Direct primary care is having its employer moment. Self-funded plan sponsors are layering DPC onto their benefit designs at a pace that would have been unimaginable five years ago. The value proposition is compelling: lower-cost primary access, reduced ED utilization, physicians with actual time for patients. For the right workforce, in the right design, it delivers.
The question benefits advisors are not asking loudly enough is: which workforce?

DPC operates on a membership model. Monthly fees for individual adults typically run $50 to $100, a predictable out-of-pocket cost that sits on top of whatever insurance coverage the employee carries. That architecture works well for employees who are health-engaged, financially stable, and comfortable opting into a non-traditional care relationship. For the segment of the American workforce that sits at or near Medicaid eligibility thresholds, it works less well. In many cases, it does not work at all.

That segment is not small. According to Oxfam's 2024 analysis of BLS and Census Bureau data, nearly one in four U.S. workers earns less than $17 an hour. That is more than 39 million people. For a single adult, that income level places them in or near the 138% federal poverty level threshold that determines Medicaid eligibility in expansion states. A $75 monthly membership fee represents a meaningful share of discretionary income for this population. It is not a benefit they will voluntarily absorb.

This is not a criticism of DPC physicians. It is a benefits design problem. And it is arriving on your clients' plans right now.

The DPC community's own defense against cherry-picking allegations is instructive. Physicians correctly note that when you remove Medicaid beneficiaries from the comparison, DPC demographics largely mirror fee-for-service practices that don't accept Medicaid. That is probably true. It is also the point. Medicaid beneficiaries and the near-Medicaid workforce are structurally absent from DPC's patient population. Not because physicians are turning them away. Because the cash membership model creates an access threshold that a significant portion of the American workforce cannot clear.

For employers with homogeneous, higher-wage workforces, this may be a non-issue. For employers with mixed workforces in retail, hospitality, logistics, health care support, or light manufacturing, this is a design gap with actuarial consequences.

When healthier, higher-wage employees migrate into DPC and pair it with high-deductible or catastrophic coverage, the employees who remain in traditional plan coverage skew toward higher utilization. Employers layering DPC alongside high-deductible plans as a cost-containment strategy is already common practice. The risk pool does not stay neutral. As I examined in prior analysis on employer-aligned direct care models, these dynamics are structural. They emerge from benefit design architecture, not from clinical practice. Advisors who understand the distinction are ahead of the market.

The advisors who win the next three years will be the ones who got ahead of this question before their clients' renewal conversations turned into claims conversations.

The design questions worth asking now:

  • What percentage of this employer's workforce earns at or below 138% of the federal poverty level? In expansion states, that is the Medicaid eligibility threshold. Those employees are unlikely DPC participants regardless of how the benefit is structured. Their continued presence in the residual insurance pool shapes its actuarial profile.
  • Is DPC being layered alongside comprehensive coverage, or paired with a high-deductible plan as a cost-containment strategy? The actuarial profile of those two designs is not the same. The second one transfers risk.
  • What is the employer's plan for the segment of the workforce that cannot or will not use the DPC benefit? If the answer is "they stay on the HDHP," that is a risk pool design decision with downstream consequences someone should be pricing.
  • Is there transparency into population health dynamics across benefit tiers, not just within the DPC cohort? Utilization improvements inside the DPC panel can mask deterioration in the residual pool. Both numbers belong in the renewal conversation.

None of this requires abandoning DPC. The model's clinical value is real and the employer-aligned version is still early enough that design standards are being written in real time. That is precisely when advisors have leverage. Before the defaults get locked in. Before the renewals reflect decisions nobody remembers making.

The advisors who understand the Medicaid-adjacent workforce gap are not just managing risk for their clients. They are building a competitive position that most of the market has not found yet. That position closes fast once the claims data catches up to the design decisions being made today.

DPC isn't the problem. Deploying it without asking who it leaves out is.

That question is now part of the advisor's job.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.