New and Improved Deepest Health Podcast – Ep 1 – Intro & Insurance

Hi Eric,

You summed it up perfectly…it’s a choice! Any one of us has a right to accept insurance or cash patients.

I actually prefer insurance patients over cash patients. I would trade a cash patient for an insurance patient any day of the week. That probably seems weird for most people to hear but it’s true! The reason is because with insurance patients I am collecting up to $300 per treatment and doing that 3x a week which I could never do with a cash patient. This also makes it more likely for the patient to get better which in turn can generate more word of mouth referrals.

Cash patient=$60 per week
Insurance patient= Up to $900 per week

One needs to do what’s best for their practice. My good friend only takes cash and is doing fantastic.
I personally always had a hard time collecting cash from patients (I know that’s silly) but I enjoy collecting a lot of money from the insurance companies!

For the many struggling acupuncturists, accepting insurance may be one way to give them a boost. ‘Cause you only need a few insurance patients to really monetize your practice.

Hi Eric,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the scholarly tradition in Chinese Medicine.

I can’t remember where I got these seed thoughts, I wanted to share. (I just remember! Its Robert Schmidt, a Hellenistic Astrologer)

In most every other Western academic field, particularly the sciences, there are two branches of each field. There’s the experimental branch and the theoretical branch. While this balance in most fields wax and wane with one or the other branch dominating the spotlight, there’s always a recognition of the need and value for each.

However, in Chinese Medicine and Astrology, there really isn’t two branches. There’s a muddled mix of practitioner with clinical experience who cobbles together theory from an amalgamation of sources, including current theory and classic texts. The young practitioner is constantly attending seminars to update their knowledge with the a slightly different perspective.

The problem I see with this is the lack of coherent theory within a particular system.

Allowing two branches will create the opportunity for multiple robust theories to be tested at a clinical level. Or at least I hope.

When this embrace of a Western model is self-initiated by Chinese Medicine practitioners, it can critically contest the ill-designed experiments of outsiders (those who traditionally are running experiments of ’sham’ acupuncture).

I personally think we need:
1. Practitioners
2. Scholars researching primary Chinese texts on acupuncture
3. Experiments in controlled settings (scientific experimentation)
4. Aged Practitioners (elders so to speak) distilling their clinical experience

These people are necessary and don’t have to be separate people for each task. Finally, we need institutions that support each of these people in their own volition.

A system that offers a bridge between the Chinese tradition and the modern Western world is, in my opinion, vital for the continued growth and influence in our field.

And above all else, we need the continued humility that we are in service to that being called ‘healing’. For without it we are nothing as doctors.

~Mitesh

I’d be happy to contribute. How about I cobble something together over break.

~Mitesh