Perspectives of Nigerian doctors on the practice of rebates, fee-splitting, and kickbacks

IF 0.1 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
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.
尼日利亚医生对回扣、费用分摊和回扣的看法
背景:分费是医疗保健行业的一种全球流行现象,即向医疗保健从业人员提供财务和非财务激励,以换取保证患者转诊、持续赞助或优先使用/处方付款人的产品。方法:于2017年8月至10月对280名医生进行问卷调查,采用自填问卷的方式评估其对费用分摊的认知、认知和态度。结果:大多数(89%)受访者表示,他们知道尼日利亚医疗保健行业存在分摊费用的现象。约34%的人接受回扣,而70%的人承认认识其他接受回扣的同事。收到的回扣金额≤调查费用的20%。超过一半的受访者(52%)认为这是一种全国性的现象。令人震惊的是,78%的受访者要么不知道(61%),要么错误地断言(17%),这种做法并不违反尼日利亚医学委员会的规定。只有46%的人认为这种做法是不道德的。与私立医院相比,公立医院的费用分摊较少。61%的人指出,除医生外,其他保健工作者也参与其中。分摊学费的主要动机是寻求额外的收入来源(64%)、微薄或不稳定的工资(60%)、不知道其违法性(56%)和贪婪(47%)。确定的有害后果是不必要的调查/程序、夸大的医疗保健费用、江湖骗子、延迟治疗/延长住院时间、模糊的临床判断和负面的公众看法。结论:要打破普遍存在的分费文化,需要加强监管和持续的道德教育。
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
West African Journal of Radiology
West African Journal of Radiology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
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