Search

Purpose: We examined whether physician factors, particularly financial productivity incentives, affect the provision of preventive care., Subjects and Methods: We surveyed and reviewed the charts of 4,473 patients who saw 1 of 169 internists from 11 academically affiliated primary care practices in Boston. We abstracted cancer risk factors, comorbid conditions, and the dates of the last Papanicolaou (Pap) smear, mammogram, cholesterol screening, and influenza vaccination. We obtained physician information including the method of financial compensation through a mailed physician survey. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between physician factors and four outcomes based on Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) measures: (1) Pap smear within the prior 3 years among women 20 to 75 years old; (2) mammogram in the prior 2 years among women 52 to 69 years old; (3) cholesterol screening within the prior 5 years among patients 40 to 64 years old; and (4) influenza vaccination among patients 65 years old and older. All analyses accounted for clus-tering by provider and site and were converted into adjusted rates., Results: After adjustment for practice site, clinical, and physician factors, patients cared for by physicians with financial productivity incentives were significantly less likely than those cared for by physicians without this incentive to receive Pap smears (rate difference, 12%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5% to 18%) and cholesterol screening (rate difference, 4%; 95% CI: 0% to 8%). Financial incentives were not significantly associated with rates of mammography (rate difference, -3%; 95% CI: -15% to 10%) or influenza vaccination (rate difference, -13%; 95% CI: -28% to 2%)., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that some financial productivity incentives may discourage the performance of certain forms of preventive care, specifically Pap smears and cholesterol screening. More studies are needed to examine the effects of financial incentives on the quality of care, and to examine whether quality improvement interventions or incentives based on quality improve the performance of preventive care.

Background: To evaluate debt and other factors that help formulate the career paths of future surgical and primary care physicians, a survey was undertaken., Methods: Surgical specialty (SS) and primary care (PC) residents were surveyed regarding demographics, factors influencing choice of specialty, methods of financing education, debt characteristics, and outlooks regarding future earnings and practice characteristics., Results: The clinical years of medical school and personalities of specialists and residents were important factors in career choices for both PC and SS. The length of residency, desirable lifestyle, and working hours were all more important to PC residents. Surgeons found intellectual challenge and procedure-based practice of greater importance. Although not highly regarded by either group, scholarship obligation and student loans had a significantly greater impact on specialty choice and practice plans for PC residents. At the completion of training, 55% of SS and 28% of PC residents anticipate owing more than $100,000. Debt was especially significant in specialty choice and practice plans for PC residents with debt over $100,000., Conclusion: Surgical residents are less concerned about personal sacrifices in their quest to become surgeons. It appears state funded scholarships are successful in attracting students to primary care. Both SS and PC residents have significant debt, although, SS residents have greater financial debt than primary care residents. However, the anticipation of indebtedness was a more significant factor in determination of career path for PC.

Purpose: Previous studies have examined the effects of hospitalists in urban academic hospitals. We compared the outcomes of patients treated by hospitalists with those of patients treated by internists at a 647-bed rural community hospital., Subjects and Methods: The 443 patients in the hospitalists' 10 most common diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) were compared with 1,681 patients in the same DRGs who were cared for by internists in fiscal year 1998. Length of stay, cost of care, patient illness severity, patient satisfaction, 30-day readmission rate, inpatient mortality, discharge status, and resource utilization were compared., Results: The hospitalists' patients had a shorter mean (+/- SD) length of stay (4.1 +/- 3.0 days versus 5.5 +/- 4.9 days, P <0.001) and their cost of care was less than that of the internists' patients ($4,098 +/- $2,455 versus $4,658 +/- $4,084, P <0.001). Analyses that adjusted for patient age, race, sex, insurance status, severity of illness, and specific medical comorbidities confirmed these differences. The differences between hospitalists and internists were most apparent among very ill patients. Mortality rates were similar (4.5% for hospitalists versus 4.9% for internists, P = 0.80), as were the readmission rates (4.5% for hospitalists versus 5.6% for internists, P = 0.41). Patient satisfaction was similar for both groups. The internists used more resources in 8 of 11 categories., Conclusions: The hospitalists provided cost-effective care, particularly for the sickest patients, with good outcomes and patient satisfaction.

The internal medicine generalist is at market risk with expansion of managed care. The cottage industry of Academic Departments of internal medicine should apply more business tools to the internal medicine business problem. A strength, weakness, opportunity, threat (SWOT) analysis demonstrates high vulnerability to the internal medicine generalist initiative. Recommitment to the professional values of internal medicine and enhanced focus on the master clinician as the competitive core competency of internal medicine will be necessary to retain image and market share.