A new kind of doctor’s office that doesn’t take insurance and charges a monthly fee is ‘popping up everywhere’ — and that could change how we think about healthcare – Business Insider

Interesting article after the previous post.

Direct primary care is a small but fast-growing movement of doctors who don’t accept insurance and instead charges a monthly membership fee.


In Rural Washington, Pediatricians A Scarce Commodity -KUOW

More on the slow motion collapse of our health care system. The problem, across the board is that medical professionals are getting squeezed by both State healthcare systems and large insurance companies. If you aren’t willing to raise your taxes to cover your physicians costs, you won’t have one. Here’s a case study right here in our state.

For the past 16 years, Jill Hutton has been managing a pediatric clinic in Aberdeen that once treated 70 to 100 children a day. But now it’s empty. She’s working on shutting it down



Wash. Health Care Price-Fix Suit Survives Dismissal Bid- Law 360

Looks like it’s a go to go after what was called Harrison and is now part of CHI Franciscan.

Law360 (March 13, 2018, 4:43 PM EDT) — A Washington federal judge on Monday refused to kill a suit accusing a pair of health care providers of engaging in anti-competitive deals, saying the state has plausibly alleged services agreements between them amount to a horizontal price-fixing agreement.

CHI Franciscan Health and The Doctors Clinic had asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the Washington state attorney general’s office had failed to adequately allege their 2016 agreements to share ancillary services amounted to an arrangement that “facially appears to be one that would…(Subscription needed to view entire story)



OMC recognized as top rural, community hospital – Sequim Gazette

Congratulations to OMC.

For the second year in a row, The Chartis Center for Rural Health recognized Olympic Medical Center one of the Top 100 Rural & Community Hospitals in the United States.

Olympic Medical scored in the top 100 of rural and community hospitals on a hospital strength index assessed by iVantage Health Analytics. OMC officials say the index is the hospital industry’s most comprehensive and objective assessment of rural provider performance, and its results are the basis for many of rural health care’s most prominent awards, advocacy efforts and legislative initiatives.

Read the rest of the story at:


Hospitals eye concierge medicine to lure patients, boost revenue – Healthcare DIVE

The unfortunate future of healthcare in this country. The rich and middle class get to pay extra to see a doctor the same day and also get  “better care coordination”. Funny, I thought that was the promise of the billions of dollars spent in putting electronic records in place, which forced many smaller practitioners (who incidentally often offered the same services as concierge are claiming) into either closing their offices or joining hospitals such as Jefferson Healthcare.

Perks such as same-day appointments and longer doctors visits are part of the offerings.

Read it and weep.


Basis for six-month intervals for dental visits explored – Consumer Health News

Notice that it says that some patients clearly need more frequent visits.

Grant Ritchey, DDS examined the historic and scientific literature for recommending dental examination and prophylaxis literature every six months and noted that:

  • Insurance companies began to cover dental services in the 1970s and soon learned that covering preventive care lowered their costs.
  • It isn’t clear why they began paying for two cleanings per year, but the coverage interval may have been influenced by an advertising campaign for Pepsodent toothpaste.
  • Scientific evidence is lacking to support recommendations for dental visits every six-months.
  • Some patients clearly need more frequent visits; others can manage with less frequent visits.
  • Biological plausibility and common sense are his rationales for recommending six-month recall visits for most of his patients.

[Ritchey, G. The Six Month Dental Recall—Science or Legend? Science-Based Medicine. Feb 23, 2018]

Stem cell treatment advertising by “CAM” practitioners analyzed – Consumer Health Digest

Having been in the room with my late wife at a fake stem cell facility in Mexico, I highly suggest you take this information into consideration before considering doing this therapy in this way. Feel free to contact me for more information on what we experienced.

An investigation of 368 Web sites found through Google with search terms combining stem cell with various buzzwords and practitioner names associated with “complementary and alternative medicine” has revealed:

  • 243 sites marketed stem cell therapies and 116 marketed other interventions where stem cells were mentioned in the description of the treatment or its effects. The other interventions included platelet-rich plasma injections (88), prolotherapy (19) and others (9).
  • The cells used for transplantation were said to be derived from adipose (fatty) tissue (112 sites), bone marrow (100 sites), blood (28 sites), umbilical cord (26 sites), and other sources [e.g., placenta, amniotic sac, amniotic fluid, embryonic stem cells] (35 sites).
  • 20 sites advertised plant cell-based treatments and products (e.g., skin creams).
  • The most common advertised treatment targets were: bone, joint, and muscle pain/injury (182 sites); diseases or maladies (82 sites); cosmetic concerns (52 sites); non-cosmetic aging (44 sites); and sexual enhancement (18 sites).
  • 80% of the sites were for clinics in the USA; the rest were located in 17 other countries.
  • The practitioner types mentioned on the 368 sites included medical doctors (161), naturopaths (63), chiropractors (61), acupuncturists (36), midwives (33), homeopaths (27) and massage therapists (13). Some sites mentioned more than one and some sites listed none.
  • Hyperbolic language was found on 32% of the sites.
  • Only 31% of the sites mentioned the regulatory status of the intervention, and only 33% noted that the therapy was unproven.
  • Only 19% of the sites stated there was limited evidence of efficacy of the intervention and 13% said there was evidence of inefficacy.
  • Only 25% of the sites mentioned general risks of the interventions.

The investigators concluded:

Many clinics seem to be engaging in scienceploitation, which can seriously obfuscate public discourse, mislead the public and make it difficult to discern real science from marketing claims that merely reference scientific sounding terminology. The marketing of unproven stem cell therapies has the potential to harm patients and to harm the reputation of stem cell science. It is incumbent on regulators and policymakers to take a proactive approach to managing the risks associated with the growing private market for stem cell-related interventions, and addressing misleading marketing practices is an important part of this strategy.

[Murdoch B and others. Exploiting science? A systematic analysis of complementary and alternative medicine clinic websites’ marketing of stem cell therapies. BMJ Open 8(2), March 2, 2018]