That's NOT even a statement, there, Cobby.
That's a question. And a hypothetical, at that.
Well, before we leave this, allow me to re-empahsize that the reason that is phrased that way is because I have NO independent knowledge or contact with any "LLMD" as I have said repeatedly.
So I DON'T KNOW.
I was asking for people to think about it. Consider the question.
Yes, obviously, I am skeptical. But I really am dependent on others' accounts and descriptions online for any sense of what I have as to what an LLMD typically does or doesn't do. And as several have mentioned, now, this seems to vary widely, as does what, even, may constitute an "LLMD".
But that doesn't mean that my mind, opinion, is absolutely made up and locked in stone. It's a discussion board and I was merely asking questions.
I am interested in what others might have to say on the issue...especially because I lack firsthand experience with an LLMD.
Then my answer to your hypthetical question is that the fees an LLMD charges are the same as the fees of a mainstream doctor for the most part. The cost is probably very much the same- insurance is what makes the difference to the patient.
Well, what is that answer based on though?
My general impression is that there is a whole lot of iv-ing going on. If you go back into this thread, and look at Martian's posts, you will see some online accounts of what the fees and charges are reported to be in some cases.
And correct me if I'm wrong...but aren't we talking, here, generally, about extended antibiotic services that are not recommended or approved? The general impression I get is that there seems to be ivs being used in situations where it probably has questionable medical necessity and for lengths of time that are also questionable. But I don't have firsthand information. As I said, all I can tell you is what I gather from what others report online. (And they are certainly discouraged from doing that).
So, it wouldn't be all that accurate to say that these charges are the same that a mainstream doctor would provide, because the mainstream doc wouldn't be treating for that length of time, right? Or by iv therapy, either, probably?
See, that's where the question, hypothetical, about orals was coming from. As I have said, it seems as though what is driving the LLMD thing is some unspoken assumption that 'more is better' in terms of the iv versus orals. And no question that the iv is more expensive. But does it produce better results? Does longer term therapy provide better results?
And yes, though. What insurance will or will not cover has a dramatic impact on the patient's wallet.
But if you are charging for services that insurance won't cover?
Right out -of -pocket.