This study shows how practice factors, particularly payment type, affect quality and accessibility of primary care for adults with disabilities. The study consisted of: (a) a survey of practice characteristics, including accessibility, accommodations for disabled patients, and payment type; and, (b) a retrospective chart audit for quality of care indicators. The sample consisted of 513 patients within 73 doctors within 47 practices. The study show that there are significant differences between payment types on location, number of physicians and other health professionals, caseloads and patient contacts. Salaried practices scored significantly higher on accessibility and willingness to make accommodations for patients with disabilities. Salary practices scored significantly higher than FFS or capitation for the treatment of diabetes, hypertension and urinary tract infections. Capitation practices scored significantly lower than the other two payment types on preventive care. These findings raise questions regarding the mix of salary to other models of practice, and incentives for ensuring that those with the greatest need receive the best possible primary care.
Barros, P. ( 2005). Cream-skimming, incentives for efficiency and payment system. Journal of Health Economics, 22, 419-443.
2.
Battista, R.N., Williams, J.I., & MacFarlane, L.A. (1986). Determinants of primary medical practice in adult cancer prevention. Medical Care , 24, 216-224.
3.
Beatty, P.W., Hagglund, K., Neri, M.T., Dhont, K.R., Clark, M.J., & Hilton, S.A. ( 2003). Access to health care services among people with chronic or disabling conditions: Patterns and predictors. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 1417-1425.
4.
Borgiel, A.E., Williams, J.I., Anderson, G.M., Bass, M.J., Dunn, E.V., Lamont, C.T., et al. (1985). Assessing the quality of care in family physicians’ practices. Canadian Family Physician, 31, 853-862.
5.
Chisholm, A., & Stewart, D. ( 1998). Economics and ethics in mental health care: Traditions and trade-offs. Journal of Mental Health Policy Economics , 1, 55-62.
6.
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. ( 2009). Accepting new patients-Policy statement #1-09. Retrieved from http://www.cpso.on.ca/uploadedfiles/policies/policies/policyitems/Accepting_patients.pdf?terms=accepting+new+patients
7.
DeJong, G. ( 1997). Primary care for persons with disabilities. An overview of the problem. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 76, S2-S8.
8.
Glazier, R., Klein-Geltink, J., Kopp, A., & Sibley, L. ( 2009). Capitation and enhanced fee-for-service models for primary care reform: A population-based evaluation. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 180, E72-E81.
9.
Gosden, T., Forland, F., Kristiansen, I.S., Sutton, M., Leese, B., Giuffrida, A., et al. (2001a). Capitation, salary, fee-for-service and mixed systems of payment [Systematic Review]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, published in The Cochrane Library2006, Issue 3 http://www.hpm.org/Downloads/Bellagio/Articles/Capitation_salar_fee-for-service_CochrReview.pdf
10.
Gosden, T., Forland, F., Kristiansen, I.S., Sutton, M., Leese, B., Giuffrida, A., et al. (2001b). Impact of payment method on behaviour of primary care physicians: a systematic review. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 6, 44-55.
11.
Gosden, T., Pedersen, L., & Torgerson, D. ( 1999). How should we pay doctors? A systematic review of salary payments and their effect on doctor behaviour. Quarterly Journal of Medicine, 92, 47-55.
12.
Gosden, T., Sibbald, B., Williams, J., Petchey, R., & Leese, B. ( 2003). Paying doctors by salary: A controlled study of general practitioner behaviour in England. Health Policy, 64, 415-423.
13.
Green, M., Hogg, W., Gray, D., Manuel, D., Koller, M., Maaten, S., et al. (2009). Financial and work satisfaction: Impacts of participation in primary care reofrm on physicians in Ontario. Healthcare Policy, 5, e161-174.
14.
Hollander, M., Kadiec, H., Hamdi, R., & Tessaro, A. ( 2009). Increasing value for money in the Canadian health care system: New findings on the contribution of primary care services. Healthcare Quarterly, 12(4), 32-44.
15.
Howard, M., & Randall, G. ( 2009). After-hours information given by telephone by family physicians in Ontario. Healthcare Policy, 5, 106-115.
16.
Hunter, D.J., Shortt, S.E., Walker, P.M., & Godwin, M. ( 2004). Family physician views about primary care reform in Ontario: A postal questionnaire. BMC Family Practice, 5, 2.
17.
Iezzoni, L.I., Davis, R.B., Soukup, J., & O’Day, B. (2002). Satisfaction with quality and access to health care among people with disabling conditions. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 14, 369-381.
18.
Jones, K.E. & Tamari, I.E. ( 1997). Making our offices universally accessible: Guidelines for physicians. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 156, 647-656.
19.
Kasperski, J. ( 2005). Family physicians and public policy: The light at the end of the tunnel. Retrieved from http://www.cfpc.ca/english/ocfp/communications/publications/default.asp?s=1
20.
Kroll, T., Beatty, P.W., & Bingham, S. ( 2003). Primary care satisfaction among adults with physical disabilities: The role of patient-provider communication. Managed Care Quarterly, 11, 11-19.
21.
Kroneman, M.W., Maarse, H., & van der Zee, J. (2006). Direct access in primary care and patient satisfaction: AEuropean study. Health Policy , 76, 72-79.
22.
Maguire, A.M., Powe, N.R., Starfield, B., Andrews, J., Weiner, J.P., & Anderson, G.F. (1998). "Carving out" conditions from global capitation rates: Protecting high-cost patients, physicians, and health plans in a managed care environment. American Journal of Managed Care, 4, 797-806.
23.
McColl, M.A., Jarzynowska, A., & Shortt, S. E. D. (2010). Unmet health care needs of people with disabilities: Population level evidence. Disability & Society, 25(2), 205-218.
24.
Neri, M.T., & Kroll, T. ( 2003). Understanding the consequences of access barriers to health care: Experiences of adults with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 85-96.
25.
Safran, D.G., Tarlov, A.R., & Rogers, W.H. ( 1994). Primary care performance in fee-for-service and prepaid health care systems. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 271, 1579-1586.
26.
Safran, D.G., Wilson, I.B., Rogers, W.H., Montgomery, J.E., & Chang, H. ( 2002). Primary care quality in the Medicare program: Comparing the performance of Medicare health maintenance organizations and traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 757-765.
27.
Simoens, S., & Giuffrida, A. ( 2004). The impact of physician payment methods on raising the efficiency of the healthcare system. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 3, 39-46.
28.
Starfield, B., Cassady, C., Nanda, J., Forrest, C.B., & Berk, R. ( 1998). Consumer experiences and provider perceptions of the quality of primary care: Implications for managed care. Journal of Family Practice, 46, 216-226.
29.
Tu, K., Cauch-Dudek, K., & Chen, Z. ( 2009). Comparison of primary care physician payment models in the management of hypertension. Canadian Family Physician , 55, 719-727.
30.
Veltman, A., Stewart, D.E., Tardif, G., & Branigan, M. ( 2001). Perceptions of primary healthcare services among people with physical disabilities. Part 1: Access issues. Medscape General Medicine, 3(2), 18.
31.
Wenghofer, E., Williams, P., & Klass, D. ( 2009). Factors affecting physician performance: Implications for performance improvement and governance. Healthcare Policy , 5, 141-160.
32.
Williamson, D.L., Stewart, M.J., Hayward, K., Letourneau, N., Makwarimba, E., Masuda, J., et al. (2006). Low-income Canadians’ experiences with health-related services: Implications for health care reform. Health Policy, 76, 106-121.
