthy people, who'd have to bear the real costs) to buy this subsidy over simply paying cash when the need arises. It would, in fact, generally be cheaper for those who are healthy to simply do that, and for those that are not, to simply go with traditional "insurance." It takes healthy people to make this subsidy work, and if they have no perceived benefit, it won't last a long time.
The problem with the medical field is one of over regulation, creating limited supply, and an artificially high demand, coupled with tort laws, and socialism. If doctors simply charged an appropriate hourly free (contingent upon them actually being allowed to), at the time of their services, medical care would largely be affordable to all. They didn't used to make house calls because they were generous, they made house calls, because they had to cater to their clientele if they wanted to eat.
-
jdawg1012
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1376
Re: Medical Membership - Cost-effective Healthcare
Just to add, medical subsidies require a bunch of non users to shoulder the financial burden, they collapse without the people who are paying something for nothing.
Case in point, an old friend of mine told me about an insurance salesman who came from back east to BYU in the or 60's (IIRC). He said the man came and was selling an insurance policy with unheard-of-to-Utahns good payouts for birthing. Because the actuaries weren't used to prolific Latter-day Saint Child bearing, they didn't adjust the costs (remember this is a subsidy, not a risk, because they're GOING to have babies, and lots of them). In any event, this salesman sold the policies had over fist that fall. According to my friend, he sold so many, he won the salesman of the year award. The next year, everyone had their babies, and being contractually obligated to pay out, the company went insolvent. In short, the system needed people not having babies to subsidize those who were, but since everyone was having babies, the subsidy scheme collapsed.
So you see, it takes paying, but not using, members to offset the using, but not paying members, or it doesn't work. And there's little benefit over cash for this type of subsidy system. Therefore, the costs must necessarily rise to reflect the number of people using the system (as someone else mentioned, the cost is too low), or the number of payers (but not users) has to be very high (the group that is unlikely to pay dues for the privilege of paying a low copay, but not having actual insurance), or the idea is untenable in the long term. I guess time will tell.
Case in point, an old friend of mine told me about an insurance salesman who came from back east to BYU in the or 60's (IIRC). He said the man came and was selling an insurance policy with unheard-of-to-Utahns good payouts for birthing. Because the actuaries weren't used to prolific Latter-day Saint Child bearing, they didn't adjust the costs (remember this is a subsidy, not a risk, because they're GOING to have babies, and lots of them). In any event, this salesman sold the policies had over fist that fall. According to my friend, he sold so many, he won the salesman of the year award. The next year, everyone had their babies, and being contractually obligated to pay out, the company went insolvent. In short, the system needed people not having babies to subsidize those who were, but since everyone was having babies, the subsidy scheme collapsed.
So you see, it takes paying, but not using, members to offset the using, but not paying members, or it doesn't work. And there's little benefit over cash for this type of subsidy system. Therefore, the costs must necessarily rise to reflect the number of people using the system (as someone else mentioned, the cost is too low), or the number of payers (but not users) has to be very high (the group that is unlikely to pay dues for the privilege of paying a low copay, but not having actual insurance), or the idea is untenable in the long term. I guess time will tell.
-
embryopocket
- captain of 100
- Posts: 522
-
ElectLady
- captain of 100
- Posts: 132
Re: Medical Membership - Cost-effective Healthcare
If this fits the mandate to have insurance or pay the penalty tax to ObamaCare, I'd do it. I was just discussing this type of thing with my husband the other day. It seems this is the trend healthcare is going now, and I think it's good. I just didn't want to pay for this and have to carry a formal insurance too. Right now, only my husband and kids are covered, because he is covered as an employee benefit, and the kids are $600/month. They can add me for an additional $600, but I don't have that kind of cash. I just pay for what I need when I need it. Again, if it fulfills the Obamacare req's I'd would do it if offered locally. There are already things like this in AZ now.
-
embryopocket
- captain of 100
- Posts: 522
Re: Medical Membership - Cost-effective Healthcare
So when I shared this, it was just for spreading goodwill - hoped some people might need it and could be to their benefit. I wouldn't have made any extra money or commission if anyone would have signed on. I just met with my boss and it looks like my new wages will be based on how many memberships I get people to sign up for. :-ss Kind of nerve-racking as I am not a salesman and I would have to get 40 people to sign up per month to make what my hourly rate is now. So if you or anyone you know can benefit from this, let me know Thank you.
Thank you.