BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The study's aim was to ascertain family physicians' suggestions on how to improve the commonly used US evaluation and management (E/M) rules for primary care. METHODS: A companion paper published in Family Medicine's May 2014 journal describes our study methods (Fam Med 2014;46(5):378-84). RESULTS: Study subjects supported preserving the overall SOAP note structure. They especially suggested eliminating bullet counting in the E/M rules. For payment reform, respondents stated that brief or simple work should be paid less than long or complex work, and that family physicians should be paid for important tasks they currently are not, such as spending extra time with patients, phone and email clinical encounters, and extra paperwork. Subjects wanted shared savings when their decisions and actions created system efficiencies and savings. Some supported recent payment reforms such as monthly retainer fees and pay-for-performance bonuses. Others expressed skepticism about the negative consequences of each. Aligned incentives among all stakeholders was another common theme. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians wanted less burdensome documentation requirements. They wanted to be paid more for complex work and work that does not include traditional face-to-face clinic visits, and they wanted the incentives of other stakeholders in the health care systems to be aligned with their priorities.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The study's aim was to ascertain family physicians' suggestions on how to improve the commonly used US evaluation and management (E/M) rules for primary care. METHODS: A companion paper published in Family Medicine's May 2014 journal describes our study methods (Fam Med 2014;46(5):378-84). RESULTS: Study subjects supported preserving the overall SOAP note structure. They especially suggested eliminating bullet counting in the E/M rules. For payment reform, respondents stated that brief or simple work should be paid less than long or complex work, and that family physicians should be paid for important tasks they currently are not, such as spending extra time with patients, phone and email clinical encounters, and extra paperwork. Subjects wanted shared savings when their decisions and actions created system efficiencies and savings. Some supported recent payment reforms such as monthly retainer fees and pay-for-performance bonuses. Others expressed skepticism about the negative consequences of each. Aligned incentives among all stakeholders was another common theme. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians wanted less burdensome documentation requirements. They wanted to be paid more for complex work and work that does not include traditional face-to-face clinic visits, and they wanted the incentives of other stakeholders in the health care systems to be aligned with their priorities.
Authors: Max Zubatsky; Matthew Witthaus; Jeffrey F Scherrer; Joanne Salas; Sarah Gebauer; Sandra Burge; F David Schneider Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 2.267