Mo Azam, MD, MBA

578 posts

Mo Azam, MD, MBA banner
Mo Azam, MD, MBA

Mo Azam, MD, MBA

@moeed_azam

#anesthesiologist, healthcare+business, Tweets my own & not advice, not employer's; RT/Follows not endorsement

Orlando, FL Katılım Mart 2015
695 Takip Edilen531 Takipçiler
Mo Azam, MD, MBA retweetledi
ASA Monitor
ASA Monitor@ASAMonitor·
Drs. Dean Polce, Mo Azam, and Jonathan Gal discuss how anesthesia groups can work with ambulatory surgery centers most effectively to streamline operations and ensure long-term financial viability for both parties. ow.ly/qUqO50YpUrI @moeed_azam @galjs2
ASA Monitor tweet media
English
0
3
6
783
Mo Azam, MD, MBA retweetledi
Mark Cuban
Mark Cuban@mcuban·
Want to know the craziest part about insurance company Pre Authorization Denials ? The insurance company defines the network of providers the patient can use When they deny care, they are effectively saying "we don't trust the judgement of the doctors we require you to use" 🤯🤯🤯
English
388
1.7K
8.6K
468.3K
Mo Azam, MD, MBA retweetledi
Alex Shteynshlyuger MD
Alex Shteynshlyuger MD@DrAlexUrology·
This makes sense. One has to remember that one way or another 30% or more of healthcare “spending” by health plans are internal transfers between their various subsidiaries.
Brian Blase@brian_blase

Simple heuristic. If big insurers and big hospital systems are both lobbying strongly for something, you should do the opposite if your goal is more affordable health care. Stop sending massive subsidies directly to health insurance companies. That will not work.

English
1
1
1
194
Mo Azam, MD, MBA retweetledi
Mo Azam, MD, MBA retweetledi
Christopher Cook, D.O., FASA
Health Affairs: Hidden Incentives Drive IDR Volume & Cost, It’s not physicians driving Independent Dispute Resolution surge under the #NoSurprisesAct, it’s insurer “shared-savings” schemes that reward underpayment of physicians & providers costing employers big. Read Below:
English
5
20
27
8.2K
Mo Azam, MD, MBA retweetledi
Adam Bruggeman, MD
Adam Bruggeman, MD@DrBruggeman·
Remember the game for insurance: 1) let the government push doctors to employment 2) employ those doctors and vertically integrate 3) avoid MLR penalties by pushing profits back to yourself through paying your other entities more
Tara Bannow@TaraBannow

UnitedHealth Group pays its own physician practices 17% more than outside ones, a new study--inspired by STAT's reporting--shows statnews.com/2025/11/03/uni… via @statnews

English
1
17
67
5.8K
Mo Azam, MD, MBA retweetledi
Tara Bannow
Tara Bannow@TaraBannow·
UnitedHealth Group pays its own physician practices 17% more than outside ones, a new study--inspired by STAT's reporting--shows statnews.com/2025/11/03/uni… via @statnews
English
6
27
48
33.2K
Mo Azam, MD, MBA retweetledi
Mark Cuban
Mark Cuban@mcuban·
When 3 vertically integrated insurance companies control 90 pct of every insurance and provider market , what happens then ?
Real Doc Speaks@realdocspeaks

@DutchRojas @CaptBop2112 @Babar1B @mcuban I concur with @DutchRojas that the Republicans should publicly back a free market healthcare system. To achieve that at scale we need them to eliminate many laws and regulations that prohibit physician innovation and patient choice.

English
213
228
1.6K
337.4K
Mo Azam, MD, MBA retweetledi
Mo Azam, MD, MBA retweetledi
Mark Cuban
Mark Cuban@mcuban·
“profit can hide inside compliance, it will.” What a great line. So true
Nick Beckman@NickHealthAI

Mark’s right, insurers didn’t just “game” the ACA; they evolved around it. The Medical Loss Ratio rule was built for a world where payers and providers were separate. But over time, that world disappeared. 2010: The ACA assumes clean lines; insurers pay doctors, not themselves. 2015: Vertical integration begins; payers start buying PBMs, clinics, pharmacies. 2018: Megamergers like CVS-Aetna and Cigna-Express Scripts erase the distinction entirely. 2020s: “Medical spending” now flows inside the same corporate shell, where transfer prices can rise quietly and profits stay hidden. Regulators still see 85 cents on the dollar going to “care.” But when the insurer owns the doctor, the pharmacy, and the PBM, that 85 cents is just moving between pockets. Greed didn’t create the loophole, design did. But greed guaranteed it would be exploited. Because once profit can hide inside compliance, it will. Right now, the rules only look at where the money goes, not who owns the place it’s going to. So when an insurance company pays one of its own clinics or pharmacies, it still looks like “medical spending.” To fix that, regulators would have to track ownership links, not just cash flows, seeing whether the insurer and provider are really the same company. Until that happens, big systems will keep earning more by hiding profit inside their own walls instead of lowering costs for patients.

English
57
63
515
155.8K