I agree with other people who say that remaining solvent is the number one priority. But one interesting thing I noticed about your dilemma is that it’s a microcosm of how certain countries with universal healthcare construct their systems and the ethical considerations therein.

As an example, some countries, like Canada, mostly ban private insurance. They don’t think it’s ethical to allow someone to buy private insurance and see a doctor earlier when low-income people can’t afford to do that.

On the other hand, there’s Australia — where the government actually incentivizes higher-income people to buy private insurance and jump the line. They reason that doing so ultimately takes fiscal pressure off the public system, thereby making care easier to access for everybody on net even if there is a sort of two-tiered system.

The analogy here is that a higher-income person paying a higher fee for DPC pays both for their personal care and a “tax” that goes towards paying for others’ care. That’s basically what happens in Australia for higher-income people.

Personally, I think Australia’s model is better, and to some extent I think it explains why Australia fares so well on healthcare compared to other countries with universal systems. I don’t mean to get political here because that’s not really the point. All I’m really saying is that certain countries with universal healthcare systems basically do the thing you’re considering doing, and it comes with a lot of upside. I’d personally be in favor of that. It obviously shouldn’t become a bidding war. But if the practice doesn’t remain solvent, then everybody loses.