Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Will german patients accept their family physician as a gatekeeper?

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

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Looking to the experience in the United States with managed care and the possible introduction of gatekeeping in the near future in Germany, we performed a population-based survey to examine preferences for future gatekeeping arrangements.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone survey.

SETTING: Four health districts in Thuringia (formerly East Germany) and Lower Saxony (formerly West Germany).

PARTICIPANTS: Out of a random sample of 644 adults in the 4 districts, 415 persons (64.4%) took part in the survey.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using multiple logistic regression, we analyzed associations between preferences for gatekeeping arrangements and patient satisfaction, insurance status, and sociodemographic characteristics. Seventy-four percent of respondents valued first-contact care, especially older people (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.0 to 9.3), people who were very satisfied with the relationship with their family physician (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6 to 4.8) and members of sickness funds in contrast to privately insured persons (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 5.2). The family physician’s influence in coordinating the use of specialist services was appreciated by 86%, more often by members of sickness funds (OR, 5.9; 95% CI, 2.4 to 14.3), people who were very satisfied with their doctor’s professional competence (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.6 to 6.3) and older persons (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.7).

CONCLUSIONS: A vast majority of the German population would accept their family physician as entry point and as coordinator of all other health services. Since patient satisfaction, among other reasons, strongly influenced preferences for gatekeeper arrangements, family physicians themselves may be able to promote primary care health services.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

References

  1. World Health Organization. Primary Health Care: Alma-Alta 1978. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 1978. Health for All; No. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Coulter A. Why should health care services be primary care-led? J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1:122–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Starfield B. The future of primary care in a managed care era. Int J Health Serv. 1997;27:687–96.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Starfield B, Cassady C, Nanda J, Forrest CB, Berk R. Consumer experiences and provider perceptions of the quality of primary care: implications for managed care. J Fam Pract. 1998;46:216–26.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schucht C, Kochen MM. Managed care: a model for outpatient care in Germany? [in German]. Z Ärztl Fortbild Qualitätssich. 1998;92:685–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Halm EA, Causino N, Blumenthal D. Is gatekeeping better than traditional care? A survey of physician’s attitudes. JAMA. 1997;278:1677–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. American Medical Association (AMA). Principles of managed care. Available at www.ama-assn.org/advocacy/principl.htm. Accessed: January 1999.

  8. Etter JF, Perneger TV. Health care expenditures after introduction of a gatekeeper and a global budget in a Swiss health insurance plan. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:370–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Jackson JL. The German health system. Lessons for reform in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:155–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Glöser S. Toward managed care models [in German]. Dtsch Ärztebl. 1999;96:441.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bodenheimer T, Lo B, Casalino L. Primary care physicians should be coordinators, not gatekeepers. JAMA. 1999;281:2045–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Volpp KG, Schwartz JS. Myths and realities surrounding health reform. JAMA. 1994;271:1370–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wasern J, Güther B. The German health system: Attitudes and expectations of the population—a stock-taking [in German]. Neuss: Janssen-Cilag; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tabenkin H, Gross R, Brammli S, Shvartzman P. Patient’s view of direct access to specialists: an Israeli experience. JAMA. 1998;279:1943–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT. User’s Guide. Version 6. 4th ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Salmon CT, Nichols JS. The next-birthday method of respondent selection. Publ Opinion Quart. 1983;47:277–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Federal Statistical Office (ed.) Statistical Yearbook 1997 for the Federal Republic of Germany [in German]. Stuttgart: Metzler-Poerschel; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Baker R. Development of a questionnaire to assess patient’s satisfaction with consultations in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1990;40:487–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Stokes ME, Davis CS, Koch GG. Categorial data analysis using the SAS system. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 1995:163ff.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Starfield B. Is primary care essential? Lancet. 1994;344:1129–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Blendon RJ, Benson J, Donelan K, et al. Who has the best health care system? A second look. Health Aff. 1995;14:221–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. EMNID. A survey of doctors and patients [in German]. Köln: Capital and Schwarz Pharma; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Costler D, Klaes L. Free access to doctors—a population based survey [in German]. Bonn: Wissenschaftliches Institut der Ärzte Deutschlands (WIAD) e.V.; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schmittdiel J, Selby JV, Grumbach K. Quesenberry CP Jr. Choice of a personal physician and patient satisfaction in a health maintenance organization. JAMA. 1997;278:1596–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Tudor CG, Riley G, Ingber M. Satisfaction with care: do Medicare HMOs make a difference? Health Aff. 1998;17:165–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ullrich CG. Solidarity and security. The acceptance of the statutory health insurance [in German]. Z Soziol. 1996;25:171–89.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kulu-Glasgow I, Delnoij D, de Bakker D. Self-referral in a gatekeeping system: patient’s reasons for skipping the general-practitioner. Health Policy. 1998;45:221–38.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bernard DB, Shulkin DJ. The media vs managed health care: are we seeing a full court press? Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:2109–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Himmel W, Ittner E, Kron M, Kochen MM. Comparing women’s view on family and sexual problems in family and gynecological practices. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 1999;20:127–35.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Frazier JB. Current trends in American managed care: economic, technological, and political factors. Gesundheitsökon Qualitätsmanage 1999;4:48–54.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Himmel W, Kron M, Hepe S, Kochen MM. Drug prescribing in hospital as experienced by general practitioners. East versus West Germany. Fam Pract. 1996;13:247–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Emanuel EJ, Dubler NN. Preserving the physician-patient relationship in the era of managed care. JAMA. 1995;273:323–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Shortell SM, Waters TM, Clarke KW, Budetti PP. Physicians as double agents: maintaining trust in an era of multiple accountabilities. JAMA. 1998;280:1102–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kerr EA, Hays RD, Mitchison A, Lee M, Siu AL. The influence of gatekeeping and utilization review on patient satisfaction. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:287–95.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Jones R. Primary care and the US health care system. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1999;4:2–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family Practice, University of Göttingen, Humboldtallee 38, 37073, Göttingen, Germany

    Wolfgang Himmel PhD

Authors
  1. Wolfgang Himmel PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anja Dieterich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael M. Kochen MD, MPH, PhD, FRCGP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang Himmel PhD.

Additional information

Received from the Department of Family Medicine, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Himmel, W., Dieterich, A. & Kochen, M.M. Will german patients accept their family physician as a gatekeeper?. J GEN INTERN MED 15, 496–502 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.10016.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.10016.x

Key words

Search

Navigation