Cutting managed care brokers and tightening directly with medical providers may seem like a thorough way of cutting the cost of health planning, but the cost of persevering increases for employers By whipsawed, it may be the only solution that works. The many benefits of bloating the managed care industry are many myths of propagating the loss of why this wise approach does not work. In this article, uncovering the myths about direct provider contracts sheds light on this creative cost containment strategy.
It's tough. :
Direct provider contract, managed care, benefits, medical expenses reduction
Article body:
Does cutting off managed care brokers and tightening directly with medical providers seem like a thorough solution for reducing the cost of health planning has been whipsawed by the increase of still relentless costs For the employer, it may be the only solution that actually works. Many myths are spreading about why this wise approach doesn't work. But <i> their </ i> solutions <i> are not working. Costs continue to skyrocket, and employers are desperately seeking relief. It's time to uncover the myths of direct provider contracts and to shed some light on this ingenious, innovative cost-cutting strategy.
<b> Myth 1: Employers can not negotiate good deals with healthcare providers as well as managed care companies. </ b> The truth is, employers can often negotiate a good deal, or better, just as well. Providers welcome direct contracts because they are <i> not </ i> like traditional managed care contracts. Physicians have been suing for years for hostile agreements and poor refunds forced by HMOs and PPOs. This negative perception creates a strong motivation between employers and healthcare providers doing business directly. These "win-win" agreements ultimately save money on employers, shortchanging providers. Unlike managed care companies, direct contracts disclose the details of the <i> all </ i> contract so that both the employer and the provider know the deal and "cut" the intermediary
<b> Myth 2: Directly negotiating a provider contract requires a large number of employees. </ b> The truth is doctors, and hospitals often contract with employers for a limited number of employees. If the direct agreement is fair and the terms of the reimbursement are reasonable, the provider can work with employers in their own community Business Local Employers direct network, despite the size Direct network shows the established group of existing lives as future patients ready using donors The network was successfully developed in an area where the employer had 30 employees .
<b> Myth 3: Direct Contract does not work in areas where other PPO networks are available. </ b> The truth is the sickness of contracting and miserable rebates forced on them by physician-managed care companies. They actually welcome the opportunity to contract directly with the employer. For many physicians, the fact that it is an agreement with the employer and not a managed care company is a good reason to join the network directly. The direct agreement is the true business relationship between the provider and the employer, the provider's prompt reimbursement, the better payment level of the benefit, and the ultimate payer (employment it should also indicate a doctor, a medical group, or a hospital Good community relationship gesture for you.
<b> Myth 4: Direct networks create more administrative burden and higher costs. </ b> The truth is that once the direct network is developed, the benefits of "owning" the network will soon outweigh the "lease" from the managed care company. There is no regular network access fee; less doctor's exhaustion; less employee complaints; a simple self-renewable contract; a better provider's relationship; Though the employer did not include the increase in medical expenses. Ironically, and by accident, the benefits of the managed care industry are at a record high, and employers continue to suffer.
<b> Myth 5: Direct contracts expose employers to greater responsibility. </ b> The truth is that direct contracts do not pose a greater risk of litigation than other benefit program components, and in fact <i> provides greater protection </ i> direct contracts are planned Intended for self-employed employers governed by ERISA, which offers built-in protection against liability. ERISA limits the ability of employees to anticipate the law of state tort and hold ERISA plans responsible for medical malpractice under the state law, which is a medical over-direct provider contract States that the employer is not providing / supervising health care and has no role in any medical decisions, so ERISA
<b> Myth 6: Managed care companies can not handle (or can not handle) billing for the direct network. </ b>
The truth is that processing requests and managing benefits for a provider-owned provider network is often within the controlled company's technical capabilities, directly processing their network requests. The powerlessness of the managed care company owns, is leased or managed itself and the existing managed care company can not directly manage the network demand, and If you want to network directly to a third party's chosen location (but you want to maintain a commercial network elsewhere) than you can handle it, you get a job if you use TPA Convenient for
<b> Myth 7: A controlled care company does a better job involving costs and saving the employer's money. </ b> If the <i> is true, the employer's health care costs will fall rather than rise. The truth is that employers who have implemented the provider contract directly are experiencing low costs and high savings. Employers in one country with 20,000 employees have used the network directly to maintain <i> flat <cost trends in their health plans over the past few years and another major employer is Reduce the cost of health planning by more than 20% without reducing benefits or transferring costs to employees.
<b> Bottom line: Cutting out managed care intermediaries and contracting directly with healthcare providers reduces the cost of benefits for familiar employers and controls corporate medical plans </ b>
Customer relationship management
Changing consumer attitudes are driving customer relationship management. Fueled by the Internet, causing expectations and increasing feelings of self-reliance among customers, companies communicate, purchase processes, data management, distribution
Customers Now Request:
-Control of the purchasing process (information, comparison,
Easy choice to f. ..
It's tough. :
csutomer, relationship, management, crm, marketing
Article body:
Changing consumer attitudes are driving customer relationship management. Fueled by the Internet, causing expectations and increasing feelings of self-reliance among customers, companies communicate, purchase processes, data management, distribution
Customers Now Request:
-Control of the purchasing process (information, comparison,
Choose, easily find, use and respond)
-Best price (including and without delivery
Compromise to brand or product quality)
-Fastest, slickest delivery system (preferably free)
-All payment options (safety)
-Communication designed to your specific needs
(Computerized, complex, caring)
The above applies to any transaction type:
-Direct
-traditional
-retail
-E-commerce
-Wholesale
-combination
These attitudes are linked to the development of new technologies and the convergence of numerous "new" and "emerging new" communication and distribution technologies:
-'Fixed link' phone and telemarketing
-Internet and VOIP
-Mobile phone, SMS etc.
-Digital TV, cable, satellite
As they realize that changes in technology can help them manage their relationships with customers and reorganize the way they make them more profitable.
Organizations are looking for something that is much more consistent overall, yet dynamic.
To achieve that, sustainable competitive advantage in customer relationship management provides the necessary actions to maximize performance
one,:
-Define profitable market divisions and customers
-Understand customer needs and expectations
-Identify profitable product and service proposals.
-Create effective, efficient, adaptable, cost effective
infrastructure
Customer relationship management is: Customer centralized management of the total relationship with each customer, measure, create and increase revenue, and for each customer and customer
0 comments:
Post a Comment