Dataset Information

Preferences of physicians for public and private sector work.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The public-private mix of healthcare remains controversial. This paper examines physicians' preferences for public sector work in the context of dual practice, whilst accounting for other differences in the characteristics of jobs. METHODS:A discrete choice experiment is conducted with data from 3422 non-GP specialists from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) panel survey of physicians. RESULTS:Physicians prefer to work in the public sector, though the value of working in the public sector is very small at 0.14% of their annual earnings to work an additional hour per week. These preferences are heterogeneous. Contrary to other studies that show risk averse individuals prefer public sector work, for physicians, we find that those averse to taking career or clinical risks prefer to work in the private sector. Those with relatively low earnings prefer public sector work and those with high earnings prefer private sector work, though these effects are small. CONCLUSIONS:Other job characteristics are more important than the sector of work, suggesting that these should be the focus of policy to influence specialist's allocation of time between sectors.

SUBMITTER: Scott A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7419199 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Preferences of physicians for public and private sector work.

Scott Anthony A Holte Jon Helgeim JH Witt Julia J

Human resources for health 20200810 1

<h4>Background</h4>The public-private mix of healthcare remains controversial. This paper examines physicians' preferences for public sector work in the context of dual practice, whilst accounting for other differences in the characteristics of jobs.<h4>Methods</h4>A discrete choice experiment is conducted with data from 3422 non-GP specialists from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) panel survey of physicians.<h4>Results</h4>Physicians prefer to work in the public ...[more]

PMID: 32778131

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite the growing interest in the private health sector in low- and middle-income countries, little is known about physicians working outside the public sector. The present work adopts a mixed-methods approach to explore characteristics, working patterns, choices, and motivations of the physicians working exclusively for the private sector in the capital cities of Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, and Mozambique. The paper's objective is to contribute to the understanding of such physicians, ultimately informing the policies regulating the medical profession in low- and middle-income countries.MethodsThe qualitative part of the study involved 48 interviews with physicians and health policy-makers and aimed at understanding the practice in the three locations. The quantitative study included a survey of 329 physicians, and multivariate analysis was conducted to analyse characteristics, time allocation, earnings, and motivations of those physicians working only for the private sector, in comparison to their public sector-only and dual practice peers.ResultsOur findings showed that only a limited proportion of physicians in the three locations work exclusively for the private sector (11.2%), with members of this group being older than those practicing only in the public or in both sectors. They were found to work fewer hours per week (49 hours) than their public (56 hours) and dual practice peers (62 hours) (P <0.001 and P?=?0.011, respectively). Their median earnings were USD 4,405 per month, with substantial variations across the three locations. Statistically significant differences were found with the earnings of public-only physicians (P <0.001), but not with those of the dual practice group (P?=?0.340). The qualitative data from the interviews showed private-only physicians' preference for an independent and more flexible work modality, and this was quoted as a determining factor for their choice of sector. This group appears to include those working in the more informal sector, and those who decided to leave the civil service following a disagreement with the public employer.ConclusionsThe study shows the importance of understanding the relation between health professionals' characteristics, motivations, and their engagement with the private sector to develop effective policies to regulate the profession. This may ultimately contribute to achieving universal access to medical services in low- and middle-income countries.

Project description:BackgroundConsumer satisfaction with the acute-care experience could reasonably be expected to be higher amongst those treated in the private sector compared to those treated in the public sector given the former relies on high-level satisfaction of its consumers and their subsequent recommendations to thrive. The primary aims of this study were to determine, in a knee or hip arthroplasty cohort, if surgery in the private sector predicts greater overall satisfaction with the acute-care experience and greater likelihood to recommend the same hospital. A secondary aim was to determine whether satisfaction across a range of service domains is also higher in the private sector.MethodsA telephone survey was conducted 35 days post-surgery. The hospital cohort comprised eight public and seven private high-volume arthroplasty providers. Consumers rated overall satisfaction with care out of 100 and likeliness to recommend their hospital on a 5-point Likert scale. Additional Likert-style questions were asked covering specific service domains. Generalized estimating equation models were used to analyse overall satisfaction (dichotomised as ≥ 90 or < 90) and future recommendations for care (dichotomised as 'definitely recommend' or 'other'), whilst controlling for covariates. The proportions of consumers in each sector reporting the best Likert response for each individual domain were compared using non-parametric tests.Results457 survey respondents (n = 210 private) were included. Less patient-reported joint impairment pre-surgery [OR 1.03 (95% CI 1.01-1.05)] and absence of an acute complication (OR 2.13 95% CI 1.41-3.23) significantly predicted higher overall satisfaction. Hip arthroplasty [OR 1.84 (1.1-2.96)] and an absence of an acute complication [OR 2.31 (1.28-4.17] significantly predicted greater likelihood for recommending the hospital. The only care domains where the private out-performed the public sector were hospitality (46.7 vs 35.6%, p <0.01) and frequency of surgeon visitation (76.4 vs 65.8%, p = 0.03).ConclusionsArthroplasty consumers treated in the private sector are not more satisfied with their acute-care experience nor are they more likely to recommend their hospital provider. Rather, avoidance of complications in either sector appears to result in improved satisfaction as well as a greater likelihood that patients would recommend their hospital provider.

Project description:BACKGROUND:South Africa's divided healthcare system is believed to be inequitable as the population serviced by each sector and the treatment received differs while annual healthcare expenditure is similar. The appropriateness of treatment received and in particular the cost of the same treatment between the sectors remains debatable and raises concerns around equitable healthcare. Colorectal cancer places considerable pressure on the funders, yet treatment utilization data and the associated costs of non-communicable diseases, in particular colorectal cancer, are limited for South Africa. Resources need to be appropriately managed while ensuring equitable healthcare is provided regardless of where the patient is able to receive their treatment. Therefore the aim of this study was to determine the cost of colorectal cancer treatment in a privately insured patient population in order to compare the costs and utilization to a previously published public sector patient cohort. METHODS:Private sector costs were determined using de-identified claim-based data for all newly diagnosed CRC patients between 2012 and 2014. The costs obtained from this patient cohort were compared to previously published public sector data for the same period. The costs compared were costs incurred by the relevant sector funder and didn't include out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS:The comparison shows private sector patients gain access to more of the approved regimens (12 vs. 4) but the same regimens are more costly, for example CAPOX costs approximately €150 more per cycle. The cost difference between 5FU and capecitabine monotherapy is less than €30 per cycle however, irinotecan is cheaper in comparison to oxaliplatin in the private sector (FOLFOX approx. €500 vs. FOLFIRI aprox. €460). Administrative costs account for up to 45% of total costs compared to the previously published data of these costs totaling < 15% of the full treatment cost in South Africa's public healthcare system. CONCLUSION:This comparison highlights the disparities between sectors while illustrating the need for further research to improve resource management to attain equitable healthcare.

Dataset Information

Preferences of physicians for public and private sector work.

Publications

Preferences of physicians for public and private sector work.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets