OBJECTIVE: To examine the remuneration model preferences of newly practising family physicians. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study comprising a cross-sectional, Web-based survey, as well as qualitative content analysis of answers to open-ended questions. SETTING: British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: University of British Columbia family practice residents who graduated between 2000 and 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preferred remuneration models of newly practising physicians. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 31% (133 of 430). Of respondents, 71% (93 of 132) preferred non-fee-for-service practice models and 86% (110 of 132) identified the payment model as very or somewhat important in their choice of future practice. Three principal themes were identified from content analysis of respondents' open-ended comments: frustrations with fee-for-service billing, which encompassed issues related to aggravations with "the business side of things" and was seen as impeding "the freedom to focus on medicine"; quality of patient care, which embraced the importance of a payment model that supported "comprehensive patient care" and "quality rather than quantity"; and freedom to choose, which supported the plurality of practice preferences among providers who strived to provide quality care for patients, "whatever model you happen to be working in." CONCLUSION: Newly practising physicians in British Columbia preferred alternatives to fee-for-service payment models, which were perceived as contributing to fewer frustrations with billing systems, improved quality of work life, and better quality of patient care.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the remuneration model preferences of newly practising family physicians. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study comprising a cross-sectional, Web-based survey, as well as qualitative content analysis of answers to open-ended questions. SETTING:British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: University of British Columbia family practice residents who graduated between 2000 and 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Preferred remuneration models of newly practising physicians. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 31% (133 of 430). Of respondents, 71% (93 of 132) preferred non-fee-for-service practice models and 86% (110 of 132) identified the payment model as very or somewhat important in their choice of future practice. Three principal themes were identified from content analysis of respondents' open-ended comments: frustrations with fee-for-service billing, which encompassed issues related to aggravations with "the business side of things" and was seen as impeding "the freedom to focus on medicine"; quality of patient care, which embraced the importance of a payment model that supported "comprehensive patient care" and "quality rather than quantity"; and freedom to choose, which supported the plurality of practice preferences among providers who strived to provide quality care for patients, "whatever model you happen to be working in." CONCLUSION: Newly practising physicians in British Columbia preferred alternatives to fee-for-service payment models, which were perceived as contributing to fewer frustrations with billing systems, improved quality of work life, and better quality of patient care.
Authors: Michael E Green; William Hogg; David Gray; Doug Manuel; Michelle Koller; Sarah Maaten; Yan Zhang; Samuel E D Shortt Journal: Healthc Policy Date: 2009-11
Authors: Rachel A Nakash; Jane L Hutton; Ellen C Jørstad-Stein; Simon Gates; Sarah E Lamb Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2006-02-23 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Baukje Miedema; Julie Easley; Ashley E Thompson; Antoine Boivin; Kris Aubrey-Bassler; Alan Katz; William E Hogg; Mylaine Breton; Danièle Francoeur; Sabrina T Wong; Walter P Wodchis Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: M Ruth Lavergne; Laurie J Goldsmith; Agnes Grudniewicz; David Rudoler; Emily Gard Marshall; Megan Ahuja; Doug Blackie; Fred Burge; Richard J Gibson; Richard H Glazier; Steve Hawrylyshyn; Lindsay Hedden; Jacalynne Hernandez-Lee; Kathleen Horrey; Mike Joyce; Tara Kiran; Adrian MacKenzie; Maria Mathews; Rita McCracken; Kimberlyn McGrail; Madeleine McKay; Charmaine McPherson; Goldis Mitra; Tara Sampalli; Ian Scott; David Snadden; Gail Tomblin Murphy; Sabrina T Wong Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 2.692