One incentive for patients that must be discussed is the desire to work with – especially when discussing regenerative therapies – a “physician,” rather than a “provider.” Without going into great detail here, a “provider” is one who provides medical treatment based on last century’s model of “treat and street” or chemicals. A “physician” is one who is skilled in the art of healing. When considering the process of regenerative therapies, it is incredibly important to work with one who is skilled in the art of healing.

The RHM platform marries the process of regenerative treatments and therapies with physicians who are actually skilled in the art of healing.

How do we do this? Let’s look at the other options first.

If a third party pays for treatments, there is no “skin in the game” (relationship) for any of the three parties.

It is hard – almost impossible – to align economic interests between two parties – patients and physicians – when neither party has a say in what things cost. There is not incentive for patients to shop prices because patients get treatments based upon what their insurance company will pay for.

Conversely, physicians have no incentive to keep costs down because, frankly, the model does not require them to do so. (While the ACA, or “Obamacare,” was supposed to provide incentives for physicians to try and keep prices down, in reality, providers are perverse incentives to do the opposite by ordering more tests than necessary to avoid frivolous lawsuits.)