Physicians' views on capitated payment for medical care: does familiarity foster acceptance?
Physicians' attitudes toward capitated payment have not been quantified. We sought to assess physicians' views on capitated payment and to compare the views of those who did and did not participate in such payment. A written survey was given to 200 physicians with admitting privileges at a 600-bed Ohio hospital; 82 (41%) responded and were included in this study. Among respondents, 21 (26%) were primary care physicians, 18 (22%) were medical subspecialists, and 18 (22%) were surgeons. Fifty-eight (71%) were providers for managed care plans, and 35 (43%) participated in capitated payment arrangements. Among physicians who did not participate in capitated care, 100% believed that there was a conflict of interest in capitated payment, and 77% (23 physicians) believed that participation in plans that reduce physician income in proportion to medical expenditures is not acceptable. Among those who did participate in capitated payment contracts, 95% (41 physicians) believed these plans posed a conflict of interest, and 72% (31 physicians) said this was not acceptable (P = 0.4 and 0.66 for each comparison). There was no trend toward the opinion that capitated payment arrangements are acceptable with greater levels of experience in capitated care (P = 0.5 by Spearman test). There were trends suggesting that compared with those who were not receiving capitated payments, those who received capitated payment were 50% more likely to have never discussed capitated payment with any patient (63% versus 42%, P = 0.08), were 70% more likely to very strongly oppose the use of capitation to pay their own family's physicians (49% versus 29%, P = 0.07), and were 30% more likely to believe that it is impossible to stay in the practice of medicine without participating in capitated payment plans (84% versus 65%, P = 0.06). None of the respondents reported that they had a contractual "gag clause," but 34% (27 physicians) said they would not speak publicly about any perceived risks of capitated payments anyway. Among this sample of physicians, those who participated in existing capitated payment managed care plans had views that were as negative, or more negative, on the acceptability of capitated payment as did those of nonparticipating physicians. Many were participating in capitated payment plans in spite of these negative views because they feared that to do otherwise would force them out of medical practice. The hypotheses generated by this study must be tested in larger, national studies. (+info)
Role of family physicians in hospitals. Did it change between 1977 and 1997?
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether hospital activities and attitudes toward hospitals of members of an urban family medicine department changed between 1977 and 1997. To explore whether these activities and attitudes are different among fee-for-service (FFS) and non-FFS physicians in 1997. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys by interview (1977) and self-administered questionnaire (1997). SETTING: Community-based family practices in Hamilton, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: In 1977, 88 of 89 (98.9%) and, in 1997, 66 of 88 (75.0%) members of the Department of Family Medicine at St Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceived reasons for involvement in hospital work; time spent and main activities in hospital; use of hospital privileges; attitudes toward family physicians' role in hospital, hospital work, and the Department of Family Medicine; perceptions of patients', consultants', and hospital administrators' attitudes toward family physicians' role in hospitals. RESULTS: In 1977 and 1997, patient care and continuing education remained key reasons for doing hospital work. In 1997, however, respondents spent a mean of 3 hours less per week in hospital; used the hospital less often for procedures, meetings, and teaching; and assumed less responsibility for their patients' in-hospital care. While perceptions of hospital work changed over the years, most physicians continued to see a need and have a desire to remain involved in hospitals. Fee-for-service and non-FFS physicians held different opinions on the needs of both hospitalized patients and family physicians. CONCLUSION: Although physicians' hospital activities and attitudes changed between 1997 and 1997, most continued to see a need and have a desire to remain involved in hospitals. (+info)
Physician credentialing in a consumer-centric world.
As managed care responds to the rising tide of consumerism in medicine, it is necessary to reexamine the functions that health plans have performed. Chief among the activities that demand resources but return minimal value is the process of physician credentialing. As consumers are asked to assume more control in their health care decisions and to pay more for their care, the credentialing process must be changed if it is to add value for consumers. This paper discusses the role of credentialing and how it might be reconfigured to become more meaningful to consumers. (+info)
The ethics of administrative credentialing.
A vascular surgeon has practiced in the same community for more than 20 years, holding privileges at the two largest local general hospitals. She is widely respected and admired by patients and fellow physicians in all specialties, and her results are consistently good. Recently, the board of directors at the hospital that has been the source of 80% of her case referrals hired a notorious slash-and-burn management firm to improve the balance sheet. The new chief executive officer (CEO) installed an information technology system that can provide management with physician-specific figures on costs and reimbursements. The management consultants identified the 10% of physicians with the worst cost/reimbursement ratios over the preceding 5 years and persuaded the board of directors to order their clinical privileges withdrawn. Our seasoned surgeon learns that she is among the targeted group. Is there an ethical issue here, and, if so, how should she respond? (+info)
Medical: informed consent--designate health care professionals to obtain informed consent. Final rule.
This document amends U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical regulations on informed consent. The final rule authorizes VA to designate additional categories of health care professionals to obtain the informed consent of patients or their surrogates for clinical treatment and procedures and to sign the consent form. (+info)
Guidelines for hospital privileges in vascular and endovascular surgery: recommendations of the Society for Vascular Surgery.
The Clinical Practice Council of the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) was charged with providing an updated consensus on guidelines for hospital privileges in vascular and endovascular surgery. One compelling reason to update these recommendations is that vascular surgery as a specialty has continued to evolve with a significant shift towards endovascular therapies. The Society for Vascular Surgery is making the following four recommendations concerning guidelines for hospital privileges for vascular and endovascular surgery. First, anyone applying for new hospital privileges to perform vascular surgery should have completed an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical-accredited vascular surgery residency and should obtain American Board of Surgery certification in vascular surgery within 3 years of completion of their training. Second, we reaffirm and provide updated recommendations concerning previous established guidelines for peripheral endovascular procedures, thoracic and abdominal aortic endograft replacements, and carotid artery balloon angioplasty and stenting for trainees and already credentialed physicians who are adding these new procedures to their hospital credentials. Third, we endorse the Residency Review Committee for Surgery recommendations regarding open and endovascular cases during vascular residency training. Fourth, we endorse the Inter-societal Commission for Accreditation of Vascular Laboratories (ICAVL) recommendations for noninvasive vascular laboratory interpretations and examinations to become a registered physician in vascular interpretation (RPVI) or a registered vascular technologist (RVT). (+info)
Conflict of credentialing: accolade or unfair trade.
A faculty group practice-driven credentialing and privileging infrastructure in a school of dental medicine.
Credentialing and assigning clinical privileges are well-established practices in institutions that need to verify a clinician's ability to provide direct patient care services. The credentialing process verifies a provider's credentials to practice his or her profession, while privileging authorizes the individual to perform enumerated procedures within a specific scope of practice. All clinical faculty members at Harvard School of Dental Medicine (HSDM) practice in the Faculty Group Practice (FGP). Because of the number of practitioners in the FGP, the organization instituted a more formal process of credentialing that verifies that practitioners are not only licensed to practice, but also are competent to provide direct patient care. In contrast to other dental schools that have established similar protocols, HSDM approached the process not from the academic side, but rather from the clinical practice side, explicitly taking into account whether the FGP could accommodate another practitioner when an academic department wished to appoint a new faculty member. In doing so, we had to be careful to reconcile our educational and research needs with those of the FGP. In this article, we describe how, within this framework, we established a credentialing and privileging program in which all full- and part-time faculty members, as well as advanced graduate students, were included. (+info)