Robard Corporation | Health and Money

Weight Loss: An Ancillary Service that Boosts Revenue

31. October 2017 Robard Corporation Staff For Providers , Health and Money , Treating Obesity , Weight Loss Business , Weight Loss Programs Comments (0)

Connect the dots: While weight loss is a thriving, several billion dollar industry, group practices are steadily losing revenue. Apparently, there is much to be learned in the medical world about how to tailor the business side of operating a health practice to meet the needs of its patients, or rather, its consumers.

Let’s face it: A medical practice is a business. And businesses need revenue to survive and thrive. Traditionally, most practices have relied on insurance reimbursement for its financial wellness. However, with insurance and health care currently in the political crosshairs, most practices — especially small and mid-sized ones — need to look for ways of being financially independent. This is where ancillary services can come in, and provide a means for practices to generate revenue with fee-for-services options that support their patients with their most pressing health issues. Medically supervised weight loss is an underutilized health care service which can potentially result in a serious influx of consistent revenue.

Think about it — every single medical practice has a built-in clientele for weight loss services. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than two thirds of U.S. adults are overweight and more than one third are obese. It’s safe to say that with this many people suffering from what the American Medical Association has now classified as a chronic disease, most providers have patients with obesity that need to lose weight for a multitude of reasons. In fact, not only are physicians missing out on revenue potential, obesity is actually costing them money because of the expenses linked to treating comorbid conditions directly associated with the disease.

Many doctors who have decided to start offering weight loss services have agreed that it is a stable revenue source with minimal startup costs. In fact, a program can generate nearly $1,000,000 in net revenue in just three years. Plus, getting a program started is much easier than you might think, especially when you work with an experienced partner. Robard helps you change the lives of your patients by providing all of the tools needed to run your own medically supervised weight management program. Centered on personalized nutrition and behavior change, our programs include out-of-the-box components/solutions for your medical team to offer your patients a successful fee-for-service weight loss program. The kicker? We provide you with complimentary support services you need for the lifetime of our relationship.

So really, there’s nothing to lose, but so much to gain. Why continue to struggle financially when there is an untapped profitable market for weight loss already walking through your doors? Ready to learn more? Click here to watch our free webcast on how to incorporate medical weight loss into your existing practice or contact us today and receive a free potential revenue analysis and consultation on how adding this ancillary service can boost your practice profitability!

Sources: Medscape, U.S. News Health

Blog written by Vanessa Ramalho/Robard Corporation

Organic Food: Pesticides vs. Your Budget

15. April 2016 Robard Corporation Staff Cooking , Eating Habits , For Dieters , For Providers , Health and Money , Healthy Eating Comments (0)

In an increasingly health-conscious society, buzz words about healthy eating are rampant, and consumers are being constantly overwhelmed with information about what kinds of foods are healthier and why. This is definitely the case when it comes to organic. Today, organic options are not only found at specialty stores such as Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s; they can now be found in your local ShopRite or Acme.

But while much of the hype around organic is about nutritional value, organic produce actually has not been shown to be that much better for you. Rather, the real concerns when it comes to organic versus conventional food are two main safety issues: chemical contamination and bacterial contamination.

Focusing on chemical contamination, countless studies have shown that exposure to pesticide residue was more than five times higher in conventional food than in organic food (38 percent versus 7 percent), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that there are traces of 29 different pesticides in the average American’s body. While the long-term health risks of pesticides remain unclear and controversial, a recent Consumer Reports survey of 1,050 people found that pesticides are a concern for 85 percent of Americans. And let’s be honest, we’ve only recently begun to understand and experience the tragic effects of DDT (one of the first pesticides) on the environment and on humans, which have included breast and other cancers, male infertility, miscarriages and low birth weight, developmental delay, and liver damage.

While health is of course a concern, the average consumer is also worried about how to stretch a tight grocery budget. According to Consumer Reports, the price of organic produce can be on average 49 percent more than non-organic options, which really add up by the time you get to the register.

So what is a smart, health-conscious shopper on a budget to do?

Well, when it comes to produce specifically, not all non-organic options pose as much of a threat to consumers. If you can’t afford to go full organic, experts suggest choosing organic for the foods containing the highest amount of chemical residue, and choosing conventional foods for those with the least residue. Foods that absorb the least amount of residue are generally those with thick skins that are not consumed, such as onions, avocados, and bananas.

When it comes to chemical and pesticide exposure, certain fruits and vegetables have a reputation for being more egregious offenders. Every year, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) singles out produce with the highest pesticide loads for its Dirty Dozen™ list. In being a more health-conscious, but strategic shopper, refer to the Dirty Dozen™ list for items you should always try to buy organic, and go the non-organic route for the other items that didn’t make the list. See the graphic below for a full list of the Dirty Dozen™ to help guide you in your organic shopping journeys!

(Image courtesy of Environmental Working Group)

For which foods did you make the switch to organic? Share on Facebook!

Sources: Consumer Reports, Columbia University Medical Center, Environmental Working Group

Blog written by Vanessa Ramalho/Robard Corporation

Can a 'Fat Tax' Lead to Better Food Choices?

20. January 2016 Robard Corporation Staff For Dieters , For Providers , Health and Money , Obesity Comments (0)

When we have to make a choice between two or more foods certain things may determine our decision: Which one do we think tastes better? Which one fits our diet? More times than not, the choice comes down to which items cost less — whether subconsciously or intentionally.

Low income consumers in particular are looking for the best priced products. They also tend to be the most susceptible to obesity. However, even the smallest of price differences can sway the consumer to purchase the product. What does this have to do with weight management and obesity? In two words: “Fat Tax.”

Fat Tax is a theory that adding additional charges on unhealthy food and drinks may help slow the rising rates of obesity. To test the validity of the tax’s effects, researchers conducted a study consisting of data spanning over six years and 1,700 nationwide supermarkets.

The focal point of the research was milk and its varying prices. At some stores there was no price differentiation of milk across all fat content; however, at some stores, the milk was priced higher based on contents of fat. Therefore, whole milk was the most expensive and skim milk was the cheapest.

How did the price range effect milk sales? The slightest difference of 14 cents showed substantial deviation from the higher fat options to the lower-fat options, particularly in lower income areas. Even though the results were significant, it still may not indicate how effective a Fat Tax would fare. More measured assurances about how the tax would perform are needed before it is implemented.

“The general perception is that these taxes need to be substantial, at least 20 percent and often as high as 50 percent, to have meaningful impact,” says Vishal Singh of New York University. “Here, we have compelling field-based evidence that such taxes don’t need to be high to be effective.”

He may have a point. The price shift of the items was minimal (as much as 10 percent), and yet the difference in what was sold considerable, and performed best in low income areas where obesity is at its highest risk.

What do you think about a Fat Tax? Do you think it’s something that should be implemented in America?

Source: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences

Blog written by Marcus Miller/Robard Corporation