This study explores the variation in specialist physician fees and examines whether the variation can be attributed to patient risk factors, variation between physicians, medical specialties, or other factors. We use health insurance claims data from a large private health insurer in Australia. Although Australia has a publicly funded health system that provides universal health coverage, about 44 % of the population holds private health insurance. Specialist physician fees in the private sector are unregulated; physicians can charge any price they want, subject to market forces. We examine the variation in fees using two price measures: total fees charged and out-of- pocket payments. We follow a two-stage method of removing the influence of patient risk factors by computing risk-adjusted prices at patient-level, and aggregating the adjusted prices over all claims made by each physician to arrive at physician-level average prices. In the second stage, we use variance-component models to analyse the variation in the physician-level average prices. We find that patient risk factors account for a small portion of the variance in fees and out-of-pocket payments. Physician-specific variation accounts for the bulk of the vari- ance. The results underscore the importance of understanding physician characteristics in formulating policy efforts to reduce fee variation.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Although hip arthroscopy continues to be one of the most used arthroscopic procedures, no focused, comprehensive evaluation of reimbursement trends has been conducted. The purpose of this study was to analyze the temporal Medicare reimbursement trends for hip arthroscopy procedures.
METHODS: From 2011 to 2021, the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was queried for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes related to hip arthroscopy (29860 to 29863, 29914 to 29916). All monetary data were adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The compound annual growth rate and total percentage change were calculated. Mann-Kendall trend tests were used to evaluate the reimbursement trends.
RESULTS: Based on the unadjusted values, a significant increase in physician fee was observed from 2011 to 2021 for CPT codes 29861 (removal of loose or foreign bodies; % change: 3.49, P = 0.03) and 29862 (chondroplasty, abrasion arthroplasty, labral resection; % change: 3.19, P = 0.03). The remaining CPT codes experienced no notable changes in reimbursement based on the unadjusted values. After adjusting for inflation, all seven of the hip arthroscopy CPT codes were observed to experience a notable decline in Medicare reimbursement. Hip arthroscopy with acetabuloplasty (CPT: 29915) and labral repair (CPT: 29916) exhibited the greatest reduction in reimbursement with a decrease in physician fee of 24.69% ( P < 0.001) and 24.64% ( P < 0.001), respectively, over the study period.
CONCLUSIONS: Medicare reimbursement for all seven of the commonly used hip arthroscopy services did not keep up with inflation, demonstrating marked reductions from 2011 to 2021. Specifically, the inflation-adjusted reimbursements decreased between 19.23% and 24.69% between 2011 and 2021.

BACKGROUND: Abroad medical electives are recognized as high-impact practice and considered a necessity to provide global health training. As of recently, the COVID-19 pandemic and its related travel restrictions prohibited most international elective activities. Another important barrier to abroad electives that received comparably little attention is elective and application fees, which - combined - may be as high as $5000 per month, and may prevent students with limited financial resources from applying for an international elective. Elective fees have never been systematically analyzed and trends in teaching and application fees have rarely been subject to dedicated scientific investigations.
METHODS: Using data from two large elective reports databases, the authors addressed this gap in the literature. The authors analyzed trends in abroad elective fees within the last 15 years in some of the most popular Anglo-American elective destinations among students from Germany, including the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of South Africa, Ireland and the United Kingdom.
RESULTS: The authors identified n = 726 overseas elective reports that were uploaded between 2006 and 2020, of which n = 438 testimonies met the inclusion criteria. The United Kingdom and Australia were the most popular elective destinations (n = 123 and n = 113, respectively), followed by the Republic of South Africa (n = 104) and the United States of America (n = 44). Elective fees differed substantially-depending on the elective destinations and time point. Median elective fees were highest in the United States of America (€ 1875 for a 4-week elective between 2018-2020), followed by the Republic of South Africa (€ 400) and Australia (€ 378). The data also suggests an increasing trend for elective fees, particularly in the United States.
CONCLUSIONS: Rising fees warrant consideration and a discussion about the feasibility of reciprocity and the bidirectional flow of students in bidirectional exchange programs.

This study examines the impact of social insurance benefit restrictions on physician behaviour, using ophthalmologists as a case study. We examine whether ophthalmologists use their market power to alter their fees and rebates across services to compensate for potential policy-induced income losses. The results show that ophthalmologists substantially reduced their fees and rebates for services directly targeted by the benefit restriction compared to other medical specialists\' fees and rebates. There is also some evidence that they increased their fees for services that were not targeted. High-fee charging ophthalmologists exhibited larger fee and rebate responses while the low-fee charging group raise their rebates to match the reference price provided by the policy environment.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Nearly 30 years post legalisation and introduction, midwifery is still not optimally integrated within the health system of Canada\'s largest province, Ontario. Funding models have been identified as one of the main barriers.
METHODS: Using a constructivist perspective, we conducted a qualitative descriptive study to examine how antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum funding arrangements in Ontario impact midwifery integration. We conceptualized optimal \'integration\' as circumstances in which midwives\' knowledge, skills, and model of care are broadly respected and fully utilized, interprofessional collaboration and referral support the best possible care for patients, and midwives feel a sense of belonging within hospitals and the greater health system. We collected data through semi-structured telephone interviews with midwives, obstetricians, family physicians, and nurses. The data was examined using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: We interviewed 20 participants, including 5 obstetricians, 5 family physicians, 5 midwives, 4 nurses, and 1 policy expert. We found that while course-of-care-based midwifery funding is perceived to support high levels of midwifery client satisfaction and excellent clinical outcomes, it lacks flexibility. This limits opportunities for interprofessional collaboration and for midwives to use their knowledge and skills to respond to health system gaps. The physician fee-for-service funding model creates competition for births, has unintended consequences that limit midwives\' scope and access to hospital privileges, and fails to appropriately compensate physician consultants, particularly as midwifery volumes grow. Siloing of midwifery funding from hospital funding further restricts innovative contributions from midwives to respond to community healthcare needs.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant policy changes, such as adequate remuneration for consultants, possibly including salary-based physician funding; flexibility to compensate midwives for care beyond the existing course of care model; and a clearly articulated health human resource plan for sexual and reproductive care are needed to improve midwifery integration.