[Mikeod]

After reading all these posts and threads, I would like to offer this. Initially, VHS was created to provide a system of health care that differed from the usual in that providers would be allocated more time to spend with their patients. In order to accomplish this, each doctor’s panel would have to be limited so that access was optimal while still spending more time at each visit. Proud of this “innovative” health care system, The Villages promoted it in their literature and in sales visits.
However, this plan flies in the face of current medical economics, where, because reimbursements to providers is the primary place bureaucrats choose to limit the growth of health care costs, practitioners need to schedule as tightly as possible. Thus, VHS at the beginning was heading down a path unlikely to succeed. It would seem they hoped more patients would opt for the MA plan that provided a more consistent flow of income, but that didn’t happen. The primary reason for that is, as seen in these posts, people already had plans either wholly or partly paid by a former/current employer or had plans that provided them the freedom of choice they desired. As a result, revenue expectations were not being met. The disparity between the reimbursement plans and the lump sum from the MA plans is significant. Thus the push for the UHC plan.
Did they anticipate this happening? I don’t think so. I think the same thing happened with Moffitt and USF. Both anticipated greater revenue from MA plans than actually occurred. Both pulled the plug when losses mounted. VHS faces the same dilemma. If they closed down instead of limiting insurance plans, would we be any better off? As far as the director of VHS being the same person that was in charge of the USF plan, I remember reading that he moved to VHS because he believed in what they were trying to do. I have had friends in primary care in various practice models. The burnout rate is high and the satisfaction is low. The VHS model looks better for both patient and provider.