4 ms·
I don’t think that was the point. The point was better healthcare doesn’t necessarily translate to more revenue. Healthcare is weird like that - you get paid a
by xivzgrev 6y ago
I don’t think that was the point. The point was better healthcare doesn’t necessarily translate to more revenue. Healthcare is weird like that - you get paid a flat fee for visits. There might be an argument to be made that better prescriptions = happier patients = more retention, but it’s a stretch. If your practice is already booked full what’s the point?
This biz was clearly made for consumers but yea ads are tough - need a lot of eyeballs.
- dan-robertson 6y agoYeah I agree that’s the point of the article. I think what I wrote would still be a reason even if it is rationalised differently. The argument that “patients won’t know the difference so I can just do whatever” must break down at some point (hopefully before malpractice) but I think an argument of “I’ll just keep doing what I did before, it’s worked fine so far” doesn’t encourage worsening treatment or paying for more experimentation.
- f6v 6y agoAs somebody said here, first line drug is prescribed since it’s know to work based on experience. Any experimentation puts too much unwanted responsibility on the doctor.
- redkoala 6y agoBetter healthcare outcomes are of interest to health insurance companies and employers, not the healthcare providers. A reduction in overall claims over a patient's lifetime and better employee health are quantifiable financial results.
- cestith 6y agoHealthcare providers hope for better outcomes I'm sure, but it's true there's not much financial incentive in most cases. Your comment sort of suggests the model for such a service should be on a per-use model, covered by an insurance company when a doctor uses it for their patient. That's a trickier model than subscriptions, but it may be viable.