Item of Service Remuneration in General Practice in the UK: What Can We Learn From Dentists?
Identifieur interne : 007D35 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 007D34; suivant : 007D36Item of Service Remuneration in General Practice in the UK: What Can We Learn From Dentists?
Auteurs : Stephen BirchSource :
- Family Practice [ 0263-2136 ] ; 1988-12.
Abstract
Birch S. Item of service remuneration in general practice in the UK: what can we learn from dentists? Family Practice 1988; 5: 265–270. In response to the UK Government's proposal to increase the proportion of general practitioner income accruing from capitation payments the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association has called for an extension of fee for item of service provision in general practice. In this paper the allocation of resources in primary care dentistry, where fee for service provision is currently used, is analysed in order to shed light on the debate. Since dentists' fees are set in accordance with average dentist time inputs, differences in cost per treatment course reflect differences in course content. Multiple regression techniques are used to estimate a cost per treatment course function. Using cross-sectional data for family practitioner committees in England and Wales for 1982 a significant negative correlation is found between cost per course and population per dentist after allowing for patient demand and need characteristics. A 10% decrease in population per dentist is associated with a 2.5% increase in cost per course. The observation cannot be explained by dentists rationing treatment in the presence of excess demand owing to the nature of the dentist contract. These results imply that in areas of greater supplies of dentists additional course content is being induced by dentists in order to maintain workloads. Hence although fee for service provision offers a financial incentive to increase service provision it offers no incentive to allocate services efficiently, that is in accordance with greatest need. The extension of fee for service provision in general medical practice would appear to be inconsistent with an objective of allocating scarce primary care resources in accordance with patient need.
Url:
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/5.4.265
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:FD3FEDA1E7FFD5EED259ED76308F0CCBB69C6CDFLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>Item of Service Remuneration in General Practice in the UK: What Can We Learn From Dentists?</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Birch, Stephen" sort="Birch, Stephen" uniqKey="Birch S" first="Stephen" last="Birch">Stephen Birch</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:FD3FEDA1E7FFD5EED259ED76308F0CCBB69C6CDF</idno><date when="1988" year="1988">1988</date><idno type="doi">10.1093/fampra/5.4.265</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/FD3FEDA1E7FFD5EED259ED76308F0CCBB69C6CDF/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">007D35</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">007D35</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">Item of Service Remuneration in General Practice in the UK: What Can We Learn From Dentists?</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Birch, Stephen" sort="Birch, Stephen" uniqKey="Birch S" first="Stephen" last="Birch">Stephen Birch</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Family Practice</title><idno type="ISSN">0263-2136</idno><idno type="eISSN">1460-2229</idno><imprint><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><date type="published" when="1988-12">1988-12</date><biblScope unit="volume">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="265">265</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="270">270</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0263-2136</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0263-2136</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Birch S. Item of service remuneration in general practice in the UK: what can we learn from dentists? Family Practice 1988; 5: 265–270. In response to the UK Government's proposal to increase the proportion of general practitioner income accruing from capitation payments the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association has called for an extension of fee for item of service provision in general practice. In this paper the allocation of resources in primary care dentistry, where fee for service provision is currently used, is analysed in order to shed light on the debate. Since dentists' fees are set in accordance with average dentist time inputs, differences in cost per treatment course reflect differences in course content. Multiple regression techniques are used to estimate a cost per treatment course function. Using cross-sectional data for family practitioner committees in England and Wales for 1982 a significant negative correlation is found between cost per course and population per dentist after allowing for patient demand and need characteristics. A 10% decrease in population per dentist is associated with a 2.5% increase in cost per course. The observation cannot be explained by dentists rationing treatment in the presence of excess demand owing to the nature of the dentist contract. These results imply that in areas of greater supplies of dentists additional course content is being induced by dentists in order to maintain workloads. Hence although fee for service provision offers a financial incentive to increase service provision it offers no incentive to allocate services efficiently, that is in accordance with greatest need. The extension of fee for service provision in general medical practice would appear to be inconsistent with an objective of allocating scarce primary care resources in accordance with patient need.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>oup</corpusName><author><json:item><name>STEPHEN BIRCH</name><affiliations><json:string>Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>5.4.265</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/HXZ-FVXFZ2XN-6</arkIstex><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Birch S. Item of service remuneration in general practice in the UK: what can we learn from dentists? Family Practice 1988; 5: 265–270. In response to the UK Government's proposal to increase the proportion of general practitioner income accruing from capitation payments the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association has called for an extension of fee for item of service provision in general practice. In this paper the allocation of resources in primary care dentistry, where fee for service provision is currently used, is analysed in order to shed light on the debate. Since dentists' fees are set in accordance with average dentist time inputs, differences in cost per treatment course reflect differences in course content. Multiple regression techniques are used to estimate a cost per treatment course function. Using cross-sectional data for family practitioner committees in England and Wales for 1982 a significant negative correlation is found between cost per course and population per dentist after allowing for patient demand and need characteristics. A 10% decrease in population per dentist is associated with a 2.5% increase in cost per course. The observation cannot be explained by dentists rationing treatment in the presence of excess demand owing to the nature of the dentist contract. These results imply that in areas of greater supplies of dentists additional course content is being induced by dentists in order to maintain workloads. Hence although fee for service provision offers a financial incentive to increase service provision it offers no incentive to allocate services efficiently, that is in accordance with greatest need. The extension of fee for service provision in general medical practice would appear to be inconsistent with an objective of allocating scarce primary care resources in accordance with patient need.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8.185</score><pdfWordCount>3185</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>20448</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>6</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>530 x 704 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>290</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1887</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>0</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Item of Service Remuneration in General Practice in the UK: What Can We Learn From Dentists?</title><pmid><json:string>3229600</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><title>Family Practice</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><issn><json:string>0263-2136</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1460-2229</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>famprj</json:string></publisherId><volume>5</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>265</first><last>270</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><subject><json:item><value>Papers and Originals</value></json:item></subject></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>1988</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>NHS</json:string><json:string>Department of Health and Social Security</json:string><json:string>General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association</json:string><json:string>Department of Clinical Epidemiology</json:string><json:string>National Health Service</json:string><json:string>UK Government</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName></persName><placeName><json:string>UK</json:string><json:string>Canada</json:string><json:string>England</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/HXZ-FVXFZ2XN-6</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>science</json:string><json:string>primary health care</json:string><json:string>medicine, general & internal</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>health sciences</json:string><json:string>public health & health services</json:string><json:string>public health</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - Family Practice</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>sciences appliquees, technologies et medecines</json:string><json:string>sciences biologiques et medicales</json:string><json:string>sciences medicales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>1988</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1988</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1093/fampra/5.4.265</json:string></doi><id>FD3FEDA1E7FFD5EED259ED76308F0CCBB69C6CDF</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/FD3FEDA1E7FFD5EED259ED76308F0CCBB69C6CDF/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/FD3FEDA1E7FFD5EED259ED76308F0CCBB69C6CDF/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/FD3FEDA1E7FFD5EED259ED76308F0CCBB69C6CDF/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">Item of Service Remuneration in General Practice in the UK: What Can We Learn From Dentists?</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">Oxford University Press</publisher><availability><licence><p>© Oxford University Press</p></licence><p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-GTWS0RDP-M">oup</p></availability><date>1988</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note><note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">Item of Service Remuneration in General Practice in the UK: What Can We Learn From Dentists?</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">STEPHEN</forename><surname>BIRCH</surname></persName><affiliation>Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">FD3FEDA1E7FFD5EED259ED76308F0CCBB69C6CDF</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/HXZ-FVXFZ2XN-6</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1093/fampra/5.4.265</idno><idno type="article-id">5.4.265</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Family Practice</title><idno type="pISSN">0263-2136</idno><idno type="eISSN">1460-2229</idno><idno type="publisher-id">famprj</idno><idno type="PublisherID-hwp">fampract</idno><imprint><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><date type="published" when="1988-12"></date><biblScope unit="volume">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="265">265</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="270">270</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1988</date></creation><abstract><p>Birch S. Item of service remuneration in general practice in the UK: what can we learn from dentists? Family Practice 1988; 5: 265–270. In response to the UK Government's proposal to increase the proportion of general practitioner income accruing from capitation payments the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association has called for an extension of fee for item of service provision in general practice. In this paper the allocation of resources in primary care dentistry, where fee for service provision is currently used, is analysed in order to shed light on the debate. Since dentists' fees are set in accordance with average dentist time inputs, differences in cost per treatment course reflect differences in course content. Multiple regression techniques are used to estimate a cost per treatment course function. Using cross-sectional data for family practitioner committees in England and Wales for 1982 a significant negative correlation is found between cost per course and population per dentist after allowing for patient demand and need characteristics. A 10% decrease in population per dentist is associated with a 2.5% increase in cost per course. The observation cannot be explained by dentists rationing treatment in the presence of excess demand owing to the nature of the dentist contract. These results imply that in areas of greater supplies of dentists additional course content is being induced by dentists in order to maintain workloads. Hence although fee for service provision offers a financial incentive to increase service provision it offers no incentive to allocate services efficiently, that is in accordance with greatest need. The extension of fee for service provision in general medical practice would appear to be inconsistent with an objective of allocating scarce primary care resources in accordance with patient need.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head></head><item><term>Papers and Originals</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1988-12">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-10-6">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/FD3FEDA1E7FFD5EED259ED76308F0CCBB69C6CDF/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus oup, element #text not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">fampract</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">famprj</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="pmc">fampract</journal-id>
<journal-title>Family Practice</journal-title>
<issn pub-type="epub">1460-2229</issn>
<issn pub-type="ppub">0263-2136</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">5.4.265</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1093/fampra/5.4.265</article-id>
<article-categories>
<subj-group>
<subject>Papers and Originals</subject>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group>
<article-title>Item of Service Remuneration in General Practice in the UK: What Can We Learn From Dentists?</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name><surname>BIRCH</surname><given-names>STEPHEN</given-names></name>
</contrib>
<aff><institution>Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University</institution> <addr-line>1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada</addr-line></aff>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="ppub">
<month>12</month>
<year>1988</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>5</volume>
<issue>4</issue>
<fpage>265</fpage>
<lpage>270</lpage>
<copyright-statement>© Oxford University Press</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>1988</copyright-year>
<abstract>
<p>Birch S. Item of service remuneration in general practice in the UK: what can we learn from dentists? <italic>Family Practice</italic> 1988; 5: 265–270.</p>
<p>In response to the UK Government's proposal to increase the proportion of general practitioner income accruing from capitation payments the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association has called for an extension of fee for item of service provision in general practice. In this paper the allocation of resources in primary care dentistry, where fee for service provision is currently used, is analysed in order to shed light on the debate. Since dentists' fees are set in accordance with average dentist time inputs, differences in cost per treatment course reflect differences in course content. Multiple regression techniques are used to estimate a cost per treatment course function. Using cross-sectional data for family practitioner committees in England and Wales for 1982 a significant negative correlation is found between cost per course and population per dentist after allowing for patient demand and need characteristics. A 10% decrease in population per dentist is associated with a 2.5% increase in cost per course. The observation cannot be explained by dentists rationing treatment in the presence of excess demand owing to the nature of the dentist contract.</p>
<p>These results imply that in areas of greater supplies of dentists additional course content is being induced by dentists in order to maintain workloads. Hence although fee for service provision offers a financial incentive to increase service provision it offers no incentive to allocate services efficiently, that is in accordance with greatest need. The extension of fee for service provision in general medical practice would appear to be inconsistent with an objective of allocating scarce primary care resources in accordance with patient need.</p>
</abstract>
</article-meta>
</front>
</article>
</istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>Item of Service Remuneration in General Practice in the UK: What Can We Learn From Dentists?</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>Item of Service Remuneration in General Practice in the UK: What Can We Learn From Dentists?</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">STEPHEN</namePart><namePart type="family">BIRCH</namePart><affiliation>Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1988-12</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1988</copyrightDate></originInfo><abstract>Birch S. Item of service remuneration in general practice in the UK: what can we learn from dentists? Family Practice 1988; 5: 265–270. In response to the UK Government's proposal to increase the proportion of general practitioner income accruing from capitation payments the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association has called for an extension of fee for item of service provision in general practice. In this paper the allocation of resources in primary care dentistry, where fee for service provision is currently used, is analysed in order to shed light on the debate. Since dentists' fees are set in accordance with average dentist time inputs, differences in cost per treatment course reflect differences in course content. Multiple regression techniques are used to estimate a cost per treatment course function. Using cross-sectional data for family practitioner committees in England and Wales for 1982 a significant negative correlation is found between cost per course and population per dentist after allowing for patient demand and need characteristics. A 10% decrease in population per dentist is associated with a 2.5% increase in cost per course. The observation cannot be explained by dentists rationing treatment in the presence of excess demand owing to the nature of the dentist contract. These results imply that in areas of greater supplies of dentists additional course content is being induced by dentists in order to maintain workloads. Hence although fee for service provision offers a financial incentive to increase service provision it offers no incentive to allocate services efficiently, that is in accordance with greatest need. The extension of fee for service provision in general medical practice would appear to be inconsistent with an objective of allocating scarce primary care resources in accordance with patient need.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Family Practice</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><subject><topic>Papers and Originals</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0263-2136</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1460-2229</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">famprj</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">fampract</identifier><part><date>1988</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>5</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>265</start><end>270</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">FD3FEDA1E7FFD5EED259ED76308F0CCBB69C6CDF</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1093/fampra/5.4.265</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">5.4.265</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© Oxford University Press</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-GTWS0RDP-M">oup</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>© Oxford University Press</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/FD3FEDA1E7FFD5EED259ED76308F0CCBB69C6CDF/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><annexes><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/FD3FEDA1E7FFD5EED259ED76308F0CCBB69C6CDF/annexes/pdf</uri></json:item></annexes><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 007D35 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 007D35 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:FD3FEDA1E7FFD5EED259ED76308F0CCBB69C6CDF
|texte= Item of Service Remuneration in General Practice in the UK: What Can We Learn From Dentists?
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |