Is burnout associated with referral rates among primary care physicians in community clinics?

BACKGROUND: There is little empirical research examining the effects of burnout on objective measures of primary care physicians' behaviour in the medical encounter. OBJECTIVES: We studied possible associations between primary care physicians' burnout and the rates of referrals. We conceptualized referral rate as a negative outcome of burnout because high and unnecessary referral rates incur extra costs to health care systems. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 136 primary care physicians in one district of one Israeli health maintenance organization (HMO) completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory in the presence of an interviewer. Data on each physician's objective workload and number of referrals for high- and low-cost imaging tests, specialist clinics and treatments by nurses were collected from the HMO's databases. RESULTS: Due to high correlations between referral rate indicators, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis revealed one factor: 'referrals for diagnostic tests and specialist clinics'. Path Analysis using Structural Equation Modelling explained a total of 18.1% of referral rate variance, with board-certified specialist mostly associated (ß = 0.31, P < 0.01), followed by burnout (ß = 0.20, P < 0.05) and objective workload (ß = 0.18, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary investigation, we found that referral rates for diagnostic tests and specialist clinics increased independently for board-certified specialists (compared with GPs), for those with higher burnout levels and when objective workload increases. These findings support the conceptualization of referrals rates as objectively measured negative outcomes of burnout. Further replications with other objective outcomes, additional HMOs and bigger samples are warranted.

Oncologists' and family physicians' views on value for money of cancer and congestive heart failure care.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that cancer-related interventions are valued by policy makers more favorably than interventions for other medical conditions, but the views of practicing physicians have not yet been assessed in Israel. Attitudes and judgments of practicing physicians may assist decision-makers in their deliberations on coverage of new technologies. We conducted a national survey in Israel among oncologists and family physicians to explore their views on access to care, coverage decisions and treatment recommendations for cancer and congestive heart failure (CHF) patients. METHODS: We administered a web-based survey to 300 family physicians and 156 oncologists. The questionnaire included 24 statements and physicians were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree". Where relevant, physicians were asked to express their views on interventions for cancer and CHF respectively. RESULTS: Response rates were 39% for family physicians and 36% for oncologists. Participants expressed similar views on cancer and CHF care and no significant differences were found between the two medical specialties. More than 85% of physicians believe that inclusion of a treatment in the National List of Health Services (NLHS) strongly affects their patients' access to care. Approximately 80% suggest that more use of comparative-effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis is needed in coverage decisions. The vast majority of respondents (75%) suggest that assessment of value-for-money should be made by an independent (academic) institution or the national committee responsible for recommending coverage decisions, Seventy percent believe that treatments not included in the NLHS should be included in supplementary health insurance programs and only a small minority of respondents (<30%) believe that cancer-related interventions should receive higher priority than non-cancer interventions in coverage decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that both oncologists and family physicians value cancer and CHF interventions equally. We could not find evidence for a "cancer premium" as implied from previous surveys and analysis of coverage decisions in various countries.

Which is more valuable, longer survival or better quality of life? Israeli oncologists' and family physicians' attitudes toward the relative value of new cancer and congestive heart failure interventions.

OBJECTIVES: We determined how Israeli oncologists and family physicians value life-prolongation versus quality-of-life (QOL)-enhancing outcomes attributable to cancer and congestive heart failure interventions. METHODS: We presented physicians with two scenarios involving a hypothetical patient with metastatic cancer expected to survive 12 months with current treatment. In a life-prolongation scenario, we suggested that a new treatment increases survival at an incremental cost of $50,000 over the standard of care. Participants were asked what minimum improvement in median survival the new therapy would need to provide for them to recommend it over the standard of care. In the QOL-enhancing scenario, we asked the maximum willingness to pay for an intervention that leads to the same survival as the standard treatment, but increases patient's QOL from 50 to 75 (on a 0-100 scale). We replicated these scenarios by substituting a patient with congestive heart failure instead of metastatic cancer. We derived the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained threshold implied by each response. RESULTS: In the life-prolongation scenario, the cost-effectiveness thresholds implied by oncologists were $150,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY for cancer and CHF, respectively. Cost-effectiveness thresholds implied by family physicians were $50,000/QALY regardless of the disease type. Willingness to pay for the QOL-enhancing scenarios was $60,000/QALY and did not differ by physicians' specialty or disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that family physicians value life-prolonging and QOL-enhancing interventions roughly equally, while oncologists value interventions that extend survival more highly than those that improve only QOL. These findings may have important implications for coverage and reimbursement decisions of new technologies.