Capitation and its effects on physician satisfaction.

P H Tyrance, S Sims, N Ma'luf, D Fairchild, D W Bates
{"title":"Capitation and its effects on physician satisfaction.","authors":"P H Tyrance,&nbsp;S Sims,&nbsp;N Ma'luf,&nbsp;D Fairchild,&nbsp;D W Bates","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Capitation is an increasingly common method of paying physicians, but few data exist on its impact on physician satisfaction. This study examines the perceived effects of capitation on physician satisfaction at a large, academic medical center.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Survey of physicians at a single, tertiary care hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Physicians in a physician hospital organization were surveyed at an urban teaching hospital which received capitation for 5% of patients at the time of the survey but was preparing for a sharp increase in capitation. We used a 5-point Likert scale to assess physicians' satisfaction with their practice, and to compare satisfaction under fee-for-service and expected satisfaction under capitation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 734 physicians surveyed, 147 were excluded because they had no direct patient care responsibilities. Of the remaining 587 physicians, 363 replied, giving a response rate of 62%. Overall, 57% of physicians were satisfied with their practice. Compared to their satisfaction under fee-for-service reimbursement, they were much less satisfied with their ability to care for capitated patients (17 of 19 questions, p < 0.05). The greatest differences were for freedom to order necessary tests and freedom to obtain referrals (0.9 and 0.8 on the 5-point scale, respectively, both p < 0.0001). Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed four independent predictors of overall satisfaction: patient load (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.9-3.9), efficiency in resource utilization (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.1), perceived employment stability (OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.3-2.2), and control over clinical time schedule (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.2-2.0).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Physicians initially encountering capitation payment have strong negative perceptions about it, even for areas in which some policy experts expect capitation to benefit patient care. Physician education and focusing on management relations may help smooth the transition to capitated reimbursement.</p>","PeriodicalId":79858,"journal":{"name":"Cost & quality quarterly journal : CQ","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cost & quality quarterly journal : CQ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Capitation is an increasingly common method of paying physicians, but few data exist on its impact on physician satisfaction. This study examines the perceived effects of capitation on physician satisfaction at a large, academic medical center.

Study design: Survey of physicians at a single, tertiary care hospital.

Methods: Physicians in a physician hospital organization were surveyed at an urban teaching hospital which received capitation for 5% of patients at the time of the survey but was preparing for a sharp increase in capitation. We used a 5-point Likert scale to assess physicians' satisfaction with their practice, and to compare satisfaction under fee-for-service and expected satisfaction under capitation.

Results: Of the 734 physicians surveyed, 147 were excluded because they had no direct patient care responsibilities. Of the remaining 587 physicians, 363 replied, giving a response rate of 62%. Overall, 57% of physicians were satisfied with their practice. Compared to their satisfaction under fee-for-service reimbursement, they were much less satisfied with their ability to care for capitated patients (17 of 19 questions, p < 0.05). The greatest differences were for freedom to order necessary tests and freedom to obtain referrals (0.9 and 0.8 on the 5-point scale, respectively, both p < 0.0001). Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed four independent predictors of overall satisfaction: patient load (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.9-3.9), efficiency in resource utilization (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.1), perceived employment stability (OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.3-2.2), and control over clinical time schedule (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.2-2.0).

Conclusions: Physicians initially encountering capitation payment have strong negative perceptions about it, even for areas in which some policy experts expect capitation to benefit patient care. Physician education and focusing on management relations may help smooth the transition to capitated reimbursement.

人头及其对医生满意度的影响。
目的:按人头付费是一种越来越普遍的医生付费方式,但关于其对医生满意度影响的数据很少。本研究考察了在一个大型学术医疗中心,人头对医生满意度的感知影响。研究设计:对一家三级医院的医生进行调查。方法:对某医师医院组织的内科医生在某城市教学医院进行调查,该医院在调查时接收了5%的患者的人头,但准备迎接人头的急剧增加。我们使用5分李克特量表来评估医生对其执业的满意度,并比较按服务收费的满意度和按人头收费的预期满意度。结果:在接受调查的734名医生中,有147名因没有直接的病人护理责任而被排除在外。在剩下的587名医生中,有363名医生回复了,回复率为62%。总体而言,57%的医生对他们的实践感到满意。与按服务收费报销项下的满意度相比,他们对自己照顾头颈病人的能力的满意度要低得多(19个问题中有17个,p < 0.05)。最大的差异是订购必要测试的自由和获得转诊的自由(5分制分别为0.9和0.8,p均< 0.0001)。多元logistic回归分析揭示了总体满意度的四个独立预测因子:患者负荷(OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.9-3.9)、资源利用效率(OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.1)、就业稳定性感知(OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.3-2.2)和对临床时间安排的控制(OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.2-2.0)。结论:最初遇到人头支付的医生对它有强烈的负面看法,即使在一些政策专家期望人头支付有利于患者护理的领域也是如此。医生教育和注重管理关系可能有助于平稳过渡到资本报销。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信