A G Pereira1, S D Pearson. 1. Center for Ethics in Managed Care, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite concern about the impact of financial incentives on physician behavior, little is known about patients' attitudes toward these incentives. OBJECTIVES: To assess patient attitudes toward physician compensation models and to explore patient characteristics associated with these attitudes. METHODS: We mailed a survey to 2000 adult patients in a large New England health maintenance organization. We asked about their trust in their primary care physician; discomfort with compensation models of salary with withhold (salary), fee-for-service with withhold, and group capitation (capitation). RESULTS: One thousand one hundred twenty-five (56%) of the 2000 patients who responded expressed varying levels of discomfort with the proposed compensation models: 16% for salary, 25% for fee-for-service with withhold, and 53% for capitation (P<.001). Patients who knew their primary care physician was paid through capitation did not report less trust in their primary care physician but still frequently expressed discomfort (46%) with capitation. Among all respondents, those who were younger, white, had better health, had a higher income, were more educated, and who lacked a very trusting relationship with a primary care physician were more likely to report discomfort with both capitation and fee-for-service with withhold. In multivariable analyses, discomfort with capitation was more common among white patients (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.2), patients with incomes exceeding $20 000 (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-6.1), and college-educated patients (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.7). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were uncomfortable with 1 or more of the 3 common methods used to pay physicians. Discomfort was highest with capitation and was more likely among wealthier, well-educated, white patients. With capitation increasing nationally, patients' concerns should be considered in the design of compensation agreements.
BACKGROUND: Despite concern about the impact of financial incentives on physician behavior, little is known about patients' attitudes toward these incentives. OBJECTIVES: To assess patient attitudes toward physician compensation models and to explore patient characteristics associated with these attitudes. METHODS: We mailed a survey to 2000 adult patients in a large New England health maintenance organization. We asked about their trust in their primary care physician; discomfort with compensation models of salary with withhold (salary), fee-for-service with withhold, and group capitation (capitation). RESULTS: One thousand one hundred twenty-five (56%) of the 2000 patients who responded expressed varying levels of discomfort with the proposed compensation models: 16% for salary, 25% for fee-for-service with withhold, and 53% for capitation (P<.001). Patients who knew their primary care physician was paid through capitation did not report less trust in their primary care physician but still frequently expressed discomfort (46%) with capitation. Among all respondents, those who were younger, white, had better health, had a higher income, were more educated, and who lacked a very trusting relationship with a primary care physician were more likely to report discomfort with both capitation and fee-for-service with withhold. In multivariable analyses, discomfort with capitation was more common among white patients (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.2), patients with incomes exceeding $20 000 (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-6.1), and college-educated patients (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-2.7). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were uncomfortable with 1 or more of the 3 common methods used to pay physicians. Discomfort was highest with capitation and was more likely among wealthier, well-educated, white patients. With capitation increasing nationally, patients' concerns should be considered in the design of compensation agreements.
Entities:
Keywords:
Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health
Authors: Heather Schacht Reisinger; Rachel Horner Brackett; Colin D Buzza; Monica B Williams Páez; Ryan Gourley; Mark W Vander Weg; Alan J Christensen; Peter J Kaboli Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-06-20 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Francis-Xavier Andoh-Adjei; Dennis Cornelissen; Felix Ankomah Asante; Ernst Spaan; Koos van der Velden Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Francis-Xavier Andoh-Adjei; Renske van der Wal; Eric Nsiah-Boateng; Felix Ankomah Asante; Koos van der Velden; Ernst Spaan Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 2.655