This is kind of a deep question, and not meant to cast aspersions on what you're doing, because it's perfectly rational. The world of private doctors who don't accept patients paying with insurance (government or otherwise) is very interesting to me.
Do you think there's a major difference in expected outcome for the average patient, between your wife's practice and a hospital/clinic?
I can totally grok how a patient would find her services valuable enough to pay a much higher rate, out of pocket; but I'm trying to figure out if the payer's arbitrary cut-offs are rational.
Maybe 60/hr is close to the price-point of exponentially-diminishing returns, from the risk-carrier's perspective?
Obviously, institutional payers are way more conservative with risk than financially-well-off individuals, so maybe they're making mistakes on the margin.
Anyways, hope I'm making sense. It's a fascinating topic.
Do you think there's a major difference in expected outcome for the average patient, between your wife's practice and a hospital/clinic?
I can totally grok how a patient would find her services valuable enough to pay a much higher rate, out of pocket; but I'm trying to figure out if the payer's arbitrary cut-offs are rational.
Maybe 60/hr is close to the price-point of exponentially-diminishing returns, from the risk-carrier's perspective?
Obviously, institutional payers are way more conservative with risk than financially-well-off individuals, so maybe they're making mistakes on the margin.
Anyways, hope I'm making sense. It's a fascinating topic.