Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 613–618 | Cite as

US Approaches to Physician Payment: The Deconstruction of Primary Care

  • Robert A. Berenson
  • Eugene C. Rich
Review

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to address why the three dominant alternatives to compensating physicians (fee-for-service, capitation, and salary) fall short of what is needed to support enhanced primary care in the patient-centered medical home, and the relevance of such payment reforms as pay-for-performance and episodes/bundling. The review illustrates why prevalent physician payment mechanisms in the US have failed to adequately support primary care and why innovative approaches to primary care payment play such a prominent role in the PCMH discussion. FFS payment for office visits has never effectively rewarded all the activities that comprise prototypical primary care and may contribute to the “hamster on a treadmill” problems in current medical practice. Capitation payments are associated with risk adjustment challenges and, perhaps, public perceptions of conflict with patients’ best interests. Most payers don’t employ and therefore cannot generally place physicians on salary; while in theory such salary payments might neutralize incentives, operationally, “time is money;” extra effort devoted to meeting the needs of a more complex patient will likely reduce the services available to others. Fee-for-service, the predominant physician payment scheme, has contributed to both the continuing decline in the primary care workforce and the capability to serve patients well. Yet, the conceptual alternative payment approaches, modified fee-for-service (including fee bundles), capitation, and salary, each have their own problems. Accordingly, new payment models will likely be required to support restoration of primary care to its proper role in the US health care system, and to promote and sustain the development of patient-centered medical homes.

KEY WORDS

primary care reimbursement health care delivery 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work is adapted from material presented at the conference “Patient-Centered Medical Home: Setting a Policy Relevant Research Agenda” held July 27–28, 2009, at the Fairfax at Embassy Row, Washington, DC. This conference was developed through a collaboration of the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM), the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine (STFM), and the Academic Pediatrics Association (APA). This work was supported by grants to SGIM from the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. The Commonwealth Fund also supported Dr. Berenson’s work reviewing payment approaches.

The authors would like to thank Dr. Michael Chernew and Dr. Lori Heim for their thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of these papers; thanks as well for the comments and suggestions from the participants in the conference, “Patient-Centered Medical Home: Setting a Policy Relevant Research Agenda.”

Conflicts of Interest

None disclosed

References

  1. 1.
    Robinson JC. Theory and practice in the design of physician payment incentives. Milbank Q. 2001;79(2):149,77, III.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    AAFP, AAP, ACP, AOA. Joint principles of a patient-centered medical home. 2007 March 5 2007;2009(September 11):1.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goodson JD, Bierman AS, Fein O, Rask K, Rich EC, Selker HP. The future of capitation: The physician role in managing change in practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(4):250–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Landon BE, Reschovsky J, Blumenthal D. Changes in career satisfaction among primary care and specialist physicians, 1997–2001. JAMA. 2003;289(4):442–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geraghty EM, Franks P, Kravitz RL. Primary care visit length, quality, and satisfaction for standardized patients with depression. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(12):1641–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gross DA, Zyzanski SJ, Borawski EA, Cebul RD, Stange KC. Patient satisfaction with time spent with their physician. J Fam Pract. 1998;47(2):133–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin CT, Albertson GA, Schilling LM, et al. Is patients’ perception of time spent with the physician a determinant of ambulatory patient satisfaction? Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(11):1437–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roe BB. Sounding boards. the UCR boondoggle: A death knell for private practice? N Engl J Med. 1981;305(1):41–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    United States. Physician Payment Review Commission. Annual Report to Congress. 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bodenheimer T, Berenson RA, Rudolf P. The primary care-specialty income gap: Why it matters. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(4):301–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to congress: Medicare payment policy. March 2009:77–128; 2009.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morrison I, Smith R. Hamster health care. BMJ. 2000;321(7276):1541–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q. 1996;74(4):511–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Trude S. So much to do, so little time: Physician capacity constraints, 1997–2001. Result from the Community Tracking Study. 2003 May 2003;8(May):1–4.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cherry DK, Hing E, Woodwell DA, Rechtsteiner EA. National ambulatory medical care survey: 2006 summary. National Health Statistics Reports. 2008 August 6, 2008;3(Number 3 August 6, 2008):1–40.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mechanic D. The uncertain future of primary medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(1):66–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abbo ED, Zhang Q, Zelder M, Huang ES. The increasing number of clinical items addressed during the time of adult primary care visits. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(12):2058–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Linzer M, Manwell LB, Williams ES, et al. Working conditions in primary care: Physician reactions and care quality. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(1):28–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boyd CM, Shadmi E, Conwell LJ, et al. A pilot test of the effect of guided care on the quality of primary care experiences for multimorbid older adults. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(5):536–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Murray E, Lo B, Pollack L, Donelan K, Lee K. Direct-to-consumer advertising: Physicians’ views of its effects on quality of care and the doctor-patient relationship. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2003;16(6):513–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ahmad F, Hudak PL, Bercovitz K, Hollenberg E, Levinson W. Are physicians ready for patients with Internet-based health information? J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(3):e22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yarnall KS, Pollak KI, Ostbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: Is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):635–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ostbye T, Yarnall KS, Krause KM, Pollak KI, Gradison M, Michener JL. Is there time for management of patients with chronic diseases in primary care? Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):209–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    The American Geriatrics Society-members-Charles Cefalu testimony; 2009(12/10/2009).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    American Medical Association. Current procedural terminology : CPT. 1999.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Institute of Medicine. Division of Health Manpower and Resources Development. A manpower policy for primary health care : Report of a study. Washington: National Academy of Sciences; 1978.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    International Conference on Primary Health Care. Declaration of Alma-Ata. WHO Chron. 1978;32(11):428–30.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mehrotra A, Keehl-Markowitz L, Ayanian JZ. Implementing open-access scheduling of visits in primary care practices: A cautionary tale. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(12):915–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Six steps to open access scheduling success; 2009(12/10/2009).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berenson RA, Horvath J. Confronting the barriers to chronic care management in Medicare. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003 Jan–Jun;Suppl Web Exclusives:W3,37–53.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. A data book: Healthcare spending and the Medicare program. 2008 June 2009;1(June):i–210.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lishner DM, Richarson M, Levine P, Patrick D. Access to primary health care among persons with disabilities in rural areas: A summary of the literature. J Rural Health. 2008;12(1):45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Colwill JM, Cultice JM, Kruse RL. Will generalist physician supply meet demands of an increasing and aging population? Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(3):w232–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schoen C, Osborn R, Doty MM, Bishop M, Peugh J, Murukutla N. Toward higher-performance health systems: Adults' health care experiences in seven countries. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26(6):w717–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Davis K, Schoenbaum SC, Audet AM. A 2020 vision of patient-centered primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(10):953–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goroll AH, Berenson RA, Schoenbaum SC, Gardner LB. Fundamental reform of payment for adult primary care: Comprehensive payment for comprehensive care. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(3):410–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    American College of Physicians. Reforming physician payments to achieve greater value in health care spending. 2009;1–46.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Newhouse JP, Buntin MB, Chapman JD. Risk adjustment and Medicare: Taking a closer look. Health Aff (Millwood). 1997;16(5):26–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Newhouse JP. Patients at risk: Health reform and risk adjustment. Health Aff (Millwood). 1994;13(1):132–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ash AS, Ellis RP, Pope GC, et al. Using diagnoses to describe populations and predict costs. Health Care Financ Rev. 2000;21(3):7–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mechanic D, Schlesinger M. The impact of managed care on patients' trust in medical care and their physicians. JAMA. 1996;275(21):1693–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Angell M. The doctor as double agent. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1993;3(3):279–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schoenbaum SC. Physicians and prepaid group practices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 Jan–Jun;Suppl Web Exclusives:W4,76–8.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gallagher TH, St. Peter RF, Chesney M, Lo B. Patients’ attitudes toward cost control bonuses for managed care physicians. Health Aff. 2001;20(2):186–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pereira AG, Pearson SD. Patient attitudes toward physician financial incentives. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(10):1313–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    The public and the health care delivery system-toplines—Kaiser Family Foundation. 2009(8/23/2009).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Casalino LP, November EA, Berenson RA, Pham HH. Hospital-physician relations: Two tracks and the decline of the voluntary medical staff model. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(5):1305–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Relman AS. Salaried physicians and economic incentives. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(12):784.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pedersen CA, Rich EC, Kralewski J, Feldman R, Dowd B, Bernhardt TS. Primary care physician incentives in medical group practices. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9(5):458–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kralewski JE, Rich EC, Feldman R, et al. The effects of medical group practice and physician payment methods on costs of care. Health Serv Res. 2000;35(3):591–613.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Robinson JC, Shortell SM, Li R, Casalino LP, Rundall T. The alignment and blending of payment incentives within physician organizations. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(5):1589–606.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lake T, Devers K, Brewster L, Casalino L. Something old, something new: Recent developments in hospital-physician relationships. Health Serv Res. 2003;38(1 Pt 2):471–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sobero ME. Assessment for pay-for-performance options for medical physician services: Final report. 2006;1–191.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rosenthal MB, Dudley RA. Pay-for-performance: Will the latest payment trend improve care? JAMA. 2007;297(7):740–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mechanic RE, Altman SH. Payment reform options: Episode payment is a good place to start. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(2):w262–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Landon BE, Normand SL. Performance measurement in the small office practice: Challenges and potential solutions. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(5):353–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fisher ES, Staiger DO, Bynum JP, Gottlieb DJ. Creating accountable care organizations: The extended hospital medical staff. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007;26(1):w44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wolff JL, Boult C. Moving beyond round pegs and square holes: Restructuring Medicare to improve chronic care. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(6):439–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lynn J, Milbank Memorial Fund. Sick to death and not going to take it anymore! Reforming health care for the last years of life. Berkeley, Calif.; New York: University of California Press; Milbank Memorial Fund; 2004.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Maynard A. Incentives in health care: The shift in emphasis from the implicit to the explicit. chapter 8. In: Dubois CA, McKee M, Nolte N, eds. Human Resources for Health in Europe: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies Series. N. Berkshire: European Observatory on Health Systems; Open University Press; 2006:1–15.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gosden T, Forland F, Kristiansen IS, et al. Impact of payment method on behaviour of primary care physicians: A systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001;6(1):44–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Urban InstituteWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Creighton UniversityOmahaUSA
  3. 3.Mathematica Policy ResearchWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations