Physician Patient


Minnesota Physician-Patient Alliance, Inc. ("MPPA") is a not-for-profit organization committed to improving our health care system. We do this by communicating information to the public and within the industry about important health care issues.

MPPA believes that efficient, quality health care depends on strong doctor-patient relationships. Interference in the doctor-patient relationship by third parties such as health plans and the government, is widespread in today's health care system and often limits what doctors or patients are allowed to do, altering market-based reimbursement, and undermining the traditional ethics of the medical professions. While the intentions of the third parties in interfering with the relationship may be honorable (for example, to control costs or improve quality), ironically the cumulative effect of this interference is unnecessarily high costs and reduced quality. Efforts to reform health care, therefore, must first and foremost address the issue of strong doctor-patient relationships.

The MPPA board consists of physicians, health care consumers, and others who share these concerns and values. We seek to communicate our message by collaborating on research and publication, sharing information about market developments, and individually being active in a variety of health care and community organizations.

To see who belongs to MPPA, please visit our Who We Are page by clicking on the link to the right. To see some of our communications, click on one of the Publications links to the right. If you would like to learn more about MPPA or our positions, click on the Contact Us link to the right.

MPPA was established in 1997 as a Minnesota 501(c)3 charitable nonprofit organization. If you would like to be added to the MPPA listserv, the respected MPPA online discussion group, send us your contact information and we will add you.

Dec 3

MPPA wants MN state health care funding policy changes to be based on expanded consumer (patient and family) direction and control, real consumer choices of doctor and other “providers,” competitive markets for care and insurance in Minnesota involving price transparency, and support for the Rep. Tom Price national Obamacare repeal and replace efforts. The Minnesota legislature convenes January 3. What do you think?

Given the coming changes in the federal ACA law, will BCBSM, Medica, HPI and other MN nonprofit insurance players develop and market consumer-directed health care insurance products to lower health care costs?

The MN Medicaid HMO industry relies on “competitive bidding” among Minnesota’s health care insurance oligopoly companies to win contracts which affect hundreds of thousands of people. They claim they are losing money. However, the public is in the dark about the deals — the criteria, accountability, and actual dollars considered by the state bureaucracy in rewarding these contracts. We know only of the results of proclamations and decisions made by the MN Department of Commerce (Mike Rothman) in its naming of health plan winners and losers, enrollment caps and the like.

We are aware that Minnesota’s nonprofit health plan companies are both insurance companies and employers of health care “providers.” How does this potential conflict of interests square with developing and expanding consumer-directed market-based health care and insurance products?

The people of Minnesota are angry and restless about the costs and access to health care insurance, the instability and costs of taxpayer-funded Medicaid HMOs for the poor and ACA-eligible middle class citizens, and the current uncertainty and cost for many thousands of rural Minnesotans dependent on the individual insurance market now facing escalating premiums, greatly diminished coverage options, and narrow “provider” networks.


Aug 21


Blue Cross/Blue Shield of MN is exiting all but its HMO product on a floundering MNsure public insurance exchange causing anxious concern for many rural-dwelling Minnesotans dependent on BCBSM. And, large insurance conglomerates such as UnitedHealthcare, Humana and Aetna are dropping offerings on the ACA (Obamacare) insurance exchanges nationally.

What impact do these developments have on care and insurance options for patients and potential patients (consumers) in Minnesota? For the cost of their health care insurance in 2017? On competition between clinics and doctors for their loyalty? And, competition for dollars among Minnesota insurance companies?

It depends on your point of view. Obviously the only way to find a low cost, best value health care procedure or select an insurance policy is to compare prices and benefits. But that is neither the rule or the goal in Minnesota. There are incentives and (designed) barriers to real cost transparency for the purchasers of medical care and health care insurance coverage in Minnesota. The messages and warnings from our health plans and government authorities are mixed, and we are warned about the consequences of working for true price disclosure to Minnesota citizens.

Hospital costs are so amazingly complex, bundled, and difficult to tease out that it’s impossible for a potential patient (consumer) to know in advance or even retrospectively the answer to the simple but essential question “What does this cost?”

For outpatient procedures, which theoretically are easier to price and evaluate, we should be able to shop for imaging, outpatient surgical procedures, and professional relationships. We need a market for HSA-insurance linkages which encourage consumers to shop for value as they determine this to be. See

Shopping based on knowing the price of a medical procedure or visit becomes irrelevant if there are very few competitors who are available in business offering real options for consumers. We have seen a dramatic decline of independent, entrepreneurial private medical practices in Minnesota. In 2016 most Minnesota physicians are employees of hospital-clinic organizations which are governed by (secret) provider network contracts with insurance companies which actually determine the financial terms of engagement for patients.

Some policymakers and analysts call for more health care data and more analysis. First it is apparent that we need a hard-nosed cost-effectiveness analysis of our massive and expensive Minnesota all claims data base (ACDB). What value is the ACDB to consumers (patients and potential patients)? How is it used now by private and government purchasers of health care and insurance products? Who pays for, collects, and analyzes all this big data now? And what do we need to analyze?

Minnesota’s health plans do not want public price disclosure for services or insurance claiming they will lose money if there is public knowledge of the finances in contracts they write with network providers (clinics) or the insurance products they offer. They are selling pre-paid medical care and the health plans claim that public knowledge of their business dealings with government and other purchasers will result in higher health care prices. This is adverse selection they claim. People will choose the richest health plan they can get paid for with someone else’s money rather than choosing the lowest cost health plan that meet their needs for specific benefits and protections.

Our current state of affairs confirms four facts: 1. Health care insurance in Minnesota does not operate in a competitive, consumer-directed marketplace. 2. Health plans which are selling pre-paid benefits must raise their prices and/or shift costs to patients and families. 3 There is little likelihood of competition for patients between health care providers or health plans until Minnesota citizens are given incentives to make prudent health care decisions (skin in the game). 4. Minnesota is spending a lot of time, money and analytic effort collecting a lot of expensive data to keep things as they are.