Payment Plans Could Propel Elective Medical Procedures

healthcare-elective-medical-procedures

Elective medical procedures — specific medical services consumers want or require, but that are not covered in full by their current insurance providers — are popular in the U.S. According to PYMNTS, 63 million consumers have them, which makes up as much as 10 percent of America’s healthcare economy. That translates to $171 billion in elective medical procedures each year.

Affordable healthcare is on many consumers’ minds, and tech companies like Amazon and Google have been making investments intended to disrupt the industry. Health insurance has been a focus of attention for good reason — but some consumers want to pay for procedures insurance doesn’t cover, yet still find that to be cost-prohibitive.

Elective medical procedures — specific medical services consumers want or require, but that are not covered in full by their current insurance providers — are popular in the U.S. According to PYMNTS, 63 million consumers have them, which makes up as much as 10 percent of America’s healthcare economy. That translates to $171 billion in elective medical procedures each year.

Yet of the 50 million American consumers who wanted to pay for elective procedures for either themselves or others, 44 percent decided against it because they could not pay for the procedures they wanted.

According to PYMNTS’ How Consumers Pay For Elective Medical Procedures Report, it appears there is pent-up demand for elective medical procedures — which means medical practitioners have an opportunity to capitalize on this unmet need.

The most common elective procedures are eye treatments (26.0 percent) like Lasik and cosmetic procedures (22.7 percent) like Botox or rhinoplasty.

The study found that age and income have a lot to do with choice of elective procedure. Consumers 65+ were the most likely to get eye treatments (53.4 percent), while cosmetic procedures were more common with those ages 35-44 (31.8 percent) and 45-54 (38.2 percent).

With cosmetic treatments, on average, costing $4,566, it’s not surprising that these procedures were favored by higher earners. More than one-quarter (29.2 percent) who had them done earned more than $100,000, compared to only 10.0 percent of those earning under $50,000.

In a six-month period, there were more consumers who wanted an elective procedure but decided against it (34.5 million) than those who purchased elective medical services (31.7 million).

This isn’t true for all procedures, though. There is a gap for many between interest levels and going through with a treatment.

Twenty-five percent of those who expressed interest in elective medical procedures actually paid for optical services, but nearly the same number (26 percent) ultimately did not have optical procedures in which they expressed interest.

Twice as many people who expressed interest in fat reduction (9.9 percent) opted to not go through as those who did (4.1 percent).

Cost was by far the leading factor for those declining a wanted procedure. Nearly three-fourths (72.9 percent) opted out of procedures because they couldn’t afford them. Other reasons like being worried about the outcome of the procedure (13.3 percent) and not being able to find a trustworthy medical provider (3.5 percent) didn’t even come close.

Offering payment plans is one solution. Elective procedures can be cost-prohibitive if consumers have to pay for them in one lump sum. Paying in installments is more palatable for many. A majority of consumers (61.5 percent) who declined a desired procedure were not offered a payment plan by the doctor’s office or a third party.

Additionally, nearly 44 percent of the approximately 34.5 million consumers who were not offered payment plans and chose to forgo elective procedures said they would have paid for those services if given the option to do so in installments.

Their spending would have generated around $50.4 billion in revenue for the American medical sector. The value of the market could increase by as much as $18.4 billion if all consumers who were interested in cosmetic surgeries were offered payment plans. The same plans for those considering fat reduction procedures could increase the market’s value by $8.8 billion, and as much as $8.1 billion for those interested in optical procedures.

It is not just to consumers’ and medical practitioners’ financial benefit to offer installment payments — giving consumers options can also improve the customer experience and increase satisfaction.

 


Elon Musk-Led Investor Group Submits Bid to Buy OpenAI Nonprofit

A group of investors led by Elon Musk reportedly submitted a bid to OpenAI’s board of directors Monday (Feb. 10) to buy the nonprofit that controls the company for $97.4 billion.

The unsolicited offer was submitted by Musk’s lawyer, Marc Toberoff, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported Monday.

“It’s time for OpenAI to return to the open-source, safety-focused force for good it once was,” Musk said in a statement provided to WSJ by Toberoff, per the report. “We will make sure that happens.”

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman wrote in a Monday post on X: “no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want,” referring to the Musk-owned X by its former name and offering one-tenth the price the group offered for the OpenAI nonprofit.

Musk and Altman are already engaged in a court battle over the future of OpenAI, which they co-founded as a charity in 2015, according to the WSJ report.

After Musk left the company and Altman became CEO, OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary that has enabled it to raise money from Microsoft and other investors, the report said.

Now, Altman is turning the subsidiary into a traditional company and spinning out the nonprofit, which would own a stake in the for-profit firm, per the report.

Musk’s bid sets a high valuation on the nonprofit and could mean that the operator of the nonprofit would have a large and possibly controlling stake in the for-profit firm, the report said.

Toberoff told WSJ that the investor group will match or exceed any higher bids offered for the nonprofit, per the report.

It was reported Feb. 4 that Musk’s suit against OpenAI might proceed to trial, as a judge said parts of the case can move forward.

“Something is going to trial in this case,” U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said. “[Elon Musk will] sit on the stand, present it to a jury, and a jury will decide who is right.”

Musk has argued that OpenAI’s switch to a for-profit company goes against its original mission, while OpenAI has countered that the switch is necessary to help it land the type of investments it needs to develop the best AI models.