Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Is Concierge Medicine Worth It? 

 

In this episode, Dr. Barbara Hales discusses: 

 

  • Why physicians are leaving traditional insurance-based practices and transitioning to concierge or membership models. 
  • What concierge medicine really is, including membership fees, smaller patient panels, enhanced access, and direct communication. 
  • How these transitions succeed or fail depends on communication, patient psychology, and practice structure. 

 

Key Takeaways: 

 

“Concierge medicine is not inherently greedy. Insurance-based practice is not inherently broken. Both are responses to incentives. The deeper question is, how do we design systems that honor time, sustainability, and access simultaneously?” – Dr. Barbara Hales 

 

Connect with Barbara Hales: 

 

 

TRANSCRIPTION: (231)

Dr. Barbara Hales   

Welcome to another episode of Marketing Tips for Doctors. I’m your host, Dr. Barbara Hales. Today we’re talking about something that is quite reshaping healthcare. 

More and more physicians are leaving traditional insurance-based practice and moving into concierge or membership models. Some people see this as innovation, others as survival, and others as abandonment. So instead of reacting emotionally, let’s slow this down. 

Let’s talk about why doctors are making this shift, what concierge medicine actually is, what patients are understandably concerned about, and why some of these transitions succeed while others fail dramatically. Because this isn’t just about money; it’s about time, about access, about burnout, and about the structure of the system itself. Why are doctors leaving insurance? Let’s start with reality. 

Reimbursements have steadily declined in real dollars. Administrative burden has increased. Documentation demands have exploded. 

Prior authorizations consume hours. Electronic medical records were supposed to streamline care, but often add friction. I’m sure all of this isn’t new to you; it’s just frustrating. 

Physicians are seeing more patients in less time, spending evenings finishing charts, and feeling squeezed between insurance companies and patient expectations. And burnout isn’t a personality flaw; it’s a structural issue. So when doctors leave insurance models, it’s often not because they suddenly become greedy. 

It’s because they are trying to redesign a practice model that allows longer visits, fewer patients per day, more preventive focus, less administrative overhead, and more autonomy. In many cases, concierge medicine is less about luxury and more about sustainability. But that doesn’t mean it’s simple. 

What is concierge medicine really? There’s a lot of misunderstanding here. Concierge medicine is not one single model. It may involve an annual or monthly membership fee, a smaller patient panel, enhanced access, same-day appointments, direct messaging, and longer visits. 

 Some practices still bill insurance for covered services, some do not. Direct primary care, for example, may not bill insurance at all. The membership fee often covers access, time, care coordination, and preventive services not reimbursed by insurance. 

And here’s something important. Insurance was designed primarily for catastrophic events. Surprise! It was not designed to reimburse adequately for time, prevention, lifestyle counseling, or relationship-based care. 

 

So in some ways, concierge models are an attempt to restore time to medicine. But whenever access changes, questions follow. And they should. 

 

What patients are wondering before debating whether concierge medicine is good or bad, question one: if I’m paying a membership fee, will someone help me with my insurance paperwork? This is huge. Patients do not want to feel like they are paying twice and navigating billing alone. Depending on the model, some practices still bill insurance and help with claim submission. 

 

Some provide documentation for reimbursement. Some operate entirely outside insurance. If that process isn’t explained clearly and calmly, confusion turns into resentment. 

 

Transparency matters. Question two: What happens if I’m hospitalized? This is emotionally loaded. Many patients worry. 

 

If I’m paying you directly, will you be there? Or will I be handed off to a hospitalist? Here’s the reality. Even many traditional physicians no longer round in hospitals due to hospitalist systems. The real question isn’t physical presence. 

 

It’s coordination. Will my doctor communicate with the hospital team, advocate for me, follow up after discharge, and remain involved in decision-making? Concierge care does not automatically mean hospital presence. But it can mean deeper coordination. 

 

And that distinction should be communicated clearly. Question three: If I still have to keep my insurance, is it worth it? This is probably the biggest psychological hurdle. Insurance covers hospitalizations, specialist care, and catastrophic events. 

 

Concierge care often covers access, time, prevention, navigation, and responsiveness. For some patients, that combination is worth it. For others, it isn’t. 

 

And ethically, we must say that out loud. This is not a universal solution. The access question. 

 

Whenever a physician shifts to concierge care, the access question arises. If some patients can pay for more time and more immediate availability, what happens to everyone else? Some critics call this a two-tiered system. But let’s examine something honestly. 

 

Healthcare has never been perfectly equal. We already have geographic disparities, private hospitals, executive health programs, and out-of-network specialists. Concierge medicine doesn’t create inequality from nothing. 

 

It may simply make visible the reality that time in medicine is scarce. The deeper question isn’t whether concierge medicine is ethical. The deeper question is, why does the current system make sustainable practice so difficult that physicians feel pushed toward these models? That’s a systemic question, not an individual moral failing. Why some concierge transitions fail. 

 

Now, let’s talk about something important. Even when the model is sound, some transitions still bomb. Not because the idea is flawed, but because execution ignores communication and patient psychology. 

 

If the website says exclusive, premium, or limited access, but doesn’t clearly answer, how does this improve my health outcomes? It feels elitist. The copy must translate time into benefit. More time means better chronic disease management, fewer rushed decisions, more preventive planning, deeper relationship. 

 

If you don’t explain that, patients assume it’s a money grab. Think of the salesy free consultations. Offering a free consultation is smart. 

 

But if it feels rushed, defensive, or vague about pricing, trust erodes instantly. Healthcare is not retail. Patients do not want to be closed. 

 

They want clarity. If you charge a membership fee, but still require phone calls during limited hours, delayed responses, and paper forms, you break your own promise. Convenience is part of the value proposition. 

 

Online scheduling, clear portals, rapid communication, these are not luxuries in this model. They are baseline expectations. Long-time patients may feel abandoned, priced out, and hurt. 

 

If you announce abruptly, without compassion or transition planning, reputational damage follows. How you communicate the change matters as much as the change itself. Copying another doctor’s pricing without analyzing local demographics, services included, and market positioning can backfire. 

 

Underpricing signals low value. Overpricing without differentiation limits adoption. Pricing must align with experience. 

 

If you keep the same volume, the same rushed style, and the same reactive pattern, patients will think, ‘Why am I paying extra?’ The experience must feel meaningfully different. Blaming the old system publicly. If your messaging implies, now I can finally practice real medicine, you subtly insult previous patients. 

 

Tone matters. Gratitude matters. Forward-focused messaging matters. 

 

Concierge is relationship-based. If you don’t proactively check in, reinforce value, and communicate benefits consistently, attrition increases. This is a membership model, not a one-time transaction. 

 

Concierge medicine is not inherently greedy. Insurance-based practice is not inherently broken because doctors are weak. Both are responses to incentives. 

 

If we want to solve access issues, we must examine systemic design. In the meantime, physicians are making practical decisions inside imperfect structures, and patients deserve transparency when those decisions affect them. The real question isn’t whether concierge medicine is right or wrong. The real question is, how do we design systems that honor time, sustainability, and access simultaneously? Because time is the most valuable currency in medicine, and how we allocate it reveals what we value. 

 

I would love to have your opinion. Whether you are a patient, a doctor, or another health professional, you must already have an opinion on concierge medical practice versus the more traditional models. So what I would like today is your opinion. Tell me, what do you think of concierge medicine? If you are a professional, are you considering transitioning your practice to a concierge model? Or if you are a patient, are you going to stay with healthcare providers in the more traditional models? Or are you going to switch to concierge medicine? Tell us where you are located and where you are feeling lies, on which side of the fence, concierge or more traditional models. 

 

What is your thinking? And where does your allegiance lie? Please comment and let us know. Let me start with a question. If you could design medicine from scratch today, knowing everything we know about burnout, access problems, reimbursement pressure, and administrative overload, would you build the system we currently have? Most physicians I speak with don’t hesitate. 

 

They say no. And increasingly, some of them are saying something else. They’re saying, I’m done trying to fix this from inside the machine. 

 

I’m going concierge. So today, we’re asking a question that’s emotional, financial, ethical, and strategic. Is concierge medicine worth it? Is it better care? Or is it hype? And if you’re a physician or you lead physicians, this isn’t theoretical. 

 

This question is reshaping the workforce in real time. Let’s talk about it. Why is this question surging? 

 

Concierge medicine is not new, but interest in it is accelerating. Why? Because pressure is accelerating. Primary care panels are swollen. 

 

Specialists are overbooked. Documentation consumes evenings. Autonomy feels thinner every year. 

 

Concierge medicine enters that environment like oxygen. Smaller panels, predictable revenue, longer visits, direct physician access, and fewer middle layers. It sounds like medicine used to feel. 

 

And that nostalgia is powerful. But nostalgia is not analysis. So let’s analyze. 

 

First, clarity. Concierge medicine typically involves a retainer fee. Patients pay an annual or monthly membership fee. 

 

In return, they receive enhanced access, longer visits, same-day appointments, direct communication, and often a dramatically reduced patient panel. Some concierge practices still fill insurance. Others operate more like direct primary care. 

 

There are hybrid models as well. And there are specialty adaptations. The term itself is broad. 

 

And that’s important, because when people debate concierge medicine, they are often debating different models. So when we ask, is it worth it? We have to ask, worth it for whom? The physician, the patient, the system, society? These are not the same question. Let’s begin with physicians. 

 

Why do they move to a concierge? Time, control, sustainability. In traditional models, physicians are often responsible for thousands of patients. In concierge models, that number may drop to 300, 500, or even fewer. 

 

Imagine the difference. Longer visits, proactive outreach, real preventive focus, fewer rushed decisions, less inbox chaos. For many physicians, this feels like reclaiming the craft. 

 

And burnout data consistently shows that a lack of control and a lack of time are core drivers of exhaustion. From a physician’s well-being perspective, concierge medicine often improves quality of life. That’s real. 

 

But here’s the harder question. Does physician relief justify reduced access for others? We can’t skip that. For patients who can afford it, concierge medicine can feel transformative. 

 

Same-day appointments, unhurried conversations, coordinated care, and direct texting with their physician. It feels attentive, personal, high-touch. But the model inherently limits volume. 

 

If one physician reduces a panel from 2,000 to 400, 1,600 patients must go somewhere else. And in many markets, there is no easy way out for them. So, concierge medicine improves access for a smaller group. 

 

And that tension sits at the heart of the debate. Medicine has always wrestled with equity. But concierge medicine makes the question visible. 

 

Is it ethical to create a tiered access model? Some argue it already exists. Private rooms, executive health programs, out-of-network specialists. Others argue that concierge accelerates fragmentation. 

 

The truth? Both arguments contain merit. And leaders must resist simplistic answers because the ethical tension is real. Let’s talk economics. 

 

Concierge models stabilize revenue. They reduce dependency on reimbursement swings. They often reduce the overhead associated with billing complexity. 

 

That stability can allow reinvestment in care. But widespread conversion to concierge models would not scale across the entire healthcare system. There are not enough positions for everyone to have a 400-patient panel. 

 

So concierge medicine functions well as a niche model. The question is scale. Is concierge medicine better care? In many cases, it is better access, better continuity, and deeper relationship depth. 

 

But better care also depends on clinical quality, standards, and accountability. A small panel does not automatically equal excellence. Culture still matters. 

 

Standards still matter. Leadership still matters. So is concierge medicine worth it? For many physicians, yes, it can restore sustainability. 

 

For many patients, yes, it can restore access and connection. For the healthcare system as a whole, it is neither villain nor savior. It is a signal. 

 

A signal that physicians are seeking autonomy. A signal that patients are seeking access. A signal that the traditional model is strained. 

 

Concierge medicine is not the cure. It is a response. And the deeper question remains, why are so many physicians looking for the exit? If we answer that honestly, we may not need as many exits. 

 

Better care or hype? The answer depends on what we fix next. Thank you for being part of this conversation. And thank you for caring about the future of medicine. 

 

We’d like to hear from you. We’d like a comment on the type of medical model you’d like to practice and the type of medical care as a patient you’d really like to receive. Well, it’s up to us as a whole to decide the direction medicine will take. 

 

But I would really like your opinion. So please let us know and weigh in. That’s it for this episode. 

 

Thank you for being with us today. Till next time, I would love to have your opinion. Whether you are a patient listening or a doctor or other health professional, you must already have an opinion on concierge medical practice versus the more traditional models. 

 

So what I would like today is your opinion. Tell me, what do you think of concierge medicine? If you are a professional, are you considering transitioning your practice to a concierge model? Or if you are a patient, are you going to stay with healthcare providers in the more traditional models? Or are you going to switch to concierge medicine? Tell us where you are located and where you are feeling lies, on which side of the fence. Concierge or more traditional models, what is your thinking? And where does your allegiance lie? Please comment and let us know.