4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Physicians in retainer (Concierge) practice: A national survey of physician, patient, and practice characteristics

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 20, 期 12, 页码 1079-1083

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0233.x

关键词

access to care; retainer; concierge; boutique; ethics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Retainer practices represent a new model of care whereby physicians charge an up-front fee for services that may not be covered by health insurance. The characteristics of these practices are largely unknown. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cross-sectional mail survey of 144 retainer physicians (58% response rate) and a national random sample of 463 nonretainer physicians (50% response rate) to compare retainer and nonretainer practices. Outcomes of interest included physician demographics, size and case-mix of patient panel, services offered and, for retainer practices, characteristics of practice development. RESULTS: Retainer physicians have much smaller patient panels (mean 898 vs 2303 patients, P <.0001) than their nonretainer counterparts, and care for fewer African-American (mean 7% vs 16%, P <.002), Hispanic (4% vs 14%, P <.001), or Medicaid (5% vs 15%, P <.001) patients. Physicians in retainer practices are more likely to offer accompanied specialist visits (30% vs 1%), house calls (63% vs 26%), 24-hour direct physician access (91% vs 40%), and several other services (all P values <.05). Most retainer physicians (85%) converted from nonretainer practices but kept few of their former patients (mean 12%). Most retainer physicians (84%) provide charity care and many continue to see some patients (mean 17%) who do not pay retainer fees. CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences between retainer and nonretainer practices, there is also substantial overlap in services provided. These findings, in conjunction with the scope of patient discontinuity when physicians transition to retainer practice, suggest that ethical and legal debates about the standing of these practices will endure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据