Talk:MDVIP

Older comments

The MDVIP fee is not inclusive of insurance premiums, co-pays, co-insurance or other fees so it's really a misnomer. Other concierge plans which may have a higher sticker price are often cheaper when all costs are considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.45.126 (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The reversion by Nbudell which claimed "The previous contributer provided unfounded, non-factual statements." was clearly by someone with a biased interest in MDVIP - either an employee or franchised doctor. The sources in the portion of the article that was vandalized were in part from MDVIP's website itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.64.56 (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Added yet another source article:
"A different kind of doctoring: MDVIP promises a lessened patient load, no-wait appointments"
http://www.journalwatchdog.com/business/932-a-different-kind-of-doctoring
"Of the $1,500 annual fee, physicians keep $1,000 and MDVIP takes $500 to pay for MDVIP’s 200 employees, support services, educational programs, electronic record-keeping, sales and marketing and keeping up with regulations, according to Hecht, the company CEO." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.64.56 (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Another reference, from Boston.com:
"Concierge doctors care for a small number of patients who agree to pay an annual fee on top of insurance — $1,500 to $1,800 in MDVIP’s case"
http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-17/business/29428534_1_concierge-medicine-mdvip-boutique-practices 98.238.64.56 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Thanks to all of the contributors here for adding content and sources. I'd be interested to see expanded background on the P&G purchase of MDVIP and what implications this has for the division. BocceBrent (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MDVIP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mdvip.com/patient/patientcare.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-17/business/29428534_1_concierge-medicine-mdvip-boutique-practices
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mdvip.com/patient/insurancemedicare.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-17/business/29428534_1_concierge-medicine-mdvip-boutique-practices
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.journalwatchdog.com/business/932-a-different-kind-of-doctoring
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402224259/https://forrestdirectpay.com/page/why-forrest-direct-pay to https://forrestdirectpay.com/page/why-forrest-direct-pay

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)