Elizabeth Trowbridge1,2, Christie M Bartels3, Steven Koslov4,5, Sandra Kamnetz6,5, Nancy Pandhi6,5. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 2828 Marshall Court, Suite 100, Madison, WI, 53705, USA. brt@medicine.wisc.edu. 2. Primary Care Academics Transforming Healthcare Collaborative, UW Health, Madison, WI, USA. brt@medicine.wisc.edu. 3. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 4. Division of General Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 5. Primary Care Academics Transforming Healthcare Collaborative, UW Health, Madison, WI, USA. 6. Department of Family Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional productivity-based compensation models do not align well with newer population-based approaches to primary care. There are few published examples of academic general internal medicine compensation models that explicitly reward population health management, including care for patients between visits. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and implementation of an academic general internal medicine compensation plan based upon actual work performed, compare satisfaction across primary care specialties, and evaluate work-related outcomes. DESIGN: Observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven general internists who practice in affiliated academic and community clinics. MAIN MEASURES: Clinician satisfaction with compensation plan, workforce stability, panel data, and productivity. KEY RESULTS: The compensation plan change was associated with higher provider satisfaction. Sixty-five percent (31/47) of participants within general internal medicine reported being satisfied or very satisfied, as compared to 24 % (22/90 participants) for family medicine and 22 % (5/23 participants) for general pediatrics (p < 0.05). In the first 4 years of the compensation plan change, no general internists left to join other local groups. General internal medicine increased its number of physicians by 19 %. The number of established general internists accepting new patients increased from 17 to 48 %, while the relative value units per full-time equivalent declined by 3 %. CONCLUSIONS: An equitable compensation model that aligns with population management goals and work performed outside the clinical visit can lead to improved satisfaction and retention of faculty in an academic general internal medicine division, along with improved access for the patient population.
BACKGROUND: Traditional productivity-based compensation models do not align well with newer population-based approaches to primary care. There are few published examples of academic general internal medicine compensation models that explicitly reward population health management, including care for patients between visits. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and implementation of an academic general internal medicine compensation plan based upon actual work performed, compare satisfaction across primary care specialties, and evaluate work-related outcomes. DESIGN: Observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven general internists who practice in affiliated academic and community clinics. MAIN MEASURES: Clinician satisfaction with compensation plan, workforce stability, panel data, and productivity. KEY RESULTS: The compensation plan change was associated with higher provider satisfaction. Sixty-five percent (31/47) of participants within general internal medicine reported being satisfied or very satisfied, as compared to 24 % (22/90 participants) for family medicine and 22 % (5/23 participants) for general pediatrics (p < 0.05). In the first 4 years of the compensation plan change, no general internists left to join other local groups. General internal medicine increased its number of physicians by 19 %. The number of established general internists accepting new patients increased from 17 to 48 %, while the relative value units per full-time equivalent declined by 3 %. CONCLUSIONS: An equitable compensation model that aligns with population management goals and work performed outside the clinical visit can lead to improved satisfaction and retention of faculty in an academic general internal medicine division, along with improved access for the patient population.
Authors: David Grembowski; Cornelia M Ulrich; David Paschane; Paula Diehr; Wayne Katon; Diane Martin; Donald L Patrick; Christine Velicer Journal: J Am Board Fam Pract Date: 2003 Sep-Oct
Authors: Steven Lewandowski; Patrick J O'Connor; Leif I Solberg; Thomas Lais; Mary Hroscikoski; JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: D G Fairchild; K S McLoughlin; S Gharib; J Horsky; M Portnow; J Richter; N Gagliano; D W Bates Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Nancy L Keating; Bruce E Landon; John Z Ayanian; Catherine Borbas; Edward Guadagnoli Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Audiey C Kao; Andrew J Jager; Barbara A Koenig; Arlen C Moller; Michael A Tutty; Geoffrey C Williams; Scott M Wright Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Robert Leverence; Richard Nuttall; Rachel Palmer; Mark Segal; Alicia Wood; Fay Yancey; Jonathon Shuster; Mark Brantly; Robert Hromas Journal: Acad Med Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Sandra Kamnetz; Elizabeth Trowbridge; Jennifer Lochner; Steven Koslov; Nancy Pandhi Journal: Qual Manag Health Care Date: 2018 Oct/Dec Impact factor: 0.926
Authors: Kriti Prasad; Sara Poplau; Roger Brown; Steven Yale; Ellie Grossman; Anita B Varkey; Eric Williams; Hannah Neprash; Mark Linzer Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 5.128