Why insurance reimbursement is a very bad idea.

[LonnyJ]

1. Chinese medicine is thriving as a low cost, high efficacy,
alternative to medications and surgeries. To burden this beautiful
medicine with the insurance bureaucracy will be to corrupt it. I have
always treated people for whatever they could afford to pay and I
don’t believe that the benefits of increased access that might arise
as a result of insurance coverage will out weigh the increased
administrative costs that will be demanded by the paper work. Recently
I had to write 4 letters and make 6 phone calls to collect $135 from
an insurance company (and I filled out the forms perfectly the first
time). Insurance companies are a nightmare. I had to sue the first 2
insurance companies I ever let a patient carry a balance with in
treatment. I've practiced 23 years and not taken insurance since 1988.
Chinese medicine must be allowed to continue to flourish and develop
on its own terms without the burden of regulation by the self
motivated insurance industry.

2. Insurance companies have only one bottom line and that is their own
finances. They do not care one wit about quality health care
regardless of whatever pretense they may advertise to the contrary.
They do not have a value system evolved enough to come close to
appreciating the core values of CM.

3. Having a third party between the patient and the practitioner is
immoral and can ONLY compromise treatment for anyone who is practicing
with any depth. The fact of this immorality has to be addressed by
anyone arguing for insurance coverage. It can't be glossed over.

4. The only impetus for health insurance coverage is financial and
that simply isn't a good reason to sell the soul of our medicine or
our independence as practitioners. It is my contention that anyone
with sufficient training in an authentic system of CM and business
know how can earn a good living. I have heard new practitioners
suggest that older practitioners have an advantage because we "got in
early" etc. On the other hand, let me please point out that when I did
start practicing 23 years ago almost no one knew what CM was. I have
seen many of my young students go on to have very successful practices
all over America within 1-2 years of graduation. The issue is depth of
clinical insight and not the availability of insurance coverage.

5. I know many psychotherapists who stopped taking insurance at risk
of losing their practices over the last 15 years. Most have done well.
Why did they flock away from insurance in droves? Because the
recognized the immorality of having a third party involved, because
the amount of paper work was intrusive, because telling a bureaucrat
why your patient needs to come another 3 times is terrible and
humiliating, and because the system breads lying and cheating. Let's
face it our end is to get as much $ as possible and theirs is to pay
as little as possible.

6. Receiving reimbursement will be buying into a system that ceased to
be relevant 30 years ago. It's a dead system with no integrity. It
will mean increased scientization of CM, more useless science classes,
less time for quality education in things like pulse diagnosis. More
expectation of quick physical results and less value placed on real,
meaningful, integral change. More pressure to preform and less freedom
to pursue real meaningful goals like the realization of human
potential. Let's face it, the real potential of this medicine is
realized when working with people in depth over a few years. Seems to
me the CA model offers those who want to treat people in need cheaply
a great way to do it without being in collusion with the medical
machine.

7. Those who argue for "increased access" always have the option of
generosity open to them. I treated all HIV positive patients for free
for 5 years. I still treat anyone who is sincere for whatever they can
afford to pay. That's the way to go.

8. Working with insurance companies is the opposite of freedom.


Of course, I'm just getting started.............


Warmest regards, Lonny Jarrett