Patient satisfaction in DPC and concierge medicine — what the data says
Patient satisfaction scores in direct primary care and concierge practices run substantially higher than in insurance-based primary care. The gap is real and well-documented, and it has structural explanations. It also has an honest caveat — selection bias — that's worth naming up front. Here's the published data and how to think about it.
The baseline — patient satisfaction in standard insurance-based primary care
The federal government has been measuring patient experience with health care since 2002 through the CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) survey, administered by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The most recent national CAHPS data for adult primary care places aggregate patient experience scores in the moderate range — roughly 60 to 70 percent of patients rate their primary care experience as 9 or 10 on a 10-point scale, with substantial variation by region and practice type.
J.D. Power's annual U.S. Primary Care Satisfaction Study, which uses a 1,000-point composite scale, places average primary care satisfaction around 700 to 740 points out of 1,000 in recent years — a "satisfactory but not enthusiastic" range comparable to standard retail banking experiences.
The most common complaints from patients in CAHPS data are predictable: appointment access (especially same-week availability), visit duration, communication with the physician between visits, and care coordination across specialists. These are the exact pressure points the 15-minute insurance-based model is structurally bad at.
Direct primary care — what the surveys find
Direct primary care has been the subject of multiple practice-level and aggregate patient experience surveys since the early 2010s. The numbers consistently land higher than insurance-based primary care:
- Patient satisfaction: Across published DPC practice surveys (AAFP DPC reports, the Direct Primary Care Coalition annual practice census, individual practice quality reports), patient satisfaction scores typically run 90 to 97 percent — meaning 9 or 10 out of 10 patients rate the experience as highly satisfied.
- Net Promoter Score: Where DPC practices have published Net Promoter Scores, they typically range from +70 to +90. For context, U.S. primary care averages NPS in the +10 to +30 range; even highly-rated consumer brands (Apple, Costco) sit around +60 to +75.
- Retention: Annual member retention rates published by larger DPC practices generally run 85 to 95 percent, with attrition primarily driven by relocations or insurance-coverage changes rather than dissatisfaction with the model.
- Likelihood to recommend: Published DPC member surveys typically find 85 to 95 percent of members say they would recommend the practice to a family member or friend.
These numbers come from a mix of practice-level surveys and aggregate research, and the methodology varies. They're not perfectly apples-to-apples with CAHPS national data. But the gap is consistent across sources: DPC patients report substantially higher satisfaction with their primary care than the national insurance-based baseline.
Concierge medicine — what the data looks like
Concierge practices have generated comparable patient satisfaction findings, often even higher than DPC at the premium end. The most-cited single dataset comes from MDVIP, the largest concierge medicine network in the U.S., which has published patient satisfaction data on its affiliated practices for over a decade.
MDVIP's annual member surveys, covering roughly 425,000 patients across approximately 1,400 affiliated physicians, consistently report:
- Patient satisfaction in the 95 to 97 percent range.
- Annual member renewal rates of approximately 94 percent.
- Net Promoter Score reported in MDVIP publications around +90.
Smaller, independent concierge practices that have published satisfaction data report similar patterns. A series of studies in the Journal of Patient Experience and the American Journal of Medical Quality covering smaller concierge practices have found patient satisfaction in the 90-plus percent range and substantially higher patient-reported quality of communication, access, and continuity scores compared with national CAHPS benchmarks.
Why the gap exists — the structural drivers
The satisfaction gap between insurance-based primary care and DPC or concierge is large and consistent enough that the underlying drivers are worth understanding.
Visit length. DPC and concierge visits typically run 30 to 60 minutes, compared with 15 to 18 minutes in insurance-based primary care. The single most-cited reason for low primary care satisfaction in CAHPS data is "not enough time with the doctor." DPC and concierge structurally fix this.
Same-week appointment access. Standard primary care practices typically book 2 to 4 weeks out. DPC and concierge practices typically offer same-week or same-day availability for established members. The smaller panel makes this work; the membership economics make it possible.
Between-visit communication. In an insurance-based practice, an emailed question often becomes a scheduled visit because that's how the practice gets paid. In DPC and concierge, between-visit messages are included in the membership. Most simple questions get answered same day, in writing.
Physician continuity. Insurance-based practices often rotate patients among providers in the group due to scheduling pressure and physician turnover. DPC and concierge practices typically promise — and deliver — the same physician for every visit, year after year. Continuity is the strongest single predictor of patient-reported satisfaction with primary care.
Care coordination. The DPC and concierge model gives the physician the time to coordinate care across specialists, review medication regimens, and integrate findings from outside reports. In an insurance-based 15-minute visit, this work is structurally impossible at the depth most patients need.
Lower friction overall. No copays at the visit, no prior authorization for routine prescribing, no surprise bills for in-practice services. The administrative experience of being a DPC patient is, in published surveys, the most-frequently-cited reason for high satisfaction beyond the clinical relationship itself.
The honest caveat — selection bias
The big asterisk on every DPC and concierge satisfaction number is selection bias. Patients who pay a monthly membership for primary care have self-selected for engagement with their health care. They're more motivated, more invested in the relationship, and more likely to report high satisfaction with services they're actively paying for.
Some of the satisfaction gap, in other words, isn't about the model — it's about who chooses the model.
The honest version of the case for DPC and concierge isn't "the same patient is 30 points happier in this model than the standard one." It's "patients who self-select into membership-based primary care report satisfaction levels far higher than the national average, and the structural mechanics of the model plausibly explain a substantial part of that gap."
The selection-bias caveat doesn't invalidate the satisfaction data. It just sets the right expectation: this model works especially well for engaged patients who want a real physician relationship. For patients who use primary care episodically — only when something is acutely wrong — the membership math may not pay off and the satisfaction premium may not be as relevant.
What dissatisfied patients say about why they left insurance-based primary care
Across published patient surveys (MDVIP's annual data, individual DPC practice exit surveys, qualitative research published in family medicine journals), the same themes recur from patients who moved from insurance-based primary care to DPC or concierge:
- "My doctor didn't have time to actually listen."
- "I felt rushed."
- "I couldn't get an appointment when I needed one."
- "I had to repeat myself every visit because no one remembered me."
- "My medications never got reviewed as a whole list — only one at a time, each at a different visit."
- "I was on six medications and nobody could tell me why I was still taking three of them."
- "I felt like a number."
- "It took two weeks to get a callback about a lab result."
These complaints aren't about the individual physician. They're complaints about the structure. The same physician, working in a DPC or concierge model, generates dramatically different patient experiences because the structure has changed around them.
This is consistent with what physicians themselves report. Survey data from the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians shows that physicians who transition from insurance-based practices to DPC or concierge report markedly improved professional satisfaction, less burnout, and more rewarding patient relationships — even when they're seeing the same patients they saw before, in some cases.
Who reports the largest satisfaction gains
Looking across the published data, the satisfaction premium from DPC and concierge models is largest for specific patient groups:
- Adults with multiple chronic conditions. The gap between 15-minute fragmented care and 45-minute integrated care widens with complexity.
- Anyone on five or more medications. Polypharmacy review requires time the insurance model doesn't provide.
- Patients managing depression, anxiety, ADHD, or other conditions that require ongoing dose adjustment. The between-visit communication advantage of DPC and concierge matters most here.
- Adults navigating perimenopause or menopause. Hormonal management benefits from real conversation, which requires real time.
- Patients who have been frustrated by access to their existing PCP. The "I can't get an appointment when I need one" complaint resolves immediately in a smaller-panel model.
- Patients with a complex specialist landscape who want a primary care physician who actually coordinates the picture.
For patients in any of these categories, the satisfaction premium isn't marginal. Patients reporting the largest improvements after switching models are typically in this profile.
Who reports the smallest satisfaction gains
To be honest, the model helps least if:
- You rarely use primary care. A longer visit doesn't help when you don't need one.
- The bulk of your care is specialty-driven. A primary-care-focused membership may not be the highest-leverage place to spend healthcare dollars.
What we offer, plainly
Private MD is a small-panel direct primary care and concierge longevity practice in Granite Bay · Folsom. The structural drivers behind the satisfaction data above — visit length, access, communication, continuity, care coordination — are the same ones built into how we run the practice.
DPC membership at $149 per month is HSA-eligible and covers the primary care relationship. Concierge Internal Medicine at $349 per month adds the year-long longevity workup, the longevity advisor coordination, and an annual written Longevity Blueprint. Founding member discounts are available.
We're newer than MDVIP and we don't have a 1,400-physician national satisfaction dataset yet. What we have is the same structural approach that produces those numbers across the model nationally, applied at the small-panel scale that lets us actually deliver on it.
Ready to talk?
Book a free 15-minute Discovery Call. We'll walk through your situation, talk about whether DPC or Concierge Concierge Internal Medicine fits your needs, and figure out together whether the model is right for you.
Book a Free 15-Min Call Reserve My Spot
Or email drsahni@privatemd.clinic · (279) 258-5567
About the author
Nishant Sahni, MD is board-certified in Internal Medicine and the founder of Private MD, a small-panel direct primary care and concierge longevity practice serving Granite Bay, Folsom, El Dorado Hills, and the greater Sacramento area. Former faculty at Mayo Clinic and the University of Minnesota.
Sources: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) CAHPS surveys 2022-2024; J.D. Power U.S. Primary Care Satisfaction Study annual reports; MDVIP published patient experience data; AAFP direct primary care reports; Direct Primary Care Coalition annual practice census; Journal of Patient Experience and American Journal of Medical Quality concierge practice studies; American College of Physicians and AAFP physician satisfaction surveys. Specific figures cited reflect publicly available data as of May 2026. This article is for educational purposes and is not a substitute for individualized medical advice.
Legal & Editorial Notes
Educational content only. This article is for educational and informational purposes. It does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations for any specific individual. Reading this article does not establish a physician-patient relationship with Dr. Sahni or Private MD.
Not a substitute for individual evaluation. Medical decisions should be made in consultation with your own physician based on your specific clinical situation, history, exam findings, and goals. Information in this article may not apply to your circumstances. If you have specific symptoms or health concerns, consult a qualified medical professional.
Cited data and pricing. Studies, statistics, and prices cited reflect publicly available information as of the date of publication (2026-05-15). Information changes over time. Verify current data with primary sources or your physician before making decisions.
No financial relationships, no endorsement. Mention of specific products, companies, services, or commercial entities is for illustrative comparison only and does not constitute endorsement. Private MD receives no compensation, commission, kickback, or referral fee from any vendor, manufacturer, laboratory, or commercial entity mentioned in this article.
Survey methodology note. Satisfaction figures cited are drawn from a mix of methodologies (CAHPS, J.D. Power, MDVIP internal surveys, AAFP DPC reports, individual practice surveys). Direct comparison across methodologies should be interpreted with caution. National averages reflect aggregate data; individual practice performance varies substantially.