Skip to main content

Here's a challenge for Karin Weldin Stewart: MedExpress is Highmark, and that's a problem for both Delaware consumers and business people

See? MedExpress even has a guy
in a Blue Hen costume to go along
with bazillions in advertising.
So by now you have seen or heard all the advertisements for MedExpress, the "neighborly place" to get urgent medical care.

And as I have said elsewhere about them,
Whenever you hear a corporation (banks also come to mind here) talking about being a good neighbor, you know you need to hold onto your wallet.
But that's not specifically germane to the question of why our Insurance Commissioner should be interested in them.

What's germane is that MedExpress is a wholly owned subsidiary of Blue Cross Blue Shield Highmark, the good folks who just bought out the BCBS franchise for Delaware.  So for many of us, if we go to a MedExpress, no matter how friendly and how neighborly they may appear to be, we are really going to a subsidiary of our own insurance company for treatment.

This has some interesting implications, not just for patients, but also for other (some locally owned) urgent care centers around the state.

You see, among other things, according to what local physicians have told me, Highmark compensates other urgent care facilities seeing their patients at  $120/visit, but gives preferential reimbursement to their own facilities at $150/visit.

Moreover, MedExpress seems to be strangely immune to some of the technical legal niceties regarding whether or not you can own the lab attached to your own urgent care facility, and similar arrangements.

To the owners of other urgent care facilities (which includes Christiana Care, owning four in the area), MedExpress has made no bones about the fact that these clinics are coming into Delaware to do "Wal-Mart" on them--to use their incestuous corporate edge to drive their own prices down (temporarily) and drive everybody else out of business.

Of course, you can make your own estimate of where prices will thereafter go.

I wonder where the insurance commissioner is when the major carrier in the state slops over into providing medical care and then gives itself preferential compensation rates?

Oh, wait.  I forgot who the insurance commissioner is.  Never mind.

A note to forestall certain comments:  this is not a Libertarian whining for government intervention to correct the free market.  There is no free market here, there is a government-regulated market.  That's the only game in town.  This is a Libertarian pointing out that the government regulators appearing to be failing miserably at their jobs, and--as a result (no surprise!)--are privileging large corporations over local business people and entrepreneurs.

You claim to be able to run these markets in the public interest?  Then let's see you do it?

(And while you are at it, ask yourself whether the fact that Highmark/MedExpress is paying for massive advertising in the WNJ and on local radio has anything to do with why our dauntless media is not investigating this story.)

Final note:  if you want to find out about a true good neighbor urgent care facility in Delaware, check out Dr. Vince Schaller's Hockessin Walk-in.  Take five minutes to read about his operation and you will, frankly, drive right past the MedExpress the next time you need urgent care.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I'd like to point out that "What's germane is that MedExpress is a wholly owned subsidiary of Blue Cross Blue Shield Highmark, the good folks who just bought out the BCBS franchise for Delaware." is just a completely false statement. If you do a simple google search you'll see they own a mere 10% stake in the company and only recently acquired that. Other than that the rest of your post may very well be accurate but it seems most of your premise is based on the above assumption which is incorrect.
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...