Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • 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
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Physicians & Subscribers
    • Benefits for Canadian physicians
    • CPD Credits for CMA Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Pulse

Fee-for-service v. salary: the debate is heating up

Shelley Martin
CMAJ September 30, 2003 169 (7) 701;
Shelley Martin
  • 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

More than one-quarter of Canada's physicians (27%) would prefer to be paid by salary, results from the CMA's 2003 Physician Resource Questionnaire (PRQ) indicate. This result, combined with the fact that only 37% of physicians now cite fee-for-service (FFS) as their preferred payment method, raises questions about the future of that payment model. Its popularity has dropped by 26% (from 50%) since the 1995 PRQ, the survey the CMA has used to track physicians' attitudes since 1982.

Figure

Figure.

The latest results also indicate that the proportion of physicians receiving 90% or more of their professional income from FFS payments continues to decline, from a high of 68% in 1990 to 58% in 2002 and 57% in 2003. Physicians under age 35 are least likely to receive the bulk of their income from FFS (45%), and female physicians are less likely than males to receive the bulk of the professional income via FFS (53% vs. 59%).

Respondents' comments indicate that battle lines are firmly drawn. “Fee-for-service payments tend to reward higher patient flow, [but] many of the patients need more time/teaching/education, which is neglected with FFS,” said one.

“Salary-position physicians do not see as many patients, and therefore add to the problem of physician shortage and patient access,” stated another.

Almost half of physicians (48%) said their workload increased in the past year, while 9% reported a decrease. In the former group, only 41% saw a corresponding increase in their net income, while 19% reported that their net income had decreased in the past year. “My patients are presenting with more and more difficult problems and complaints,” wrote one doctor. “This increases effort and time per patient, and reduces income.” Overall, 31% of physicians had an increase in net professional income in the past year, while 22% saw a net decrease.

Physicians worked an average of 52.9 hours per week, excluding on-call duty. Female physicians worked fewer hours than their male colleagues (47.5 hours/week compared with 55.6), while surgical specialists logged more hours (57.6) than medical specialists (54.5) or GP/FPs (50.9).

Thirty-two percent of respondents said they are involved in decision-making surrounding the health care system. Male physicians are more likely to be involved than female MDs (35% vs. 26%), and doctors under age 35 or over age 65 were least likely to be involved (22% and 20%).

The PRQ is Canada's largest annual survey of MD activities. It was mailed to a random sample of 7922 doctors, and the response rate was 28.4%. National results are accurate to within ± 2.1%, 19 times out of 20. Detailed results from the 2003 PRQ will be available at www.cmaj.ca. — Shelley Martin, CMA

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 169 (7)
CMAJ
Vol. 169, Issue 7
30 Sep 2003
  • 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.
Fee-for-service v. salary: the debate is heating up
(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
Fee-for-service v. salary: the debate is heating up
Shelley Martin
CMAJ Sep 2003, 169 (7) 701;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Fee-for-service v. salary: the debate is heating up
Shelley Martin
CMAJ Sep 2003, 169 (7) 701;
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

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • RSI placing a strain on workplace
  • Diabetes' rising toll
  • More than half of MDs under age 35 now using PDAs
Show more Pulse

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Medical careers
    • Physician health

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

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

Information for

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

About

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

Copyright 2023, 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

CMA Civility, Accessibility, Privacy

 

Powered by HighWire