A LinkedIn acquaintance told me the other day that the new healthcare plans being considered in Washington were pro-concierge medicine. I asked him what he based that conclusion on and, essentially, here’s a paraphrase of what he said: wellness, overall care, etc. are being endorsed and encouraged in all aspects of the healthcare delivery. Endorsements for any preventative care are being talked about. Personalized healthcare models are one of the few opportunities and options to afford patients the overall care they need.

I don’t question his points, but I have not seen anything yet in either the House Bill or the Senate Bill that leads me to believe that the end result will be a boon to concierge medicine. In fact, I think there is plenty in these Bills that would point in the other direction.  Here are some examples.

1.            The contribution amounts to HSAs and other pre-tax acronym plans are being reduced. The less money going into these plans the less will be there to pay concierge medicine periodic fees.

2.            Taxes on so-called “Cadillac” health insurance policies are being considered. The definition of these plans may eventually include high-deductible plans that would otherwise benefit concierge medicine.

3.            The definition of what is acceptable private health coverage is going to fix a “not-greater-than” deductible amount. That would hurt fee-for-care concierge doctors in fitting their fees into the deductible portion of high-deductible plans.

4.            Tax rates are going to go up on high income people, making it somewhat less likely they will want to spend their after-tax money on concierge fees. (See, for example, the Senate Bill’s increase in the Medicare portion of FICA and self-employment income tax.)