Article Text
Abstract
Context In France, a new payment for performance (P4P) scheme for primary care physicians was introduced in 2009 through the ‘Contract for Improving Individual Practice’ programme. Its objective was to reduce healthcare expenditures while enhancing improvement in guidelines' observance. Nevertheless, in all countries where the scheme was implemented, it raised several concerns in the domain of professional ethics.
Objective To draw out in France the ethical tensions arising in the general practitioner's (GP) profession linked to the introduction of P4P.
Method Qualitative research using two focus groups: first one with a sample of GPs who joined P4P and second one with those who did not. All collective interviews were recorded and fully transcribed. An inductive analysis of thematic content with construction of categories was conducted. All the data were triangulated.
Results All participants agreed that conflicts of interest were a real issue, leading to the resurgence of doctor's dirigisme, which could be detrimental for patient's autonomy. GPs who did not join P4P believed that the scheme would lead to patient's selection while those who joined P4P did not. The level of the maximal bonus of the P4P was considered low by all GPs. This was considered as an offense by non-participating GPs, whereas for participating ones, this low level minimised the risk of patient's selection.
Conclusion This work identified several areas of ethical tension, some being different from those previously described in other countries. The authors discuss the potential impact of institutional contexts and variability of implementation processes on shaping these differences.
- Reimbursement
- incentive
- general practitioners
- ethics
- France
- general medicine/internal medicine
- healthcare economics
- managed care
- primary care
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
-
Competing interests None.
-
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Other content recommended for you
- What drives general practitioners in the UK to improve the quality of care? A systematic literature review
- Understanding public trust in services provided by community pharmacists relative to those provided by general practitioners: a qualitative study
- General practitioners’ risk literacy and real-world prescribing of potentially hazardous drugs: a cross-sectional study
- ‘Doctor, what would you do in my position?’ Health professionals and the decision-making process in pregnancy monitoring
- Ethics of evidence based medicine in the primary care setting
- Impact of a multifaceted intervention on physicians’ knowledge, attitudes and practices in relation to pharmaceutical incentivisation: protocol for a randomised control trial
- Is it ethically permissible for GPs to promote non-directed altruistic kidney donation to healthy adults?
- Moral principles and medical practice: the role of patient autonomy in the extensive use of radiological services
- Examining the responsiveness of the National Health Insurance Fund to people living with hypertension and diabetes in Kenya: a qualitative study
- Understanding tensions and identifying clinician agreement on improvements to early-stage chronic kidney disease monitoring in primary care: a qualitative study