B. Idowu, M. Soneye, Tolulope Okedere, S. Onigbinde, Aderemi Ishola
{"title":"Perspectives of Nigerian doctors on the practice of rebates, fee-splitting, and kickbacks","authors":"B. Idowu, M. Soneye, Tolulope Okedere, S. Onigbinde, Aderemi Ishola","doi":"10.4103/wajr.wajr_19_19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Fee splitting is a global pandemic in the health-care industry, whereby financial and nonfinancial inducements are offered to health-care practitioners in exchange for guaranteed patient referral, continuous patronage, or preferential usage/prescription of the payer's products. Methods: We surveyed 280 medical doctors from August 2017 to October 2017 to assess their knowledge, perception, and attitude toward fee-splitting using self-administered questionnaires. Results: The majority (89%) of our respondents indicated that they were aware of the existence of fee-splitting in the Nigerian health-care industry. About 34% accept rebates, while 70% admitted to knowing other colleagues who accept rebates. The amount received as rebates was ≤20% of the cost of an investigation. More than half of the respondents (52%) opined that the practice is a nationwide phenomenon. An astonishing 78% of respondents either did not know (61%) or asserted wrongly (17%) that the practice is not a violation Nigerian Medical Council rules. Only 46% affirmed that the practice is unethical. Compared to private hospitals, fee-splitting is less in public hospitals. Sixty-one percent noted that other health-care workers (besides physicians) are also involved. The primary allures of fee-splitting were a quest for an extra source of income (64%), poor/irregular salaries (60%), ignorance of its illegality (56%), and greed (47%). The identified deleterious consequences were unnecessary investigations/procedures, inflated health-care cost, quackery, delayed treatment/prolonged hospital stay, beclouded clinical judgment, and negative public perception. Conclusion: Stricter regulatory enforcement and continuous ethics education are needed to disrupt the widespread fee-splitting culture.","PeriodicalId":29875,"journal":{"name":"West African Journal of Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"West African Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/wajr.wajr_19_19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Background: Fee splitting is a global pandemic in the health-care industry, whereby financial and nonfinancial inducements are offered to health-care practitioners in exchange for guaranteed patient referral, continuous patronage, or preferential usage/prescription of the payer's products. Methods: We surveyed 280 medical doctors from August 2017 to October 2017 to assess their knowledge, perception, and attitude toward fee-splitting using self-administered questionnaires. Results: The majority (89%) of our respondents indicated that they were aware of the existence of fee-splitting in the Nigerian health-care industry. About 34% accept rebates, while 70% admitted to knowing other colleagues who accept rebates. The amount received as rebates was ≤20% of the cost of an investigation. More than half of the respondents (52%) opined that the practice is a nationwide phenomenon. An astonishing 78% of respondents either did not know (61%) or asserted wrongly (17%) that the practice is not a violation Nigerian Medical Council rules. Only 46% affirmed that the practice is unethical. Compared to private hospitals, fee-splitting is less in public hospitals. Sixty-one percent noted that other health-care workers (besides physicians) are also involved. The primary allures of fee-splitting were a quest for an extra source of income (64%), poor/irregular salaries (60%), ignorance of its illegality (56%), and greed (47%). The identified deleterious consequences were unnecessary investigations/procedures, inflated health-care cost, quackery, delayed treatment/prolonged hospital stay, beclouded clinical judgment, and negative public perception. Conclusion: Stricter regulatory enforcement and continuous ethics education are needed to disrupt the widespread fee-splitting culture.