Impact of payment methods on professional equity of physicians

Peña-Sánchez, Juan Nicolás; Lepnurm, Rein; Dobson, Roy T.; Keegan, David
April 2014
Journal of Hospital Administration;Apr2014, Vol. 3 Issue 2, p50
Academic Journal
Background: Professional equity, evaluation of own contributions and received rewards compared to contributions and rewards of other physicians has not been assessed according to payment methods. The aim of this study is to compare levels of professional equity among physicians paid by fee-for-service (FFS), alternative payment plans (APPs), and blended schemes. Methods: In 2011, medical practitioners in the Saskatoon Health Region, Saskatchewan, were surveyed using a questionnaire developed for physicians to measure professional equity. Intangible rewards were measured by the dimensions of fulfilment and recognition, and tangible rewards by the dimension of income. The three-dimensional structure of the questionnaire was first corroborated through a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Analyses of variances were then performed to account for differences in the levels of professional equity. A linear regression model predicting levels of professional equity was used to test the interaction between specialty and payment method, controlling by number of patients, gender, and age group. Results: In total, 382 (48.1%) physicians participated: 35.6% were family/general practitioners (FPs); 61% were clinical/surgical specialists; and, 3.4% were pathologists. The internal structure of the questionnaire was confirmed by the CFA. Physicians paid by FFS perceived lower professional equity than those paid by APP (p = .005). Practitioners under APPs reported higher levels of income (p = .03) and recognition (p = .001) equity than those with FFS. FPs perceived lower fulfilment (p = .003) and income (p = .008) equity compared to medical-surgical specialists. Furthermore, controlling by number of patients seen per week, higher levels of professional equity are predicted among FPs paid by APPs and blended schemes in comparison to FPs paid by FFS. Conclusions: Higher levels of professional equity were perceived among physicians paid by APPs in comparison to those paid by FFS. Physicians paid by APPs considered that they are receiving fair economic rewards and appropriate recognition. In addition, enhanced levels of professional equity could be predicted among FPs with APPs and blended schemes. APPs could be explored to improve the professional equity of FPs and, indirectly, promote improved primary health care.


Related Articles

  • BUNDLING SERVICES SAVES TIME, MONEY. KOSIOREK, DEREK // Medical Economics;9/25/2013, Vol. 90 Issue 18, p32 

    The article discusses how a medical practice can save time and money by adopting the bundled services concept,under which a vendor sells multiple products or services in a package for a single, reduced price. It offers information on bundled services that a medical practice can offer. The...

  • How to master the fee-based model. GRISWOLD, NELSON L. // Employee Benefit Adviser;Jan2015, Vol. 13 Issue 1, p15 

    The article discusses how benefits companies can achieve success with the fee-for-service model on medical carriers. Topics include benefits-related areas where companies can bring value including compliance services, the challenge of transitioning from commission compensation to a fee, and the...

  • Master Resolved Condition Reporting with V Codes.  // Eli's OASIS Alert;Sep2012, Vol. 13 Issue 9, p105 

    The article focuses on the use of history V code in reporting for accurate reimbursement in the U.S. The code can help show a more accurate picture of the care being provided to the patient. Moreover, the codes explain a past medical condition that no longer exists and is not receiving any...

  • Contemporary Topics in Health Care: Bundling. Romeo, Jim // PT in Motion;Apr2010, Vol. 2 Issue 3, p28 

    The article discusses the concept of bundling, also called bundled payment systems, case rates, or episode-based payment, which described as a middle ground reimbursement model between fee-for-service and capitation. It explains that bundling make a single payment for all services linked to a...

  • GAO urges CMS to evaluate private-sector doc pay ideas. McCARTY, MARK // Medical Device Daily;1/ 2/2013, Vol. 17 Issue 1, p1 

    The article discusses the report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) which evaluates how private payers manage physician fee reimbursement and what it will mean for Medicare. It highlights a recommendation made by GAO about the Medicare's Part B program which urges the Centers for...

  • Money and Medicine: Indivisible and Irreconcilable. Adashi, Eli Y. // AMA Journal of Ethics;Aug2015, Vol. 17 Issue 8, p780 

    The article discusses potential ethical implications of juxtaposition of money and medicine in medical practice, business, and industry, with the emergence of the fee-for-service payment system of employer-sponsored health insurance, including issue of medicine as a means for wealth accumulation.

  • Get Proactive and Capture Every Allowable Non-Par Dollar.  // Family Practice Coding Alert;Dec2011 Supplement, Vol. 13, p4 

    The article offers tips and ideas when making physician reimbursement claims for services from insurance companies. The approaches include obtaining patient insurance information, informing patients on payments under non-covered services, and reminding patients on non-covered fees when making...

  • 62310 Billed With Arthroscopy? Not Anymore, Thanks to CCI 17.0.  // Medicare Compliance & Reimbursement;1/17/2011, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p5 

    The article focuses on the release of the Correct Coding Initiative (CC) 17. 0 which reveals 19,822 new active pairs and 9,778 code pair omission. It mentions that CCI 17.0 allows the use of a modifier to classify the edit bundling wound care management codes into the modified debridement codes....

  • Risks and Rewards of Risk-Bearing Contracts. MOLPUS, JIM // HealthLeaders Magazine;Jan/Feb2013, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p64 

    The article focuses on the risks of shifting from a fee-for-service model of reimbursement to one based on risk-bearing contracts as discussed by the panel members at the HealthLeaders Media CFO Exchange and CEO Exchange. The members agreed that moving away from a sick care model to population...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics