oops, even I can make mistakes: ophthalmic lab
I seem to have stopped even noticing the squiggly underlines....
oops, even I can make mistakes: ophthalmic lab
I seem to have stopped even noticing the squiggly underlines....
I did a quick calculation, and since I can't put actual dollars on here, I'll summarise.Originally Posted by racethe1320
I don't believe that VSP fully "pays the lab bill," as you can ask anyone who owns a contract lab and they will tell you differently. We basically split the difference. VSP charges providers and the labs for the lenses, as a "chargeback." Sure, it might not be as much as what we would normally pay for lenses, but they do not fully pay for the lab.
If we all check our VSP Options Chart, it will have the Patient Fee, the Service fee, and the difference is the Charge Back. That's our charge for COGS.
The bigger question is which plan do you make more money on? Even if you had a 20% off plan (Eyemed), I feel you could make just as much money off that plan than VSP, even considering your COGS. Maybe more depending on what lenses you are using. I calculated what I would make off a private pay progressive patient (love alliteration) versus a VSP patient, and just for lenses VSP was at 75%, meaning a 25% "discount." That included the Chargeback from VSP.
FWIW..
The original question was would you go back to vision plans, and I say again that if you are already happy without it, don't go back.
The main difference between eyemed and vsp is that eyemed reimburses less than vsp for most covered items, but allows you to charge anything for non-covered options. vsp dictates how much you can charge for most non-covered options. Do NOT use vsp's patient option fee schedules to guide your UCR rates. Always claim your UCR even when you have to accept a lower fee on covered individuals. Here's an example of best AR coating on common plans:
Avance' coating: Usual and Customary VSP signature Patient Pays: EyeMed Intel Employee Pays
60 60 48
80 75 64
100 75 80
150 75 120
If your UCR is EVER lower than the top reimbursements of any plans, you might need a lesson in how not to shoot yourself in the foot.
oops again, dollar amount formatting didn't line up with headings. oh well, you get the idea.
Yessiree!
I bet both plans come out pretty close. I would tend to think (and I am not a provider of EyeMed) that if your UC charges are high enough, without pricing yourself out of the market, that the 20% off plans would be better.
Meh.
We are kicking Davis to the curb right now. Next up Spectera, after that...
Actually VSP does pay your lab bill in full on a VSP Jobs. You don't split anything. You're confusing a chargeback in using the term split. However on a VSP job, as a VSP approved doctor you should never be receiving a bill directly from a contract or VSP Wholy owned lab for any additional amounts on VSP Patients. If you do then the lab is double-dipping on you and let's just say that's a HUGE issue, but I can't see anyone doing that even by accident let alone purposely.I did a quick calculation, and since I can't put actual dollars on here, I'll summarise.
I don't believe that VSP fully "pays the lab bill," as you can ask anyone who owns a contract lab and they will tell you differently. We basically split the difference. VSP charges providers and the labs for the lenses, as a "chargeback." Sure, it might not be as much as what we would normally pay for lenses, but they do not fully pay for the lab.
If we all check our VSP Options Chart, it will have the Patient Fee, the Service fee, and the difference is the Charge Back. That's our charge for COGS.
The bigger question is which plan do you make more money on? Even if you had a 20% off plan (Eyemed), I feel you could make just as much money off that plan than VSP, even considering your COGS. Maybe more depending on what lenses you are using. I calculated what I would make off a private pay progressive patient (love alliteration) versus a VSP patient, and just for lenses VSP was at 75%, meaning a 25% "discount." That included the Chargeback from VSP.
FWIW..
The original question was would you go back to vision plans, and I say again that if you are already happy without it, don't go back.
When you see a VSP Patient, you're reimbursed through VSP for your exam, refraction and all dispensing fees for services provided to that patient. Chargebacks are VSP's withdrawl of money from your EOP (money that you collected from a patient for upselling them from CR39 to say 1.67 or upselling them transitions, etc....) that withdrawl of money aka chargeback is what is then used to pay the contract lab for that upgrade as they incur that cost by providing the material to you. Does that make sense?
EyeMed is different, they pay you the money on your EOP and then YOU are then resposible for paying your lab. Don't confuse things with EyeMed pays you more and then think VSP takes money from you.....it's the other way around, VSP Pays you more and then in turn even pays your lab for you. EyeMed says, "here doctor Jim, take $xxx and go get the job done and pay the lab you in turn use" A contract lab in turn has to go collect from all thousands of their doctors each month....that sucks...it's way better for them to get paid directly from VSP regularly without having to do anythign.
So for example, if you have a VSP Patient order transitions, they pay out of pocket $76, you order transitions through the lab, VSP reimburses you $76 then takes a chargeback out because VSP paid the contract lab on your behalf for that transitions they provide you. You then keep the $25 difference. Do you follow that? The contract lab is made wholeon their $51 COG's through VSP, thus why VSP is seen as the largest customer of every lens company as they pay all 250+ VSP approved lab's bills for the lenses supplied to VSP Patients. Essilor, Hoya and others love it because they have 1 huge customer that pays very timely. Contract labs and doctors too get paid twice per month, thus they love it.
It's the same on a frame...VSP pays you the wholesale amount of the frame up to a certain amount depending on the plan and you get a dispensing fee. If you want to earn more than just the dispensing fee, that's fine, go SELL!!!. Then you collect and keep the difference of the patients allowance and what you're frame costs them and keep both that additional amount and the dispensing fee. Thus when my people see VSP Patients, we start them with the higher end costing frames and congratulate them on being able to apply their frame benefit towards them. I've seen office complain about it but it's because they take the patient to frames that are fully covered by their benefit. Dumb and poor business.
It's the same the same with AR and any uncovered option. So if I sell an upgrade, even an uncovered option, we collect the money from the patient and the chargeback is simply VSP taking the money back to cover the check they wrote to pay the lab for said options COGS. I just had a patient yesterday order Crizal Saphire. VSP Covers $xxx dollars for thier plan, however, I collected that amount plus the difference for saphire. When I get my EOP, it will show a chargeback because VSP is paying the Essilor lab in Dallas that provides Saphire their COGS's. Make sense still?
I hope that clarifies things, but in the end, if you're taking VSP Patients and are an approved panel doctor, VSP does pay your lab bill in full on VSP Patients. They even cover shipping both ways. EyeMed does not provide this service to you or any contract lab. Go figure.... So just remember that when calculating the two against one another.
Last edited by racethe1320; 02-03-2012 at 05:06 PM.
Ding, ding, we have someone who understands it all. Thank you. So now the OP should understand how to make money on both plans and also see why for the patient, VSP Does provide a better value. Managed care isn't here to be the money tree for doctors. Their customers are business and their employees. We are simply PROVIDERS who willingly accept contracted fees to provide services to said clients and their employees. No one is forcing any of us who accept managed care to do that. It's the same with contract labs. They don't have to provide services for VSP for set pricing. They too would much rather bill all of us their U&C fees less a discount (since they are a wholesale lab) vs taking what VSP or managed care companies provide. However, they are paid timely by said managed care companies and paid quite well so the model for them is very profitable. It still amazes me that they bi tch so much though.
As a doctor if you don't like VSP Dictating max. charges, then don't take VSP. That's a choice you as a provider to their clients employees you make. Lot here, including DRK don't like hearing that, but YES, they are VSP clients first, your patients second. You can't look at it as if VSP is taking your clients. That's like saying without Iran and Iraq, all that oil over there would costs less or be ours. Without dry weather my grass would grow. The realiity is this is 2012, not 1968 and managed care is a reality. If you don't like it, then go live off private pay. Many do.
Last edited by racethe1320; 02-03-2012 at 05:05 PM.
I actually loathe this. Makes it too difficult to run accounts receivable. The only advantage I have been able to find for the OD is that VSP has the ability to control lense prices for you. But in reality, your collecting money for VSP and then they take it away from you in the form of a chargeback. This can be looked at from two perspectives. One, pt just sees you "rolling in the bucks", little do they know VSP is going to turn around and take the money from you. Two, its actually a good thing should your pt ever switch to a private payer. Then they are used to paying something for the lenses. To get the best of both worlds, I would prefer to just collect the money, and pay the lab bill, and be in total control my accounts receivables. Running thru all of VSP's financial "over engineered" payment system is enough to make even Einstiens head spin.
VSP controls lab prices as it relates to VSP work overall as they has contracted discounted prices that ECP's benefit from as their program allows you to use any VSP approved lab and the costs for your work remains the same. They also help insure low prices from the lens makers too since they are the sole customer vs. if all thier contract labs were to try and buy from the lens makers. So in the end, by doing so, it saves the ECP & contracted labs time money.
You see it as collecting money for VSP, but then you could also look at it as VSP is paying a bill for you too. Think about the benefit that is for their contract labs. It's huge. Especially in terms of their managing recievables. From a patients standpoint, I don't don't agree with your point. The patient is always going to think you're rolling in it as you're the doctor. However, they aren't so dumb as to think you don't have a COG's associated with the products you sell.But in reality, your collecting money for VSP and then they take it away from you in the form of a chargeback. This can be looked at from two perspectives. One, pt just sees you "rolling in the bucks", little do they know VSP is going to turn around and take the money from you.
Can we ditch the VSP is taking money already? VSP isn't taking anything as that would imply you're entitled to the chargeback. You're not, those moneies are to cover COG's they are paying on your behalf thus are moneies you would be paying out anyway. Again, it's all the same to the patient. In fact an educated patient would see that for what it is, a means of reducing costs.
Sure you would, but then who would insure you're paying your contracted lab in a timely fashion? How about the 28,000 other panel providers? Under the current system contracted labs performing VSP work are happier than can be as there's never any VSP related work at any VSP Practices that has an outstanding balance. By insuring your bills are paid in full, VSP is also reducing the likelihood that one of their clients/covered lives is working with a practice that's on credit hold. The beauty is that even if you slack off on paying your private pay work, your lab will likely just reject private jobs as they know you're good for the money on VSP Jobs beause they are paid by VSP. It's a great system actually.Two, its actually a good thing should your pt ever switch to a private payer. Then they are used to paying something for the lenses. To get the best of both worlds, I would prefer to just collect the money, and pay the lab bill, and be in total control my accounts receivables.
Maybe for some but the intent is to insure timely payments and reduced costs. So for all those that say VSP doesn't care....they have much better system for looking out for their ECP's, Contracted labs and patients than EyeMed does.Running thru all of VSP's financial "over engineered" payment system is enough to make even Einstiens head spin.
Last edited by racethe1320; 02-05-2012 at 12:57 AM.
Sorry poor choice of words (taking) on my part. This all goes back to their overengineered system. I would rather just charge the pt for the upcharge, and not deal with the so called chargebacks. What is a chargeback anyway? I've studied business, and don't ever recall that term. Pretty sure its something VSP invented. Or the credit card industry. Anyway, I think you see my point. They are a PIA.
LOL. Probably true of any business owner....
True, I'm sure it works great for them. It doesn't work great for me though. We don't slack on paying our bills. It is part of our company DNA.
My goal is to be able to reconcile a statement down to the penny within a reasonable amount of time. About the same time it takes to reconcile a bank statement. If I can't meet that goal, then something is wrong. VSP reimbursement systems does not allow me to meet that goal. If there is anyone out there that has figured out a way to do this, please PM me. I will be willing to pay for the software that allows me to do this.
Last edited by AustinEyewear; 02-05-2012 at 02:37 PM.
What you call an overengineering of the systm is simply a practice that insures payments on invoices. You're right, it's not done to protect you, it's done to protect the patient so that if a practice doesn't pay a lab for their services, the patient visiting said practice doesn't incur an inconvenience because the office is on credit hold and possibly unable to deliver services and materials. Again, that patient is the first and foremost concern to any managed care company. The patient and their employer are their customer. You can fault that type of assurance.
By that same account, such a system insurs the contract labs are made whole are made and is insurance to the contracted labs that they are promptly which goes to insure they too perform for you.
In the end, it may be a little more work for you, but your accounts payables in turn have less to manage as well. Doctors are among the worst business people out there and that's not something we need to debate.
Perhaps, but when you have a network as vast as VSP, there have to be assurances that everyone does the same. Honor systems and company DNA like yours isn't the standard. Again, no need for a debate there. I personally agree with their system as it does work.True, I'm sure it works great for them. It doesn't work great for me though. We don't slack on paying our bills. It is part of our company DNA.
The challenges you have face every medical office, not just those with VSP. Thus the entire reason third party medical billing companies exist. Our world is by far easier than medical doctors function within. Those challenges exist because of managed care, but then cars are complicated systems that I no longer work on myself either. Things were much simplier when there were no EPA smog regulation items and engines were a lot more simply overall. Change or die as they say. Insurance isn't here to benefit us first, it's for the patient. You all scoff at me, but again, show me a managed care company that supports and helps us, the patients and contract labs more than them, please show me where and how. I've been doing this for years and watch the evolution and seen the good bad and ugly.My goal is to be able to reconcile a statement down to the penny within a reasonable amount of time. About the same time it takes to reconcile a bank statement. If I can't meet that goal, then something is wrong. VSP reimbursement systems does not allow me to meet that goal. If there is anyone out there that has figured out a way to do this, please PM me. I will be willing to pay for the software that allows me to do this.
For the record, not scoffing. Actually have learned quite a bit from you. Although I'm not convinced they deserve any great award for their humanitarian efforts to serve the OD. The OD is just a tool for them to do what you mention, serve their customers. You may be right... that they are the best there is, or at least as I'll put it, they may just be the best of the worst. My biggest complaint with VSP is their billing methodology. I'm sure I could come one with a better one that works better for the OD and would work just as good for them.
One thing that has been on my mind lately concerning them, is their ability to pay more is certain lenses are used. I've been wondering how legal (for lack of better word) this is. Its sort of akin to a MD pushing a certain Rx because they can get paid better. Any thoughts on this?
When looking at whether managed care is good or bad, you have to look at patient acquisition costs. If you are advertising, and divide the cost that by the number of patients you see it gives you some idea what it costs to acquire each patient. Even theortically. With managed care, not just VSP, you are through discounts PAYING the insurance company to bring you patients, just like advertising.
The way to do the math is too look at your average net revenue per patient now, compared with VSP patients. If the difference is less than your advertising cost, then its probably better to go managed care. If you can attract patients for less than the difference, then don't.
If you are seeing more patients at less margin, it will also detract from the service level you provide to your existing patient base. If service drops, you could be in a cylce where you loose high margin patients to see more low margin patients, and have to cut costs (and service) again. Now you NEED those low margin patients. It can be a death cycle as once again, you have to cut costs to service low margin patients.
If your practice is doing well without managed care, by all means, let the low margin patients go to your competition. Managed care could ruin what you worked hard to build.
Good move. Never did take Spectera due to low reimbursements. Took Davis for a couple of years before I had a revolt in my office to get rid of the "tower of doom". (Davis vision specializes in discontinued/over-run frames, kind of like costco).
Actually I kind of liked the fact that davis covered lots of lens options by making you use their lab. Pretty good for the patient anyway.
Another thing my people made me do was drop Medi-Cal (medicaid) and healthy families (a vsp program). Oh and yeah, I dropped eyemed's ATT plan until enough of us did to make them change it. What was it, $5 for an exam or something really stupid like that.
My people have limits.
As the managed care co., they can decide what lenses fit into their desired categories or even what is covered. Their program participation is up to their discretion. Just because a new lens comes out doesn't mean it will be covered nor does the manufacturer have a say in what category it would fit. That's VSP's call. It's a good call too as it keeps the manufacturers honest in many ways.
In theory yes, but with advertising the audience is far less "captive" or likely to select you. VSP also carries a very recognizable brand and has much greater reach overall. So while yes, you could break anything down on a per patient cost advertising vs managed care isn't quite an equal comparison.
I agree. If the portion of the patient pie you have is profitable from a time/dollar standpoint that's great. However, key then becomes how you expand that pie. I started with 1 then 2 locations in a growing suburban area as did hundreds of other docs. My time was easily maxed out. However, the key then become how to run the business so that I don't have to put in the hours, but rather put others in place to run the offices and see the patients and keep them busy. Of course hiring more staff costs more, but VSP Brought me way more dollars than the costs involved and the time I had to put in was but that of a fraction of what was needed for my first two locations. (just do a basic labor management study of payable hours against revenue earned per day and subtract all operating expenses.)The way to do the math is too look at your average net revenue per patient now, compared with VSP patients. If the difference is less than your advertising cost, then its probably better to go managed care. If you can attract patients for less than the difference, then don't.
Now I have a number of locations and am bringing in way more than without managed care as to advertise for all of them and get the targeted draw that VSP alone brings me would be outrageous. It becomes a business mgt game is all. Lawyers have their local bar association that drives them clients, repair centers partner with warranty companies, warranty companies partner with manufacturers, restaurants pay their associations, etc. What we are facing is nothing new or unique and is actually a proven system that all can benefit from when managed correctly.
That is true if you don't expand the resources needed to effectively maintain both. I sense we're talking about two different things, you and the OP are assuming stay small and I'm thinking much bigger, grow the initial practice and expand into more locations. Use managed care for what it does best, fills your chairs. Profitability is only problem if you're losing the good patients and can't manage more overall. Again, I challenge you all to stop looking at what you think managed does to you and start thinking about how you can better expound on what it does for you. I'm sorry a single location pulling down $1M at a margin of XX% is great but having 3-4 doing a mix of work at 3-4 that revenue even less a -20-30% puts way more profit in your bank accounts.If you are seeing more patients at less margin, it will also detract from the service level you provide to your existing patient base. If service drops, you could be in a cylce where you loose high margin patients to see more low margin patients, and have to cut costs (and service) again. Now you NEED those low margin patients. It can be a death cycle as once again, you have to cut costs to service low margin patients.
The above needs augmented to say that it will ruin it if you are not sharp in the financials of running a business. Otherwise, it will only increase it dramatically. Some choose to learn how to maximize the systems in place, others tend to rant about them. I know which one pays me more.If your practice is doing well without managed care, by all means, let the low margin patients go to your competition. Managed care could ruin what you worked hard to build.
Last edited by racethe1320; 02-07-2012 at 04:35 PM.
I don't think that accepting plans decreases your quality, unless of course you let it. In fact, like golf, to be any good you have to have talent AND practice a lot. If you don't do many exams or fit many glasses, your quality may go down, just like if you don't get out on the links enough. I've always felt that anyone who takes an hour to do an exam is just fiddling around and probably will get less than stellar results. Of course taking less than 10 minutes and being worked to death doesn't work well either.
Last edited by Dr. Bill Stacy; 02-07-2012 at 04:20 PM.
I agree. I think it's a small-office mentality to think taking on more is going to yield lesser quality or lower profits. Manage your people/resources and business overall general and I think you can do more with more and even raise the quality a bit.
Or maybe a whole lot, as in being able to buy some nice diagnostic equipment that you can't afford at 5 patients a day...
After consulting in many practices, I would disagree . The difference is not wether you take managed care, or not, but whether managed care provides the bulk of your practice income. If 50% or more of your patients are managed care it will effect service levels, even with VSP.
You will see this more visably in practices that are 80% one low paying insurance company, Davis or Spectara especially (less damange from Eyemed or VSP). At very high VSP practices I see higher turnover among staff and fewer licensed Opticians which also lowers service. The walls are painted, the faces smiling, but capture rate can often be below 40% with poor average sales (in contrast some practices have 90% capture rates).
I can walk into a practice and in 1 minute tell whether they are primarily managed care, or a heathly balance.
I just did a study of Yelp reviews on the West Coast here and consistantly the highest scoring practices had a lower percentage of their business from managed care. In fact, I help practices move away from their dependance on managed care quite a bit. In every case they work less, and make more money.
Not every practice that has great net revenue turns that into great service though.
Can you take managed care and maintain great service? Yes, but its a lot more work when you are only netting $226 per patient, vs. $334 per patient without. If you are willing to take managed care, you are willing to take less money. If your rent is really low you may be able to pull it off, but at some point that less money will pinch... where is up to you. Its just simple math.
I don't really get it. What is this "capture rate"? And what the heck is the 226 vs. 334 supposed to mean? I could envision doing a lot more work for the 334 than for the 226 if the 334 required a major "sales" effort while the 226 required a more standardized approach to patient care with much less time spent on selling stuff. Whatever the case, neither tells me much about the quality of care. In eye care and lots of things, more money doesn't always equate to higher quality.
As for the prejudicial practice comments in your post, I wonder if you've really seen many successful insurance oriented practices. Maybe the only ones seeking your help are the ones who need your help?
So when consulting with your practices that are 50% or more managed care, what factors of their business are impacting the quality of service?
So again, in your experience, what factors make Davis or Spectara service providers worse than VSP or EyeMed?You will see this more visably in practices that are 80% one low paying insurance company, Davis or Spectara especially (less damange from Eyemed or VSP). At very high VSP practices I see higher turnover among staff and fewer licensed Opticians which also lowers service. The walls are painted, the faces smiling, but capture rate can often be below 40% with poor average sales (in contrast some practices have 90% capture rates).
You also see a higher turnover at VSP Volume practices. What did they attribute that turnover to?
Did you validate your capture rates with the managed care companies that processed the claim? With your "connections" at VSP that's a pretty easy stat to find out. I'd even be willing to bet nationwide you're quite low on that 40% figure.
So what is it that your keen eye looks for when walking into a practice that in one minutes allows this?I can walk into a practice and in 1 minute tell whether they are primarily managed care, or a heathly balance.
So do you honestly feel your single statement here provides validity to the claim you're making? Did you contact every practice and cross reference all of their records? Please, tell me it was in state of WA. I'd be happy to do some tapping of my contacts at VSP.I just did a study of Yelp reviews on the West Coast here and consistently the highest scoring practices had a lower percentage of their business from managed care. In fact, I help practices move away from their dependance on managed care quite a bit. In every case they work less, and make more money.
So you're saying that by managed care driven practices have to be in the low rent districts or they somehow happen to just "pull it off" and scrape by eh? That's a LOL moment for me. Yeah, I never see a VSP Driven practice with spectacular offices. Insert the biggest laughing rolling eye face you can here. Please, list for me what you believe are the top 5 VSP Practices in your city, Seattle right? You're connected, you're a consultant, should be easy for you.Can you take managed care and maintain great service? Yes, but its a lot more work when you are only netting $226 per patient, vs. $334 per patient without. If you are willing to take managed care, you are willing to take less money. If your rent is really low you may be able to pull it off, but at some point that less money will pinch... where is up to you. Its just simple math.
Bill, you're spot on in terms of your comments. These points need a lot more validation. Believe me, it can be done.
I'm with you. Doubtful. The stats on VSP Practices are readily available. In fact as a consultant he can either work directly with VSP or ask for the doctor to share his/her practice report. New ones are about due to be mailed.
One of the things I love about this industry is that there are so many ways to be successful.
The capture rate refers to the ration between the number of refractive exams vs. the number of pairs of eyewear you sell (I count 1 yrs contacts as eyewear). Medical exams are excluded. The industry average is about 41%. There are offices that reach 90% consistantly, but it requires a tremendous level of service. Patient Capture is in my opinion the best indicator of your Practice's over all health. Every office should know their capture, and track it every month. That way you can measure and benchmark your business. With higher capture rates, you are generating more revenue without adding one patient to your exam schedule.
Managed care plans at practice I just analyzed net an avg about $226 per pat. after expenses inc. exam and eyewear. VSP came in at $243, But PPO's (Blue Cross, Uniform ect) netted $334 per patient, and cash patients were higher still. In none of these cases did the more profitable insurances require more work in general. The only difference was the reimbursements. Its not prejudice, its just math. The average purchase among insurances was about the same, it varied only slightly.
You can be successful with managed care, but its a lot more work. It requires a more careful and deliberate strategy, very controlled spending, there are other posts on here describing some of those "tricks" for each carrier. For example, with Eyemed you don't have to offer the 20% frame discount on many premium lines, carry a few of those lines and you can increase your per patient revenue by $40 in a flash. That's an easy $120 per week, times 52... and that is an extra $6240 per year without lifting a finger.
The Premim PPO's in this area (Regence BC, Premera, Uniform etc) pay about $115 more than Managed Care plans per patient, and the gap can be even wider. Regence can pay on some plans $400 per patient, per year, no discounts required. VSP Signature for example averages about $245 net to the practice, per patient, and that is much better than some, some pull in about $170. If you perform only 2 exams per hour, that gap becomes enormous... about $300 difference per hour . That is an additional $120,000 per year for your practice, with out any additional outlay, expense, or effort.
So in effect, you could be paying at the extreme, an extra $120K per year for the patients VSP sends you over a premium insurance plan in unrealized potential revenue. In reality that could work out to be about $80K depending on the mix of insurances you take and your patient load. Again, for doing the exact same work you do now.
If your schedule is empty, take every insurance you can. But when your schedule is full, it makes sense to cull those plans that pay your practice less doesn't it?
Every owner should know their practices patient capture rate, and what revenue they generate from each insurance they take. When I do audits, I even break down the different VSP plans. Its a crucial to making sound decisions.
Even if you decide to take, keep, and love managed care, you should know the numbers of what its doing, both good (bringing in more patients) vs the bad (earning less per patient) to your bottom line. Its only basic sound business principles.
I did just want to mention, since I couldnt find any previous posts about the benefit of some plans, like an EyeMed premium plan.
With exam, frame, and lens can reimburse over $650 plus any overage patient pays and that's SV! Not to mention it'll show all eligible members so Moms' glasses equals dad daughter and son too. They won't leave without them. And now they love us even more.
There aren't a lot of plans like this , but our office is 5 minutes from the area hospital and all the employees who signed up for vision have it.
We did 65 pairs last year on that 1 plan. Word of mouth at work will double that number this year.
VSP we are only preferred out-of-network only, but that's great too, in that it's still write off free and sends a little more numbers our way.
Of course there are successful practices with and without managed care. How you measure success can differ too. It's important to know the numbers, but not so precisely if you aren't using outside labs and also doing covered only items.
Net per patient is what it is, as long as its a good bottom line.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks