The challenge with health care in the US is that nobody has incentives for reducing health care expenditures. Hospitals get paid when you get sick. Insurance co

The challenge with health care in the US is that nobody has incentives for reducing health care expenditures. Hospitals get paid when you get sick. Insurance companies see higher margin from reducing administrative costs. Patients are largely uninformed and there are few services out there to help them make lifestyle changes... not to mention that they expect somebody else to pay for it. Employers actually bear most of the non-medicare/medicaid financial risk, but they aren't health experts and have been burned in the past by tele-medicine programs that don't work. Preventive care programs like the one at HQP are proving that preventive care is effective, but sending a nurse to your home regularly is expensive and I'd question the ROI from doing so, absent some focus on a particular disease. With a solid ROI and some good hard evidence, HQP shouldn't have to rely on CMS to keep them afloat... with some work they would be able to sell their program to payers. HQP also isn't addressing the systemic issues I mentioned above, so what's especially frustrating about the article is that they bash on ACOs, which is one of the first attempts by CMS to actually align incentives and mend those issues. And frankly, those changes aren't going to be good for hospitals... I'm sure a lot will go out of business as people get healthier and don't need them. This piece of the article in particular makes me question HQP's motives.