Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

US Approaches to Physician Payment: The Deconstruction of Primary Care

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  1. Robinson JC. Theory and practice in the design of physician payment incentives. Milbank Q. 2001;79(2):149,77, III.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. AAFP, AAP, ACP, AOA. Joint principles of a patient-centered medical home. 2007 March 5 2007;2009(September 11):1.

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Roe BB. Sounding boards. the UCR boondoggle: A death knell for private practice? N Engl J Med. 1981;305(1):41–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. United States. Physician Payment Review Commission. Annual Report to Congress. 1989.

  10. Bodenheimer T, Berenson RA, Rudolf P. The primary care-specialty income gap: Why it matters. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(4):301–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to congress: Medicare payment policy. March 2009:77–128; 2009.

  12. Morrison I, Smith R. Hamster health care. BMJ. 2000;321(7276):1541–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von Korff M. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q. 1996;74(4):511–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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.

  16. Mechanic D. The uncertain future of primary medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(1):66–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. The American Geriatrics Society-members-Charles Cefalu testimony; 2009(12/10/2009).

  25. American Medical Association. Current procedural terminology : CPT. 1999.

  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.

  27. International Conference on Primary Health Care. Declaration of Alma-Ata. WHO Chron. 1978;32(11):428–30.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Six steps to open access scheduling success; 2009(12/10/2009).

  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.

  31. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. A data book: Healthcare spending and the Medicare program. 2008 June 2009;1(June):i–210.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Davis K, Schoenbaum SC, Audet AM. A 2020 vision of patient-centered primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(10):953–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. American College of Physicians. Reforming physician payments to achieve greater value in health care spending. 2009;1–46.

  38. Newhouse JP, Buntin MB, Chapman JD. Risk adjustment and Medicare: Taking a closer look. Health Aff (Millwood). 1997;16(5):26–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Newhouse JP. Patients at risk: Health reform and risk adjustment. Health Aff (Millwood). 1994;13(1):132–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Angell M. The doctor as double agent. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1993;3(3):279–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Schoenbaum SC. Physicians and prepaid group practices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 Jan–Jun;Suppl Web Exclusives:W4,76–8.

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Pereira AG, Pearson SD. Patient attitudes toward physician financial incentives. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(10):1313–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. The public and the health care delivery system-toplines—Kaiser Family Foundation. 2009(8/23/2009).

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Relman AS. Salaried physicians and economic incentives. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(12):784.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sobero ME. Assessment for pay-for-performance options for medical physician services: Final report. 2006;1–191.

  54. Rosenthal MB, Dudley RA. Pay-for-performance: Will the latest payment trend improve care? JAMA. 2007;297(7):740–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Mechanic RE, Altman SH. Payment reform options: Episode payment is a good place to start. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(2):w262–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Landon BE, Normand SL. Performance measurement in the small office practice: Challenges and potential solutions. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(5):353–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC, USA

    Robert A. Berenson MD

  2. Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA

    Eugene C. Rich MD

  3. Mathematica Policy Research, Washington, DC, USA

    Eugene C. Rich MD

Authors
  1. Robert A. Berenson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eugene C. Rich MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eugene C. Rich MD.

Additional information

There are many mechanisms to pay physicians; some are good and some are bad. The three worst are fee-for-service, capitation, and salary.

Robinson1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berenson, R.A., Rich, E.C. US Approaches to Physician Payment: The Deconstruction of Primary Care. J GEN INTERN MED 25, 613–618 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1295-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1295-z

KEY WORDS

Search

Navigation