ENTtoday
  • Home
  • COVID-19
  • Practice Focus
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Departments
    • Issue Archive
    • TRIO Best Practices
      • Allergy
      • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
      • Head and Neck
      • Laryngology
      • Otology/Neurotology
      • Pediatric
      • Rhinology
      • Sleep Medicine
    • Career Development
    • Case of the Month
    • Everyday Ethics
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Medical Education
    • Online Exclusives
    • Practice Management
    • Resident Focus
    • Rx: Wellness
    • Special Reports
    • Tech Talk
    • Viewpoint
    • What’s Your O.R. Playlist?
  • Literature Reviews
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Events
    • Featured Events
    • TRIO Meetings
  • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Triological Society
    • Advertising Staff
    • Subscribe
  • Advertise
    • Place an Ad
    • Classifieds
    • Rate Card
  • Search

Is the Fee-for-Service Physician Payment Model Doomed?

by Thomas R. Collins • March 9, 2015

  • Tweet
  • Email
Print-Friendly Version

CORONADO, CALIF.—With the healthcare landscape morphing on a near-daily basis, panelists gathered at the Triological Society Combined Sections Meeting to discuss the merits and disadvantages of the fee-for-service payment model, as well as its role in the future of healthcare in the U.S.

You Might Also Like

  • Hybrid Physician Payment System Can Ensure Quality, Customer Service
  • Alternative Payment Model Promises More Penalty Than Pay
  • Medicare Physician Payment Cut Averted
  • Is It Time to Reevaluate Your Physician Compensation Model?
Explore This Issue
March 2015

Members of the group touched on the importance of preserving their ability to provide patient care, the “outlier” physicians who bend or break rules for profit, and the importance of spreading awareness that a large number of factors contribute to high healthcare costs in the U.S. They tended to agree that at least some form of fee for service will continue to exist, largely because it is a good system when compared with others.

The panel was moderated by Fred Owens, MD, of the Owens Ear Clinic in Texas and incoming president of the Triological Society. Panelists were Sigsbee Duck, MD, of the Memorial Hospital Otolaryngology Clinic in Rock Springs, Wy.; Susan Cordes, MD, of Ukiah Valley Medical Center in Ukiah, Calif.; David Edelstein, MD, chief of the otolaryngology service at Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Institute in New York City; and Michael Setzen, MD, a solo practitioner in Great Neck, N.Y.

Fred Owens, MD

Fred Owens, MD

Dr. Owens said the criticism of physician billing has been growing but that patients often demand the kind of care that they’re given. “[Critics] complain a lot because we order studies,” he said. “But I would contend that it’s going to be very difficult to get patients to let us take care of them without getting studies done to try to make a diagnosis. And we’re probably the leading country in building technology, so technology usually comes first to us and then to other countries.”

Dr. Cordes listed a wide range of benefits of a fee for service system: familiarity, the simplicity of paying for what you get, promoting a physician work ethic, and allowing for physician autonomy and flexibility in lifestyle and income and in the types of procedures and practice they want to perform. “Ultimately, I believe that fee-for-service could actually decrease healthcare costs because it is like the market where, [when] you need something, you have to pay for it,” she said. “If patients have a little skin in the game on everything, then they will be better consumers and make better choices and participate more in that decision, and that could help hold costs down.”

Cost, Volume, Value

Dr. Setzen said he thinks that fee for service that involves quality-based and value-based measures would be a fair and reasonable approach to care. According to Dr. Duck, if appropriate and meaningful quality and value measures were added to fee for service, there would be a method by which to prove that what you’re doing is working. “That’s the big downfall with fee for service, according to all the papers and studies that are published,” he said, adding that most of the articles about why fee for service isn’t a good system are written by non-physicians.

Pages: 1 2 3 | Single Page

Filed Under: Features Tagged With: policyIssue: March 2015

You Might Also Like:

  • Hybrid Physician Payment System Can Ensure Quality, Customer Service
  • Alternative Payment Model Promises More Penalty Than Pay
  • Medicare Physician Payment Cut Averted
  • Is It Time to Reevaluate Your Physician Compensation Model?

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

The Laryngoscope
Ensure you have all the latest research at your fingertips; Subscribe to The Laryngoscope today!

Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
Open access journal in otolaryngology – head and neck surgery is currently accepting submissions.

Classifieds

View the classified ads »

TRIO Best Practices

View the TRIO Best Practices »

Top Articles for Residents

  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Why More MDs, Medical Residents Are Choosing to Pursue Additional Academic Degrees
  • What Physicians Need to Know about Investing Before Hiring a Financial Advisor
  • Tips to Help You Regain Your Sense of Self
  • Should USMLE Step 1 Change from Numeric Score to Pass/Fail?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Experts Delve into Treatment Options for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux
    • Vertigo in the Elderly: What Does It Mean?
    • Non-Acidic Reflux Explains Lack of Response to H2 Blockers and PPIs
    • How 3D Printing Is Transforming the Pediatric Otolaryngology Field
    • Vertigo in the Elderly: What Does It Mean?
    • New Developments in the Management of Eustachian Tube Dysfunction
    • Some Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Resists PPI Treatment
    • Eustachian Tuboplasty: A Potential New Option for Chronic Tube Dysfunction and Patulous Disease
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Why Virtual Grand Rounds May Be Here to Stay
    • Otolaryngologist Leverages His Love of Pinball into Second Business
    • These New Imaging Advances May Help to Protect Parathyroids
    • Is the Training and Cost of a Fellowship Worth It? Here’s What Otolaryngologists Say
    • Which Otologic Procedures Poses the Greatest Risk of Aerosol Generation?

Polls

Have you used 3D-printed materials in your otolaryngology practice?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

Visit: The Triological Society • The Laryngoscope • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology

Wiley
© 2021 The Triological Society. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN 1559-4939

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
This site uses cookies: Find out more.