Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Capitation Fee”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1988

The case for differential capitation fees based on age in British general practice.

A study was performed to assess whether the existing differential capitation fees for general practitioners accurately assess differential workloads. Data from the third morbidity study in general practice were used to compare capitation fees with relative workload in differing age and sex groups. The population mix which determined the payment by capitation for the 143 principals in the study provided the basis for examining the advantage or disadvantage the general practitioner got from the existing system. Capitation fees for the elderly underestimated the increased workload by 21% for those aged 65-74 and by 54% for those aged 75 or over but overestimated the workload for male adults aged up to 65. Nevertheless, 60% of the participating general practitioners were not advantaged or disadvantaged by more than 2.5% of their capitation fees (450 pounds a year for the average practitioner with a list of 2000 patients). Similarly 88% were not advantaged or disadvantaged by more than 5%; none were advantaged or disadvantaged by more than 10%. A three scale capitation fee for the age groups 0-64, 65-74, and 75 or over should be applied in the ratio of 3:5:7 rather than in the present ratio of 3:4:5, but given the present population mix in practices there is no case for differential capitation fees by sex or differential fees for the age group 0-4 years.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1989

[Approach to the acceptability of the capitation fee system by the population in 3 integrated health centers of the Liège region].

Capitation payment developed rapidly in the Liège area. The 1983 regulations were adopted by an existing health centre (Seraing) and two new health centres financed on capitation basis were created (Ougrée, Liège). It is now possible to distinguish amongst the theoretical factors those who had significant impact on the speed of growth. This is thus a kinetics study. The factors taken into consideration are, on demand side: demographic, sociographic, cultural, economic; and on supply side: quantity, quality of supply (diversity: age, sex, culture), organization of permanent care. The temporary conclusion is that demography of demand and quality of supply seem to be dominant factors for the kinetics. Viability of a health centre depends strongly of growth kinetics. There is a provisional instrument for creation of new health centres and their success.

Belgium↗
PubMed2006

Informed consent, capitation, and conflicts of interest in clinical trials: views from the field.

BACKGROUND: The beliefs of research team members about informed consent practices are not well studied, especially in regard to financial aspects of research such as capitation fees. Sponsors of research offer capitation fees for the enrollment of subjects, and although this money is intended to cover the costs of the research it can sometimes be used in other ways. There is no clear consensus about whether this financial aspect of trials should be part of the informed consent process or whether it represents a potential conflict of interest. METHODS: We presented several hypothetical cases to members of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) at a semi-annual meeting. ACOSOG is a federally funded clinical trials group evaluating surgical and adjuvant methods of cancer treatment. The meeting included surgeons, nurses, case managers, and others involved in clinical surgical trials. RESULTS: We found that most respondents believed that it would be a violation of the protocol to enroll a subject who showed lack of recall about the study. Most respondents also favored disclosure of capitation fees, especially if those fees went into discretionary accounts, but there was some disagreement about the benefit of that disclosure to potential participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the need for greater work in ensuring that research team members share common understandings about informed consent. It also shows that most of these research team participants are prepared to make more disclosure about financial aspects of research than current standards in fact require.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗