Lowering Barriers to Entry - Avoid Bad Consultants (ABC)s

I am happy to hear about more and more physicians entering the DPC space.  The mapper I have been working on for years now has over 355 practices.  As the DPC movement continues to gain momentum physicians must be aware of the parasites that are sure to follow.  Many "consultants" claim to have expertise in DPC.  While I have met a few kind and helpful consultants, most claim knowledge that they simply do not possess, and then overcharge physicians for "services" of little value.  

In the next few blog posts I will be pointing out many of these cases.  I have quietly and politely said nothing for too long, and too many physicians are paying for bad information, when excellent information is totally free on this website and the many other resources we cite.  One of the ABCs of DPC should be "avoid bad consultants."

One group of consultants in an article picked up by Reuters claims that:

A)"DPC is best viewed as a fee-for-service model, in which patients pay out of pocket at the time of service for care received"  - Anyone with half a brain knows that this is not an appropriate definition of DPC (appropriate definition found here).  The starting point for DPC fee arrangements is the periodic fee - just ask the 14 states that have passed laws on this very issue.
B) "The majority of medical services in a concierge model are delivered directly by the physician, while patients in a DPC practice are more likely to receive a significant portion of their care from a nurse practitioner or physician assistant"  This is false.  I have data that directly refutes this statement, and it is scheduled for publication in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine next month (check back on Nov 6th).
C) "In DPC, there is frequently no cap on the number of patients accepted, and to make the model work financially, patient panels easily number well over 1,500."  This is also false.  I have not met a single DPC physician that plans to operate a practice with a policy of no patient cap.  Having no patient cap would not only be legally risky and foolish, it would be unsustainable and prohibit the physician from continuing to offer enough time to each member patient.

For some reason the authors of this article chose to cite my website.  I have no idea what they were citing it, since they obviously have not taken the time to read it.