Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2022
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
News and analysis

CMA survey shows fee-for-service not dead yet

Shelley Martin
CMAJ September 05, 2000 163 (5) 601;
Shelley Martin
CMA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The declining popularity of fee-for-service (FFS) payments in Canada may have levelled off, the CMA‚s 2000 Physician Resource Questionnaire (PRQ) indicates. In 2000, 62% of respondents reported receiving 90% or more of their professional earnings from fee-for-service payments, the same level as in 1999. This follows steady declines in the popularity of FFS payments since 1990, when the level stood at 68%.

There has also been a change in terms of preferred modes of remuneration. Between 1995 and 1999 there was a large decrease in the proportion of physicians who preferred fee-for-service remuneration (50% compared with 33%), but that proportion increased this year, to 37%. Only 49% of physicians are paid via the method they would prefer. ”I would actually prefer salary,” one physician noted, ”but no plan exists that adequately compensates for the stress and volume that we are expected to cope with.”

Almost one-third (32%) of physicians reported a decrease in net income in the 2000 PRQ, while only 18% reported an increase; for 81% of those whose income decreased in the past year, workload stayed about the same or increased.

Thirty-eight percent of surgical specialists reported decreased net income, compared with 27% of medical specialists and 34% of GP/FPs. Urban physicians were more likely to have faced a decrease than their rural counterparts (33% v. 25%).

More than half (55%) of respondents saw their workload increase in the past year. Among those who reported a heavier workload, only 24% saw an accompanying increase in net income, while 31% witnessed a decrease. Overhead expenses increased for 61% of respondents.

The number of hours worked, excluding call, remained virtually unchanged in the last year: 53 hours per week, compared with 54 hours in 1999. Female physicians continue to work fewer hours than males (48 hours per week v. 56 hours). Surgeons work more hours (58) than both medical specialists (54 hours) and GP/FPs (51 hours).

Seventy-six percent of respondents take or share call, with surgeons (88%) most likely to take call, compared with medical specialists (77%) and GP/FPs (71%). Only 12% of doctors who provide on-call services away from the hospital are compensated for being available.

Rural physicians appear to be better off in this regard than their urban colleagues: 37% are paid for carrying a phone or pager, compared with 10% of urban physicians; 60% are paid for being on site, compared with only 31% of urban physicians.

This year, the PRQ queried physicians about factors that impede attempts to provide health promotion counselling. Lack of time was cited as always or often a barrier by 48% of physicians, with 59% of GP/FPs saying that they always or often face time shortages, compared with 32% of medical specialists and 42% of surgical specialists. Thirty-four percent of respondents noted that a lack of services and support in the community is always or often a barrier to counselling; this is always or often a problem for 43% of rural physicians, compared with 33% of urban doctors.

The 2000 PRQ was mailed to a random sample of 8000 Canadian physicians, and the response rate was 36.3%. Results are considered accurate to within ±1.9%, 19 times out of 20. More than 20 tables from the 2000 PRQ results are available online at www .cma .ca /cmaj /vol-163 /issue-5/prq. —

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 163, Issue 5
5 Sep 2000
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
CMA survey shows fee-for-service not dead yet
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
CMA survey shows fee-for-service not dead yet
Shelley Martin
CMAJ Sep 2000, 163 (5) 601;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
CMA survey shows fee-for-service not dead yet
Shelley Martin
CMAJ Sep 2000, 163 (5) 601;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Will Canada follow US lead on RU 486?
  • Gene mutation may explain multiple-birth pregnancies
  • Greening of health care goal of new coalition
Show more News and analysis

Similar Articles

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2022, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire