Capitation and enhanced fee-for-service models for primary care reform: a population-based evaluation

Background

Primary care reform in Ontario, Canada, included the initiation of a blended capitation model in 2001–2002 and an enhanced fee-for-service model in 2003. Both models involve patient rostering, incentives for preventive care and requirements for after-hours care. We evaluated practice characteristics and patterns of care under both models.

Methods

Using administrative data, we identified physicians belonging to either the capitation or the enhanced fee-for-service group throughout the period from Sept. 1, 2005, to Aug. 31, 2006, and their enrolled patients. Practices were stratified by location (urban v. rural). We compared the groups in terms of practice characteristics and patterns of care, including comprehensiveness of care, continuity of care, after-hours care, visits to the emergency department and uptake of new patients.

Results

Patients in the capitation and enhanced fee-for-service practices had similar demographic characteristics. Patients in capitation practices had lower morbidity and comorbidity indices. Comprehensiveness and continuity of care were similar between the 2 groups. Compared with patients in enhanced fee-for-service practices, those in capitation practices had less after-hours care (adjusted rate ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61–0.75) and more visits to emergency departments (adjusted RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.15–1.25). Overall, physicians in the capitation group enrolled fewer new patients than did physicians in the enhanced fee-for-service group (37.0 v. 52.0 per physician); the same was true of new graduates (60.3 v. 72.1 per physician).

Interpretation

Physicians enrolled in the capitation model had different practice characteristics than those in the enhanced fee-for-service model. These characteristics appeared to be pre-existing and not due to enrolment in a new model. Although the capitation model provides an alternative to fee-for-service practice, its characteristics should be the focus of future policy development and research.Primary health care is facing a number of serious challenges internationally, with questions being raised about whether it will even survive in some settings.¹ Fundamental issues include shortages in human resources and maldistribution of physicians; dissatisfaction on the part of providers and patients; gaps between guideline-recommended care and provided care; and a preference of trainees to choose specialty careers. Close to 4 million Canadians do not have a family physician, and more than 2 million report difficulties in accessing routine or ongoing care at any time of day as well as immediate care for minor health problems at any time of day.² Canadians in rural areas face geographic barriers to care, fewer available health care professionals than in urban areas and higher rates of disease.³In response to these challenges, policy-makers in Canada and elsewhere are considering or are implementing interdisciplinary teams, new organizational structures, new governance and reimbursement models, requirements for after-hours care, provision of after-hours advice by telephone, electronic health records and other information technology, and pay-for-performance initiatives. Many of these directions are incorporated in the Medical Home concept in the United States⁴ and in the Quality and Outcomes Framework in the United Kingdom.⁵ Although there is evidence for the effectiveness of some of these initiatives, most have not been rigorously evaluated. Reimbursement models, perhaps the best-studied aspect of primary care reform, seem to influence some aspects of physician behaviour. However, there is a lack of evidence about their ultimate impact on patient outcomes.⁶In Ontario, Canada, a blended capitation model called the Family Health Network was introduced in 2001–2002. An enhanced fee-for-service blended model called the Family Health Group was introduced in 2003. These models rapidly attracted physicians. By 2006, they were the most common models of care in Ontario, exceeding the straight fee-for-service plan.Physicians are free to select one of the models or remain in the straight fee-for-service plan. Many make decisions based on a free revenue analysis that uses their previous billings to project their income under the capitation model. Our evaluation, involving more than 500 physicians and close to half a million patients under the capitation model, is therefore an examination of one of the world’s largest short-term voluntary shifts from fee-for-service to capitation. Our objective was to evaluate practice characteristics and patterns of care under the capitation model, including comprehensiveness, continuity, after-hours care, visits to the emergency department and uptake of unattached patients. We used practices in the enhanced fee-for-service model as a contemporaneous comparison group.     

A report from Japan: choices of Japanese patients in the face of disagreement

Background: Patients in different countries have different attitudes toward self-determination and medical information. Little is known how much respect Japanese patients feel should be given for their wishes about medical care and for medical information, and what choices they would make in the face of disagreement.
Methods: Ambulatory patients in six clinics of internal medicine at a university hospital were surveyed using a self-administered questionnaire.
Results: A total of 307 patients participated in our survey. Of the respondents, 47% would accept recommendations made by physicians, even if such recommendations were against their wishes; 25% would try to persuade their physician to change their recommendations; and 14% would leave their physician to find a new one.
Seventy-six percent of the respondents thought that physicians should routinely ask patients if they would want to know about a diagnosis of cancer, while 5% disagreed; 59% responded that physicians should inform them of the actual diagnosis, even against the request of their family not to do so, while 24% would want their physician to abide by their family's request and 14% could not decide. One-third of the respondents who initially said they would want to know the truth would yield to the desires of the family in a case of disagreement.
Interpretations: In the face of disagreement regarding medical care and disclosure, Japanese patients tend to respond in a diverse and unpredictable manner. Medical professionals should thus be prudent and ask their patients explicitly what they want regarding medical care and information.     

B.M.A. Deputizing Service in Sheffield, 1970

Seventy-four per cent. of Sheffield general practitioners and 78% of those in Nottingham used a deputizing service in 1970. In each city the deputizing service was used by about 80% of single-handed general practitioners, 90% of doctors in two-doctor practices, and 60% of those in partnerships of three or more.The Sheffield deputizing service handled 15,988 new calls in the year, an average of 106 per subscribing doctor, and in addition made 339 revisits. The median number of calls handled for single-handed doctors was 98, for those in two-doctor practices 95, and for those in partnerships of three or more 75. The growth of group practice has not eliminated the demand for deputizing services.Sixty-six per cent. of consultations were with deputies who were primarily hospital doctors, 20% with a full-time deputy, 11% with deputies who were primarily general practitioners, and 3% with the switchboard staff, who were also trained nurses. The deputies had been qualified, on average, for eight years. Seventy-two per cent. of patients attended were seen within one hour of receipt of the call.Calls handled by the deputizing service represented approximately 1% of all the subscribers'' consultations, 5% of their home visits, and half their calls between midnight and 07.00 hours. At this level of activity the concept of “personal doctoring” was not threatened.     

Opinions of physicians assisting births in Ottawa-Carleton about the licensing of midwives.

The Ontario Ministry of Health announced in January 1986 that midwives would be licensed to practise in Ontario. In September of that year we surveyed all physicians in Ottawa-Carleton who were assisting at births to determine their opinions on midwifery. A total of 78 (74%) of the eligible physicians completed the questionnaire. Almost half thought that midwives should be licensed. Most felt that midwives should be trained as nurses first and should work under the supervision of a physician in hospital-based clinics or in a group practice with physicians. A small proportion thought that midwives should be able to practise as independent practitioners. Some obstetricians thought that legalization of midwifery would allow them to concentrate on high-risk obstetrics, and some family physicians thought this would make it easier for them to continue to be involved in maternity care. Those opposed to the introduction of midwives did not think the public would benefit, and some were concerned that midwives would reduce the size of their own obstetric practices.     

Cost of primary health care services in the emergency department and the family physician's office.

An attempt has been made to determine the true cost of providing primary health care for nontraumatic conditions in the emergency departments of two hospitals in Ontario and in the offices of family physicians. A total of 1117 patients presenting with 1 of 10 common symptom/sign complexes at the emergency departments or the offices of 15 participating family physicians were studies with regard to number of visits made, type of assessment by the physician, investigations undertaken, management, therapy and outcome of the illness. Costs were calculated from the charges that would be made against the provincial health services insurance plan and from the system of hospital financing in effect in the province. The average true cost per illness episode of this type of care was $14.63 in hospital A, $14.20 in hospital B and $15.90 in the family physician''s office.     

Factors predicting patient use of the emergency department: a retrospective cohort study

Background:

Many studies have shown the tendency for people without a regular care provider or primary physician to make greater use of emergency departments. We sought to determine the effects of three aspects of care provided by primary physicians (physician specialty, continuity of care and comprehensiveness of care) on their patients’ use of the emergency department.

Methods:

Using provincial administrative databases, we created a cohort of 367 315 adults aged 18 years and older. Participants were residents of urban areas of Quebec. Affiliation with a primary physician, the specialty of this physician (i.e., family physician v. specialist), continuity of care (as measured using the Usual Provider Continuity index) and comprehensiveness of care (i.e., number of complete annual examinations) were measured among participants (n = 311 701) who had visited a physician three or more times during a two-year baseline period. We used multivariable negative binomial regression to investigate the relationships between measures of care and the number of visits to emergency departments during a 12-month follow-up period.

Results:

Among participants under 65 years of age, emergency department use was higher for those not affiliated than for those affiliated with a family physician (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–1.16) or a specialist (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04–1.17). Among patients aged 65 years and older, having a specialist primary physician, as opposed to a family physician, predicted increased use of the emergency department (IRR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09–1.17). Greater continuity of care with a family physician predicted less use of the emergency department only among participants who made 25 or more visits to a physician during the baseline period. Greater continuity of care with a specialist predicted less use of the emergency department overall, particularly among participants with intermediate numbers of multimorbidities and admissions to hospital. Greater comprehensiveness of care by family physicians predicted less use of the emergency department.

Interpretation:

Efforts to increase the proportion of adults affiliated with a family physician should target older adults, people who visit physicians more frequently and people with multiple comorbidities and admissions to hospital.Reforming primary care in Canada has been stimulated in part by increased crowding of emergency departments and evidence that their use, particularly for nonurgent care, may be related to inadequate primary care in the community.^1,2 Restructuring efforts, such as encouraging family physicians to work in multidisciplinary group practices with 24-hour access, are challenged by a relative shortage of family physicians.³ These issues are of particular importance in Quebec; despite relatively high numbers of family physicians per capita, in comparison with other provinces, residents of Quebec have the lowest rates of affiliation with a family physician and have one of the highest rates of seeing specialists.^4,5 In addition, residents of Quebec have among the highest rates of visits to emergency departments in international comparative studies.^6–8Research is needed into the effect that affiliation with a specialist rather than a family physician has on patients’ use of the emergency department, as is research into the continuity and comprehensiveness of care provided by the primary physician, regardless of specialty.Many studies have shown the tendency for people without a regular care provider to use the emergency department more often than people who have a primary physician.^1,9,10 Greater continuity of care with a primary physician has also been associated with fewer visits to the emergency department, but much of this research is cross-sectional, making causal interpretation difficult.¹¹ Furthermore, the distinction between continuity with a family physician versus a specialist primary physician has not been made, although one American study reported that having a specialist primary physician was associated with increased use of emergency departments.⁹We sought to determine whether certain factors predicted patients’ subsequent use of emergency departments, such as the specialty of their primary physician, the continuity of care with that physician and the comprehensiveness of care provided by that physician. To determine whether certain subgroups of the population may derive greater benefit from a particular type of care, we examined the potentially modifying effects of demographic factors, health status and previous use of health services. We restricted our study to residents of urban areas of Quebec for three reasons: rural residents visit the emergency department for primary care more often than residents of urban areas;¹² most specialist care is provided in urban areas; and primary care services in rural areas are more likely to be provided by salaried physicians, whose information is not available in the billing database.     

Sources of primary health care for women in an urban centre.

Family or general practitioners and obstetrician-gynecologists have the opportunity to provide primary health care to women. Who actually gives this care in a large urban setting was the focus of this study. In the Montreal area 297 women were asked by telephone whether they had an obstetrician-gynecologist and whether they would see another type of doctor for a cold that was not getting better. Overall, 88% of all the women indicated that they would go to a family or general practitioner for such a problem, and of the women who reported receiving some care from an obstetrician-gynecologist 78% also received care from another physician. Of the respondents seeking health care from only one type of doctor, women with English as the mother tongue were significantly more likely to attend an obstetrician-gynecologist, whereas French-speaking women much more often were cared for by family or general practitioners.     

Emergency department use following incentives to provide after-hours primary care: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND:Access to primary care outside of regular working hours is limited in many countries. This study investigates the relation between the after-hours premium, an incentive for primary care physicians to provide services after hours, and less-urgent visits to the emergency department in Ontario, Canada.METHODS:We analyzed a retrospective cohort of a random sample of Ontario residents from April 2002 to March 2006, and a subcohort of patients followed from April 2005 to March 2016. We linked patient and primary care physician data with emergency department visit data. We used fixed-effects regression models to analyze the association between the introduction of the after-hours premium, as well as subsequent increases in the value of the premium, and the number of monthly emergency department visits.RESULTS:The sample consisted of 586 534 patients between 2002 and 2006, and 201 594 patients from 2005 to 2016. After controlling for patient and physician characteristics, seasonality and time-invariant patient confounding factors, introduction of the after-hours premium was associated with a reduction of 1.26 less-urgent visits to the emergency department per 1000 patients per month (95% confidence interval −1.48 to −1.04). Most of this reduction was observed in after-hours visits. Sensitivity analysis showed that the monthly reduction in less-urgent visits to the emergency department was in the range of −1.24 to −1.16 per 1000 patients. Subsequent increases in the after-hours premium were associated with a small reduction in less-urgent visits to the emergency department.INTERPRETATION:Ontario’s experience suggests that incentivizing physicians to improve access to after-hours primary care reduces some less-urgent visits to the emergency department. Other jurisdictions may consider incentives to limit less-urgent visits to the emergency department.

One prominent health policy issue confronting many countries is overcrowding of the emergency department.¹ Not only does overcrowding result in longer wait times in the emergency department, but it may be associated with patient dissatisfaction and higher risk of death,^2–4 as well as contribute to higher health system costs.^5–7 Use of the emergency department by patients with conditions treatable in primary care may be a factor that contributes to emergency department overcrowding,^4,8,9 and improved after-hours access to primary care is a potential solution.¹⁰Following Canada’s initiatives on primary care reform in the early 2000s, the Ontario government introduced several patient enrolment models (PEMs) for primary care delivery.¹¹ These models were characterized by mandatory patient enrolment, group-based practice and blended remuneration, including retrospective and prospective payments and pay-for-performance incentives. In July 2003, the Ontario government introduced the after-hours premium, an incentive for physicians practising in PEMs to claim an additional 10% on specific services provided to enrolled patients after regular business hours (5 pm to 8 am on weekdays, and any time on weekends and holidays). The after-hours premium increased to 15% in April 2005, 20% in April 2006 and to 30% in September 2011. One study examined the effect of enrolment in a PEM on overall emergency department visits, thereby masking any differential effects on urgent and less-urgent visits.¹² Using physician-level data, a recent study examined the impact of the increase in the after-hours premium from 10% to 20%.¹³ We build on this literature and examine whether the introduction of Ontario’s after-hours premium, and subsequent increases in the premium, were associated with changes in emergency department visits, stratified by visit urgency. In particular, we examine whether the premium was associated with reductions in less-urgent visits to the emergency department.     

Correlates of certification in family medicine in the billing patterns of Ontario general practitioners.

There is conflicting evidence as to whether physicians who are certified in family medicine practise differently from their noncertified colleagues and what those differences are. We examined the extent to which certification in family medicine is associated with differences in the practice patterns of primary care physicians as reflected in their billing patterns. Billing data for 1986 were obtained from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan for 269 certified physicians and 375 noncertified physicians who had graduated from Ontario medical schools between 1972 and 1983 and who practised as general practitioners or family physicians in Ontario. As a group, certificants provided fewer services per patient and billed less per patient seen per month. They were more likely than noncertificants to include counselling, psychotherapy, prenatal and obstetric care, nonemergency hospital visits, surgical services and visits to chronic care facilities in their service mix and to bill in more service categories. Certificants billed more for prenatal and obstetric care, intermediate assessments, chronic care and nonemergency hospital visits and less for psychotherapy and after-hours services than noncertificants. Many of the differences detected suggest a practice style consistent with the objectives for training and certification in family medicine. However, whether the differences observed in our study and in previous studies are related more to self-selection of physicians for certification or to the types of educational experiences cannot be directly assessed.     

Patterns of primary care of patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus.

To determine the patterns of care of patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), data from 2 sources were analyzed. Initial data obtained from the Washington State HIV/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Epidemiology Unit indicate that 46% of patients with class IV AIDS were seen by physicians who reported fewer than 5 patients with AIDS, and 68% of all Washington physicians who reported treating patients with AIDS have reported only 1 patient. Subsequent data obtained from a questionnaire distributed in 4 Northwest states suggest that 74% of primary care internists and 73% of family practitioners have some experience in caring for patients with HIV infection, but most of these physicians report fewer than 6 patients in the past 2 years. Although most providers seeing large numbers of HIV-infected patients in their practices were based in the region''s major metropolitan area, 59% of the internists and 55% of the family practitioners surveyed outside of the metropolitan area had seen at least 1 HIV-infected patient in their practices. These results suggest that primary care physicians with relatively little experience treating HIV infection are providing care for a large number of HIV-infected persons. Further study is needed to determine the extent and quality of care provided.     

Bioethics for clinicians: 15. Quality end-of-life care

A physician who receives a call from the emergency department to see a patient with heart failure will have a clear framework within which to approach this problem. The thesis of this article is that physicians do not have an analogous conceptual framework for approaching end-of-life care. The authors present and describe a framework for end-of-life care with 3 main elements: control of pain and other symptoms, the use of life-sustaining treatments and support of those who are dying and their families. This 3-part framework can be used by clinicians at the bedside to focus their effort in improving the quality of end-of-life care.     

Poem: the prophet in his own country

Although generalist physicians appear to be more likely than specialists to provide care for poor adult patients, they may still perceive financial and nonfinancial barriers to caring for these patients. We studied generalist physicians'' attitudes toward caring for poor patients using focus groups and used the results to design a survey that tested the generalizability of the focus group findings. The focus groups included a total of 24 physicians in 4 California communities; the survey was administered to a random sample of 177 California general internists, family physicians, and general practitioners. The response rate was 70%. Of respondents, 77% accepted new patients with private insurance; 31% accepted new Medicaid patients, and 43% accepted new uninsured patients. Nonwhite physicians were more likely to care for uninsured and Medicaid patients than were white physicians. In addition to reimbursement, nonfinancial factors played an important role in physicians'' decisions not to care for Medicaid or uninsured patients. The perception of an increased risk of being sued was cited by 57% of physicians as important in the decision not to care for Medicaid patients and by 49% for uninsured patients. Patient characteristics such as psychosocial problems, being ungrateful for care, and noncompliance were also important. Poor reimbursement was cited by 88% of physicians as an important reason not to care for Medicaid patients and by 77% for uninsured patients. Policy changes such as universal health insurance coverage and increasing the supply of generalist physicians may not adequately improve access to care unless accompanied by changes that address generalist physicians'' financial and nonfinancial concerns about providing care for poor patients.     

Information exchange among physicians caring for the same patient in the community

Background

The exchange of information is an integral component of continuity of health care and may limit or prevent costly duplication of tests and treatments. This study determined the probability that patient information from previous visits with other physicians was available for a current physician visit.

Methods

We conducted a multicentre prospective cohort study including patients discharged from the medical or surgical services of 11 community and academic hospitals in Ontario. Patients included in the study saw at least 2 different physicians during the 6 months after discharge. The primary outcome was whether information from a previous visit with another physician was available at the current visit. We determined the availability of previous information using surveys of or interviews with the physicians seen during current visits.

Results

A total of 3250 patients, with a total of 39 469 previous–current visit combinations, met the inclusion criteria. Overall, information about the previous visit was available 22.0% of the time. Information was more likely to be available if the current doctor was a family physician (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.54–1.98) or a physician who had treated the patient before the hospital admission (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.21–1.46). Conversely, information was less likely to be available if the previous doctor was a family physician (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32–0.44) or a physician who had treated the patient before the admission (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60–0.86). The strongest predictor of information exchange was the current physician having previously received information about the patient from the previous physician (OR 7.72, 95% CI 6.92–8.63).

Interpretation

Health care information is often not shared among multiple physicians treating the same patient. This situation would be improved if information from family physicians and patients'' regular physicians was more systematically available to other physicians.Continuity of care occurs when patients experience linked care over time and when discrete elements of care are connected.¹ Overall, most studies have shown a benefit of physician continuity, exemplified by lower utilization of emergency and hospital services,^2–5 greater use of preventive interventions,^6–8 improvements in disease-specific symptoms or quality-of-care measures,⁹ and greater patient satisfaction.^10,11Continuity of care has been conceptualized as having 3 primary components:¹ physician continuity, management continuity and information continuity. The root component of information continuity is the availability of data from previous visits by the patient with other physicians. In 3 previous studies, physicians were frequently missing necessary information from visits that patients had made to other physicians.^12–14 However, none of those studies prospectively followed a well-defined cohort of patients.To achieve a better understanding of how information exchange might be improved in the community setting, we sought to identify the patient- and physician-related factors that influence the availability of information from previous visits with other physicians.     

The challenge of the well child

Upon general practitioners and pediatricians falls the responsibility of recognizing and treating most emotional problems in young children. This may be best carried out by the anticipation of expected problems, and the advance guidance or counseling of parents. That such problems are of high incidence was indicated in experience at a pediatric clinic where approximately 40 per cent of 7,000 children observed had psychosomatic symptoms. In order to utilize effectively the limited time available in office practice for Well Child care, a physician must have at hand certain basic information on personality development. Many of the normal behavior patterns in children which frequently are misinterpreted as "behavior problems" by parents are presented herein in chart form, divided into critical age periods, to help physicians quickly recognize what is normal and what abnormal in various periods of maximal crisis. Most of the problems of conflict within a child and of conflict between parents and child, it is felt, could be and should be handled at the pediatric level. Some seriously disturbed children need to be referred for psychiatric care. When this is necessary, skillful preparation of the parent and the child by the family physician for referral is most important to successful psychotherapy.     

Evaluating chest pain in the emergency department.

Chest pain is one of the most difficult diagnostic problems for physicians working in an emergency department. In this setting, more malpractice dollars are awarded for missed myocardial infarction than for any other physician error. This problem usually occurs when the patient has atypical symptoms, the physician is inexperienced, or the diagnosis is not considered. The clinical manifestations of myocardial infarction vary greatly, and patients with "atypical" presentations have a poorer prognosis than those with classic symptoms. Although no feature of a patient''s history excludes infarction with certainty, pain that is sharp, positional, pleuritic, or reproduced by palpation indicates a lower probability of acute ischemic heart disease. New immunochemical methods and serial sampling strategies have increased the sensitivity of creatine kinase-MB as an indicator for the disorder. Recent investigations have also established the prognostic value of the initial electrocardiogram. These methods allow emergency physicians to assess the risk of complications and to perform triage when there is a shortage of beds in the coronary care unit. Emergency physicians must also consider other diseases for which coronary care might be beneficial.     

Relation of family physician or specialist care to obstetric interventions and outcomes in patients at low risk: a western Canadian cohort study.

To determine the relation of family physician or specialist care to intrapartum interventions and outcomes, we carried out a historical cohort study of 1456 obstetric patients at low risk admitted between Nov. 15, 1984, and Mar. 15, 1986, to a western Canadian teaching hospital. The patients were classified as being at low risk on admission by means of chart review. Family physicians and specialists were found to have similar rates for most of the interventions measured, although the interventions for which significantly different rates were found suggest a less interventionist style of intrapartum care by family physicians. There were no significant differences in maternal or neonatal outcomes except for a higher proportion of infants weighing less than 2500 g among primigravid women cared for by family physicians compared with those under the care of specialists. Self-selection of physician specialty by patients resulted in differences in the demographic characteristics of the two patient populations. The findings support the continued involvement of family physicians in the provision of obstetric care.     

Nurse practitioners in primary care iv. Impact of an interdisciplinary team on attitudes of a rural population.

Attitudes toward the expanded role of nurse practitioners in primary care (family practice nurses) have been determined for persons from a semirural area who chose as their principal souce of care an interdisciplinary family medical centre (FMC) incorporating two nurse practitioners, and those for whom the FMC was not the usual source of care. Data were obtaine using"before-and-after" structured interviews of a random sample of persons living in a southern Ontario township. Slowly evolving, nonsignificant trends of greater acceptance were observed among patiens who had dealth with family practice nurses. The greatest change observed was an increased acceptance of the nnurse by FMC users as the person who would be contacted as a second choice if theirfirst choice, usually a physician, could not be reached in specific worrry-inducing situations. FMC users depended more on nurses to provide information. A conclusion of increased general acceptance of the family practive nurse by FMC users is supported by a 34 per cent higher use of nurses by FMC patients compared to other persons of comparable characteristics living in the same community.     

Discrimination against gay,lesbian and bisexual family physicians by patients

BACKGROUND: Discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) patients by physicians is well known. Discrimination against GLB physicians by their colleagues and superiors is also well known and includes harassment, denial of positions and refusal to refer patients to them. The purpose of this study was to identify and quantify the attitudes of patients toward GLB physicians. METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted with 500 randomly selected people living in a large urban Canadian city. Subjects were asked if they would refuse to see a GLB family physician and, if so, to describe the reason why. They were then given a choice of 6 reasons obtained from consultation with 10 GLB people and 10 heterosexual people. RESULTS: Of the 500 subjects 346 (69.2%) were reached and agreed to participate. Of the 346 respondents 41 (11.8%) stated that they would refuse to see a GLB family physician. The 2 most common reasons for the discrimination (prevalence rate more than 50%) were that GLB physicians would be incompetent and the respondent would feel "uncomfortable" having a GLB physician. Although more male than female respondents discriminated against GLB physicians, the difference was not statistically significant. The proportion of male and female respondents who discriminated increased with age (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The observed prevalence of patient discrimination against GLB family physicians is significant. The results suggest that the discrimination is based on emotional reasons and is not related to such factors as misinformation about STDs and fear of being thought of sexually. Therefore, educational efforts should be directed against general perceptions of homosexuality rather than targeting specific medical concerns.