Community | July 08, 2009 | 9 comments

Doctors look to profit from ‘no insurance’ clinic

Image
ClipsFC
A Seattle clinic for people fed up with insurance, started by doctors fed up with insurance, has gotten $4 million in private venture capital money to expand.

Qliance says it has a profit-making solution to the problems of long waits, rushed doctors and cursory care that bother patients. At the same time, the clinic says it eliminates the paperwork and pressure that plague primary care doctors.

"If you spent five minutes in my office, you would notice there is nobody waiting. We don't have to stack them up like jets over Newark (airport)," said Garrison Bliss, a doctor and co-founder of the primary care clinic.

Co-founder Norm Wu said per-patient revenue is triple that of insurance-based clinics. He said many costs are fixed so the firm, now losing money, will turn profitable as business grows.

More than 50 noninsurance clinics operate in 18 states, based on different business models, Wu noted.

The new venture funding comes from Second Avenue Partners with participation by New Atlantic Ventures and Clear Fir Partners, bringing total capital raised to about $7.5 million.

The backers believe Qliance can grow very profitable, and the clinic uses stock options to attract new doctors. The next step is to open a suburban office.

Qliance says it is a private alternative to the failures of insurance, which have made health care President Obama's top legislative priority in Congress, with a price tag of $1 trillion or more.

Qliance customers pay $99 to join, then a flat monthly rate of $39 to $119, depending on age and level of service. Patients can quit without notice and no one is rejected for pre-existing conditions.

Patients must go to outside brokers and qualify medically to buy catastrophic care. One broker said a 30-year-old could expect to pay $133 per month for such care, and a 60-year-old nearly $400, plus substantial deductibles.

Qliance patients get unrestricted round-the-clock primary care access and 30-minute appointments.

"Why would a doctor not want to see sick people? That doesn't make sense, unless you're an insurance company," Bliss said.

He rejected the idea that unrestricted access causes overuse, calling that "nonsense promoted by insurance companies .... There's nobody I've ever met who gets their pleasure by seeing doctors."
  1. groups:
    Community,   Random,   Healthcare,   doctors
  2. tags:
    News Random Health Care Current News USA 3 more
  3. recommended by:
    ClipsFC
  4.     
    |

9 comments // Doctors look to profit from ‘no insurance’ clinic

  • artemis6
  • maisry
  • rockstarmillionaire
    • 0
      rockstarmillionaire  
    • Though private-sector without government subsidies is the way to go the amounts for over $50 still sound high for some and may be unaffordable. However, I know that they get this:

      "Qliance patients get unrestricted round-the-clock primary care access and 30-minute appointments."

      That's huge that social healthcare wouldn't provide either. (current system doesn't either). However, I think there are other private clinics that provide an even better price for people to drop in where the amounts don't depend on age and are typically never above $50. That's the way to go for non-catastrophic healthcare.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mark701
    • 0
      Mark701  
    • This sounds like a good idea on the outside. However I noticed that one way they attract doctors is to offer them stock options. Anyone holding stock options expects them to pay off. And if there is a choice between paying the stockholders bigger dividends (especially to keep the doctors from going somewhere else) or trimming health benefits and increasing costs, which do you think will win out?

      I'm convinced the only way to provide good, low cost health care is to keep private capital out of the industry. If that means fundinging health care via taxes, then so be it. At least my employer won't be taking health care payments out of my paycheck and I seriously doubt that the amount I pay in increased taxes will equal what I am forced to shell out to self serving companies whose interest is the bottom line, not my health and are slowly driving me towards the povery line.

    • 2 years ago
  • infinitlikeyou
    • 0
      infinitlikeyou  
    • This is an absolutely brilliant idea. Timely care with a reasonable fee. Doctors should not be lead around with a leash and choke chain by gluttontiness insurance companies.

    • 2 years ago
  • Nettle
    • 0
      Nettle  
    • This sounds like a great idea, but what about the people who can't even afford such a meager monthly price? I wonder if they offer a sliding scale fee for the truly poor.

    • 2 years ago
  • soak7
    • 0
      soak7  
    • Nettle:

      in regards to the poor: i believe states usually carry some sort of state care insurance for them. I know that Mass & Maine do for a fact. From my past experience, you pay no monthly premium and no co-pays except on prescriptions ($1 to $5).Otherwise, state care covers virtually all medical needs! There are strict income and family based guidelines (single with disability, children under 19, pregnancy, etc) to meet and if you are eligible for any private insurance you must take that instead. i currently make $15,000 more than I did when i had state health care. Yet, i live check to check because my new private insurance deducts over $300 monthly for my family & my co-pays are $20. That's a lot for me because i have 6 prescriptions that get refilled each month or so. We are all being taken advantage of by private health care. So many other nations take better care of their citizens.

    • 2 years ago
  • vizzzzzance
  • keithponder
more from Community:

top videos