Insurance is often less effective for chronic conditions, which are predictable and ongoing. Because insurers know these cost will recur, they price premiums and deductibles accordingly, often resulting in higher annual costs. Chronic patients frequently encounter regular expenses that can quickly add up, hitting deductibles year after year. Patients often pay a substantial portion of chronic care cost out-of-pocket each year, even with insurance. Cash or direct-pay alternatives (e.g., direct primary care or cash-pay pharmacies) often lower prices for routine chronic care services.
Insurance can be less advantageous financially for chronic disease care because you’re essentially paying premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance for predictable, unavoidable expenses. Cash-based models can be more cost effective for chronic conditions, but insurance can still be beneficial if the chronic condition requires expensive specialty medications (e.g., biologics or cancer medications), frequent hospitalizations or complications, or high-cost specialty care and or procedures. Even with chronic conditions, insurance can provide financial security and predictability by setting maximum annual out-of-pocket limits. However, for routine, predictable chronic care (i.e., regular doctor visits, generic medications, and routine lab work), insurance often adds unnecessary overhead, leading to higher cost than cash-based options.
We proudly serve as an effective alternative to traditional clinics, bridging the gap between overpriced spinal health care and affordable, high-quality services. Our location is directly managed and operated by chiropractic physicians, allowing us to streamline operations and significantly reduce administrative overhead and inefficiencies. By eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy, we can provide shorter, more cost-effective procedures compared to traditional clinical settings. Administrative cost and insurance billing requires extensive administrative labor, coding, compliance, and appeals. Large health care facilities and hospitals negotiate individually with each insurer, often leading to higher contracted rates compared to transparent cash-pay facilities. Hospital facilities and independent clinics have differing “place of service – POS” codes for the location and setting the treatment was rendered.
For example, patients paying cash upfront at independent imaging facilities typically save 50-70% more compared to using insurance at hospitals or hospital-owned imaging centers. If you are insured and have not met your deductible, one can typically pay an exorbitant amount for the diagnostic imaging. Even if you have met your deductible, and depending on the scenario, you will still most likely be paying more than the cash market rate around Oklahoma City for diagnostic imaging (i.e., high coinsurance percentage, high allowed amount negotiated by insurance, and low cash prices offered by independent imaging centers).
We remain dedicated to transforming healthcare delivery, advocating for a patient-focused approach that ensures individuals receive essential spinal health care treatments and modalities without facing financial hardship incurred by the fee schedule implemented from being in-network and not meeting your deductible. We have more freedom to bypass this fee schedule with the implementation of our own fee schedule, which translates into lower cost for you, the patient. Not only does it decrease cost, but also physicians in cash-based models often experience higher job satisfaction due to fewer administrative burdens, reduced burnout, and greater autonomy. Satisfied and less stressed clinicians typically provide better patient care resulting in higher quality patient outcomes.
Why cash-based clinics may obtain better patient health outcomes compared to insurance-based clinics:
- Incentivization: provide high-quality, efficient care, as patients are paying directly for services. This leads to a focus on delivering excellent care, rather than maximizing revenue through insurance reimbursements.
- Reduced administrative burden: fewer administrative tasks, such as billing and coding, which can distract from patient care. This allows clinicians to focus more on patient needs and provide more personalized attention.
- Increased transparency: more transparent about their pricing and services, which can lead to better-informed patients and more effective care. Patients are more likely to ask questions and seek clarification on their treatment options.
- Improved patient engagement: often have a more direct relationship with patients, which can lead to increased patient engagement and adherence to treatment plans. Patients are more invested in their care and more likely to take an active role in their health.
- Reduced overutilization: reduce overutilization of services, as patients are more mindful of the costs and are less likely to seek unnecessary care. This can lead to more efficient use of resources and better health outcomes.
- More time with patients: not constrained by the need to see a high volume of patients to meet insurance reimbursement requirements. This can lead to more thorough evaluations, better diagnosis, and more effective treatment plans.
- Treatment Options: more likely to offer alternative treatment modalities and therapies, such as nutritional counseling, dry needling, functional training, or physiotherapy, which can be effective in managing chronic conditions and promoting overall health.
- Better data collection and analysis: more accurate and detailed data on patient outcomes, as they are not limited by insurance company reporting requirements. This can lead to more effective quality improvement initiatives and better health outcomes.
- More autonomy: gives clinicians more autonomy to practice medicine as they see fit, without the constraints of insurance company guidelines or reimbursement requirements. This can lead to more innovative and effective care.