Bill could clear the way for doctors who sign up patients by subscription
Dr. Wendy Molaska is a Wisconsin family practice doctor, but her patients don't use their health insurance — if they have it — when under her care.
Instead, Molaska's patients have a subscription for her services, paying $70 a month. They go to Molaska's office when they feel sick, need a checkup, or have some other routine medical concern. She'll see them as often as they need, she says — no extra charge.
Molaska is a direct primary care practitioner. Direct primary care, DPC for short, is prepaid outpatient health care. While both the doctors who practice it and their patients are just a drop in the health care ocean, their numbers are growing.
In back-to-back meetings last week, the health committees in both the Assembly and the Senate considered legislation to make it legally explicit that the subscription programs used by DPC doctors are not insurance plans and don't have to be regulated like insurance.
The identical bills, AB-8 and SB-4, spell out some definitions, along with rights and standards, for direct primary care agreements and state that they are exempt from insurance law. More than half of states in the U.S. have similar laws.
The concept won bipartisan support in the 2023-24 session of the Legislature but failed to make it to the governor's desk.
'In insurance, you risk-share,' said Dr. Nicole Hemkes, owner of a group of direct primary care clinics, Advocate MD, testifying at the Assembly hearing Wednesday. 'You're paying a bunch of money into a [pool] and then the insurance is paying out on claims.'
Direct primary care is 'basically a transactional relationship where you're paying a monthly membership,' Hemkes said.
'This is the old school medicine of being able to actually take care of your patients the way they need to be taken care of,' Molaska told the Assembly Committee on Health, Aging and Long-Term Care.
She testified that neither she nor patients have to deal with the question of what insurance covers and what it doesn't. The $70 monthly fee covers a broad range of in-office procedures and visits as frequent as a patient requires, she said.
Prescriptions, which she can dispense, and lab tests are extra, but Molaska said in an interview that they are often much less expensive when paid for out of pocket rather than as part of an insurance plan.
Molaska said there are about 100 direct primary care providers in Wisconsin, a number that has grown markedly starting in the first years of the COVID-19 pandemic. If each provider has 500 patients, a typical DPC caseload, that would mean 50,000 Wisconsin people have joined the trend from the patient side.
In an interview, Molaska said that removing the uncertainty over whether regulators would try to apply the state's insurance law to their operation could help motivate more doctors to provide direct primary care.
DPC practitioners say their approach is both cost-effective and patient-friendly.
Hemkes said patients with high-deductible health insurance plans might forgo a routine visit to the doctor to avoid an out-of-pocket expense they can't afford.
'We are not trying to replace insurance,' Hemkes told Assembly members. Direct primary care '[is] meant to make health care more accessible to more people.'
Some people opt for DPC as an alternative to a more expensive, comprehensive health plan, however. Molaska testified that in the Madison suburb of Fitchburg, where she practices, 'the number of people without health insurance is 7.4%. At my clinic, 41.3% don't have other health insurance.'
Many low-wage service workers have employers who don't cover health care, and their own incomes are too high for Medicaid but not high enough for them to buy their own insurance, Molaska told the Wisconsin Examiner. With a direct primary care subscription, 'at least they're able to access primary care,' she said.
For specialty care and hospitalization, patients are still likely to need health insurance or alternative forms of coverage of some kind. Nevertheless, Molaska said, her fixed fee covers as many non-specialist visits to her office as a patient might need to make, as well as being able to call or text for consultation.
Molaska said the system has allowed her to limit the number of patients to about 500 people, in contrast to conventional medical groups where a single doctor's caseload can be two, three or even four times that many.
Molaska said she calculated her monthly fee based on what existing DPC doctors were charging, the size that she chose for her caseload and her overhead costs and staff: two nurses, a certified medical interpreter and an office assistant. With direct care she doesn't have to hire someone for coding insurance claims or billing for visits, she observed.
Some patients have health insurance that covers primary care, but choose a DPC provider instead, paying the monthly fee themselves — valuing the short wait time to get in and the longer and less-hurried visits, Molaska said.
Evan Danells, a Madison chef and restaurant owner who also testified at the Assembly hearing, told lawmakers that many restaurant operators have profit margins too small to allow them to buy insurance for employees. Direct primary care made it possible for him to cover his employees for basic health care, he said.
Danells is one of Molaska's patients. He said her much smaller caseload allowed for more personal care rather than rushed appointments with a doctor who would 'look at me like they're seeing me for the first time over and over again . . . because they just had 2,500 patients last year.'
Hemkes said direct primary care doctors aim to make their services broadly affordable — not like medical practitioners who provide 'concierge medicine,' charging wealthy patients five-figure sums for special access.
Another misconception, Hemkes said, is that direct primary care 'selects out healthy patients.'
The legislation guards against that possibility with a provision stating the direct primary care providers 'may not decline to enter into or terminate a direct primary care agreement with a patient solely because of the patient's health status.'
At Advocate MD, which has three clinics in the greater Madison area and one in Janesville, 'our patients in our practice run the spectrum from young, healthy people to older people with multiple chronic medical issues,' Hemkes testified. 'Having an hour-long visit with that patient is very useful to be able to provide comprehensive care to them, to help them navigate all their specialists.'
The last time a direct primary care bill was before the state Legislature, in the 2023-24 session, it won unanimous support from Republicans and Democrats and cleared the Assembly on a voice vote.
The legislation died in mid-2024, however, when the state Senate adjourned in the spring without taking it up.
The 2023-24 session bill included a list of civil-rights protections for patients of DPC providers — one of them forbidding discrimination on the basis of 'gender identity.'
Those words led two organizations to lobby against the legislation in 2024 and submit public hearing testimony opposing it.
'We have no objection to the effort to make direct primary care more accessible to Wisconsin residents. We do, however, object to the inclusion of gender identity in the non-discrimination clause,' stated Jack Hoogendyk of Wisconsin Family Action. The organization routinely opposes legislation guaranteeing the rights of transgender and gender nonconforming people and LGBTQ+ rights.
The Wisconsin Catholic Conference also opposed the bill on the same grounds.
In place of enumerating specific civil rights protections, the 2025 version of the legislation's nondiscrimination section states, 'Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of s.106.52 to a health care provider's practice.'
The clause refers to Wisconsin's civil rights statute, which does not include specific language protecting gender identity.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
See where COVID cases are rising amid summer wave: New CDC data
New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows activity of COVID-19 is increasing across a wide swath of the country. As the U.S. approaches the midpoint of summer, the CDC is reporting cases of the virus are growing or likely growing in more than half of all states, including many in the South and Southeast. The center's July 18 report shows at least 26 states plus Washington, D.C., are encountering a summer surge, according to its epidemic trend modeling, using data from emergency department visits. The CDC notes its modeling indicates trends in overall cases, not the actual numbers of current infections. New COVID variant is spreading: What are the symptoms? A familiar summer surge The rate of positive COVID-19 tests is increasing nationally, the CDC said of the last week in data, with emergency department visits for the virus are increasing among children 4 years old and younger. Though there is an uptick in COVID-19 cases in more than two dozen states, the CDC says the overall amount of people seeking care for acute respiratory illnesses is at a very low level. That's accompanied by low levels of seasonal influenza activity and very low levels of RSV activity, the CDC says. Overall, trends in COVID-19 cases continue downward as compared to the last few years, according to long-term data trends in deaths, emergency room visits and positive cases. The U.S. has seen a wave of higher COVID-19 cases every summer since 2020. COVID-19 in 2025: What's the latest vaccine guidance? It's complicated. COVID-19 cases are growing in 10 states: The CDC's latest report says cases are likely growing in more than a dozen other states, plus Washington, D.C. In one state − Montana − COVID-19 cases are likely declining. COVID-19 cases are likely growing in the following 16 states: Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.


Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
The Pandemic Literally Aged Our Brains
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Welcome to Impact Factor , your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I'm Dr F. Perry Wilson from the Yale School of Medicine. Living through the COVID pandemic aged your brain by about five and a half extra months. This, according to new research. It's a pretty scary headline, but what does 'brain age' even mean, how do you measure it, and what risks does a five-and-a-half month older brain have to face? We're going to use what's left of our brains to dig through the data this week. Stay tuned. The study generating those scary headlines is 'Accelerated Brain Ageing During the COVID-19 Pandemic', from Ali-Reza Mohammadi-Nejad and colleagues, appearing in Nature Communications . But before we get into it, a reminder that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic, is a weird one, especially when it comes to the brain. It was pretty early in the pandemic when we realized that one of the rather unique symptoms that came with COVID infection, differentiating it from the common cold and flu infections and the like, was anosmia — the loss of smell. It turned out this was due to infection of some epithelial cells in the nose, with inflammation impacting the olfactory bulb of the brain. To be clear, evidence of direct brain infection by SARS-CoV-2 is fairly weak. Neurons don't express high levels of the ACE2 receptor — the viruses' point of entry to other cells. And while some autopsy studies have found viral genetic material in the brain, it has been quite difficult to find live virus in brain cells. But secondary effects of the virus — inflammation and microclotting— do affect the brain. And multiplestudies have suggested that infection can worsen certain cognitive outcomes. There was more to the pandemic than just the virus, though. There was social isolation, higher levels of stress, and loss of work and other cognitively stimulating activities. In other words, there were lots of reasons for people's brains to get a little worse during those few years. That's really what the Nature Communications study is looking at. It's an overall sense of how our brains are doing, and 'brain age' is a useful proxy for that concept. So, what is brain age? It's pretty straightforward. Imagine a carnival barker doing the 'guess your age' thing. You come up, they take a look at you, squint, and call out a number, usually with startling accuracy. The carnival barker is using various clues — features on your face, wrinkles, hairstyle, and so on — to make a guess. We can do the same thing with an MRI machine. We just have to teach a computer what the brains of different ages look like. That's what researchers did here. Using the huge UK biobank cohort, they took brain scans of more than 15,000 healthy people of various ages and trained a machine-learning model to predict age based just on the images. It got pretty accurate, as you can see here. Of course, it's not perfect. Nor would we expect it to be. Some people's brains look younger than their stated age. Call it the Paul Rudd effect. And, of course, some brains look older than they should. The distance between your calendar age and your brain age is the 'brain age gap' (BAG), with higher numbers implying that your brain is older than it should be. This gap seems to stay pretty consistent over time. If your BAG is 5 years right now, it tends to stay around 5 years even a few years later, provided nothing intervenes to more rapidly age your brain. If anyone ever accuses you of having an excessive BAG, you can say 'that's not my bag, baby.' (And that ends the '90s references for this week.) It's the repeated brain scans that make this study interesting. The researchers identified about 1000 participants who had multiple brain scans, on average about 2 years apart. For 432 of those folks, the pandemic happened between the two scans. So, we can look at how much their brains aged in that timeframe and compare that aging to a group who was not exposed to the pandemic. This is the meat of the study. Here are the primary results. Remember, BAG is supposed to stay pretty stable if nothing else has changed. And that's what we see in the control group. Between the two scans, there was, on average, no change in BAG — though the distribution here encompasses changes in both directions. Now we add the pandemic group. What you see is that the distribution has shifted, on average by 5.5 months. That's where we get that headline that started this whole thing. But of course, 5.5 is just the average change in BAG. Different people's brains aged at different speeds. Still, overall, this is a statistically significant difference. You're probably wondering why some brains aged more than others. The 5.5 month result is the effect of the pandemic – not necessarily infection. Out of the 432 individuals with a postpandemic scan, 134 actually had documented COVID-19 before that second scan. Interestingly, the increase in brain age was similar among those infected and those not infected. To be fair, only five of those infected were sick enough to be hospitalized, but it still seems that the bulk of the aging effect of the pandemic may have been due to factors independent of the virus itself; factors that made the pandemic effect worse. The brains of older people and men seemed to age more during the pandemic than those of younger people and women. Poor socioeconomic status and lower education also led to more pandemic brain aging. Still, it's not how you look; it's how you feel. Do older-looking brains on brain scans function worse? The study doesn't offer much support for this. Cognitive testing found no compelling relationship between changes in brain age and changes in various tests of cognitive ability across the entire cohort. There did seem to be some relationship among those infected with COVID-19: They did worse on cognitive tests if their brains had aged more than expected. But I'm often wary of signals like this that appear in a very particular subgroup. Leaving the realm of data and stepping squarely into the land of speculation, I think what we are likely seeing here is that the pandemic was a population-wide neurologic stressor. The isolation, the anxiety, and the lack of cognitive stimulation led our brains to atrophy a bit. It does not seem that this is a direct result of viral infection, though again, we don't have data on people with more severe COVID-19. The big question is, what happens next? Now that we are reintegrated with society, back at work, and using our brains a bit more, will they grow younger again? It remains to be seen. But if the pandemic-induced gray in my hair is any indicator, there may be no going back.


Time Magazine
2 hours ago
- Time Magazine
COVID-19 Made Our Brains Age Faster
COVID-19 is leaving all kinds of legacies on our health, both on our bodies and our brains. In a study published July 22 in Nature Communications, researchers report that living through the pandemic aged our brains—whether or not you were infected with COVID-19. To investigate COVID-19's impact on the brain, researchers looked at brain scans from 1,000 people during and before the pandemic. They compared these to brain scans from other people taken during "normal" times as a model for typical brain aging. Led by Ali-Reza Mohammadi-Nejad from the University of Nottingham School of Medicine in the U.K., the researchers looked at measures like brain function, gray and white matter volume, a person's cognitive skills, and their chronological age. Gray matter is critical for memory, emotions, and movement, while white matter is essential for helping nerves transmit electrical signals. The pandemic-era brains aged about 5.5 months faster compared to the brains of those studied before the pandemic. The accelerated aging was documented in people who had COVID-19 infections as well as those who didn't, which strongly suggests that pandemic-related factors other than biological or virus-driven ones—like high stress—were also at work. In fact, the changes in gray and white matter were similar in people who were and were not infected. 'This finding was interesting and rather unexpected,' says Mohammadi-Nejad. Other studies have already shown that the COVID-19 virus can change the brain for the worse, but "we found that participants who simply lived through the pandemic period, regardless of infection, also showed signs of slightly accelerated brain aging. This highlights that the broader experience of the pandemic—including disruptions to daily life, stress, reduced social interactions, reduced activity, etc.,—may have had a measurable impact on brain health.' Read More: What to Know About the New COVID-19 Variant XFG The impact of the pandemic seemed to be greater in certain groups—notably men, the elderly, and people with more compromised health, lower educational status and income, or unstable housing. People with less stable employment had an average of five months of additional brain aging compared to those with higher employment status, while poorer health added about four months of increased brain age compared to better health. However, only people infected with COVID-19 showed drops in cognitive skills. But the fact that those who weren't infected during the pandemic also showed accelerated aging reflects the need to acknowledge the broader health effects of the pandemic beyond the obvious physical metrics on which doctors tend to focus. 'Brain health can be influenced by everyday life activities, and major societal disruptions—like those experienced during the pandemic—can leave a mark even in healthy individuals,' Mohammadi-Nejad says. 'This adds to our understanding of public health by reinforcing the importance of considering mental, cognitive, and social well-being alongside traditional physical health indicators during future crisis-response planning.' While the study did not explore specific ways to address brain aging, he says that strategies known to maintain brain health, such as a healthy diet, exercise, adequate sleep, and social and cognitive interactions are important, especially in the context of stressful circumstances such as a pandemic. 'Whether these can reverse the specific changes we observed remains to be studied,' he says.