<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Seattle doctors try flat-rate no-limit primary care</title>
	<atom:link href="http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/07/08/seattle-doctors-try-flat-rate-no-limit-primary-care/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/07/08/seattle-doctors-try-flat-rate-no-limit-primary-care/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:10:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Around the Mediverse: May 7, 2010 &#171; The Notwithstanding Blog</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/07/08/seattle-doctors-try-flat-rate-no-limit-primary-care/comment-page-1/#comment-7347</link>
		<dc:creator>Around the Mediverse: May 7, 2010 &#171; The Notwithstanding Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 May 2010 04:21:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=2696#comment-7347</guid>
		<description>[...] I like the idea of &#8220;concierge&#8221; medicine, even though there are many vocal opponents of the concept.  I reject their argument that it is necessarily something that will limit itself to the richest and best-off in society.  I present to you PartnerMD and Qliance.  Much more has been written on Qliance here, here, and here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I like the idea of &#8220;concierge&#8221; medicine, even though there are many vocal opponents of the concept.  I reject their argument that it is necessarily something that will limit itself to the richest and best-off in society.  I present to you PartnerMD and Qliance.  Much more has been written on Qliance here, here, and here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Healthcare Economist &#183; Obama&#8217;s Economic Case for Health Reform</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/07/08/seattle-doctors-try-flat-rate-no-limit-primary-care/comment-page-1/#comment-4031</link>
		<dc:creator>Healthcare Economist &#183; Obama&#8217;s Economic Case for Health Reform</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:30:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=2696#comment-4031</guid>
		<description>[...] of lower quality care may opt to spend more money on more personalize health care (e.g., flat-rate no limit primary care doctors) which would decrease savings.  The net effect on savings is [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of lower quality care may opt to spend more money on more personalize health care (e.g., flat-rate no limit primary care doctors) which would decrease savings.  The net effect on savings is [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Leith</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/07/08/seattle-doctors-try-flat-rate-no-limit-primary-care/comment-page-1/#comment-3808</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Leith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:53:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=2696#comment-3808</guid>
		<description>I bet they&#039;re OK in Washington State -- it looks like the docs got the laws changed in 2009 to permit this without being regulated as insurers.

Lookee here: &lt;a HREF=&quot;http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=48.150.010&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;RCW 48.150.010&lt;/a&gt; 


But specialists are left out: &lt;a HREF=&quot;RCW&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=48.44.010&lt;a&gt;

[...] &quot;Health care service contractor&quot; does not include direct patient-provider primary care practices as defined in RCW 48.150.010.


      t</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I bet they&#8217;re OK in Washington State &#8212; it looks like the docs got the laws changed in 2009 to permit this without being regulated as insurers.</p>
<p>Lookee here: <a HREF="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=48.150.010" rel="nofollow">RCW 48.150.010</a> </p>
<p>But specialists are left out: <a HREF="RCW" rel="nofollow"><br />
</a><a href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=48.44.010" rel="nofollow">http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=48.44.010</a><a></p>
<p>[...] &#8220;Health care service contractor&#8221; does not include direct patient-provider primary care practices as defined in RCW 48.150.010.</p>
<p>      t</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Sullivan</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/07/08/seattle-doctors-try-flat-rate-no-limit-primary-care/comment-page-1/#comment-3804</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Sullivan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:19:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=2696#comment-3804</guid>
		<description>These are Healthcare boutique, massive popular here in the Bay Area.  Couple this with an HSA, and a High deductible plan...golden.

I hope James L. is wrong.  Hope.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These are Healthcare boutique, massive popular here in the Bay Area.  Couple this with an HSA, and a High deductible plan&#8230;golden.</p>
<p>I hope James L. is wrong.  Hope.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Lansberry</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2009/07/08/seattle-doctors-try-flat-rate-no-limit-primary-care/comment-page-1/#comment-3801</link>
		<dc:creator>James Lansberry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:08:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=2696#comment-3801</guid>
		<description>within 6 months the Washington Department of Insurance will accuse these doctors of practicing unlicensed insurance, mark my words.

I think it&#039;s a great idea, and it won&#039;t break the market open, but it&#039;s *one* option that ought to be allowed and is a great thing for those who are &quot;uninsurable&quot; because the doctor can help them control a chronic disease for an affordable monthly cost, even without insurance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>within 6 months the Washington Department of Insurance will accuse these doctors of practicing unlicensed insurance, mark my words.</p>
<p>I think it&#8217;s a great idea, and it won&#8217;t break the market open, but it&#8217;s *one* option that ought to be allowed and is a great thing for those who are &#8220;uninsurable&#8221; because the doctor can help them control a chronic disease for an affordable monthly cost, even without insurance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

