Alternatives to for-profit corporatisation: The view from general practice

Anderson, R; Haywood, P; Usherwood, T; Haas, M; Hall, J

Alternatives to for-profit corporatisation: The view from general practice

Anderson, R Haywood, P

Usherwood, T Haas, M

Hall, J

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Australian Journal of Primary Health, 2005, 11 (2), pp. 78 - 86
Issue Date:: 2005-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2005002006.pdf		897.18 kB		View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Anderson, R	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Haywood, P https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5031-8648	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Usherwood, T	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Haas, M https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9726-3063	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Hall, J https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2191-0543	en_US
dc.date.issued	2005-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Australian Journal of Primary Health, 2005, 11 (2), pp. 78 - 86	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1448-7527	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/5897
dc.description.abstract	The aim of this study was to assess the expressed preferences of general practitioners (GPs) for alternative organisational models to for-profit GP corporatisation. A review of the findings of six feasibility studies that examined alternative organisational models for general practice in Australia was undertaken. Five feasibility studies were conducted within nine Divisions of General Practice, and a feasibility study was conducted by a state-based organisation among all 15 of its member Divisions. Overall, the six projects demonstrated a strong resistance among most GPs to any alternative model that involved giving up autonomy over practice matters. Consequently, the most favoured alternative organisational model was the "service company"-the establishment of a third party to provide a range of practice support services. In general, there was implicit acceptance that the service company could recover the cost of support service provision by charging GPs on a fee-for-service basis, and also that the Division itself would be the most acceptable organisation to take on this role. However, in four Divisional areas GPs revealed very low motivation towards either working together or with the local Division as a service company. Although these feasibility studies were carried out using different methods, and in a small sample of mostly urban Divisions, they suggest that many GPs would support their Divisions-or some other Division-related third party-to become more active providers of a range of practice support services.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Australian Journal of Primary Health	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1071/PY05025	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Public Health	en_US
dc.title	Alternatives to for-profit corporatisation: The view from general practice	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	11	en_US
utslib.for	1199 Other Medical and Health Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	16 Studies in Human Society	en_US
utslib.for	17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHERE - Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	11	en_US

Abstract:

The aim of this study was to assess the expressed preferences of general practitioners (GPs) for alternative organisational models to for-profit GP corporatisation. A review of the findings of six feasibility studies that examined alternative organisational models for general practice in Australia was undertaken. Five feasibility studies were conducted within nine Divisions of General Practice, and a feasibility study was conducted by a state-based organisation among all 15 of its member Divisions. Overall, the six projects demonstrated a strong resistance among most GPs to any alternative model that involved giving up autonomy over practice matters. Consequently, the most favoured alternative organisational model was the "service company"-the establishment of a third party to provide a range of practice support services. In general, there was implicit acceptance that the service company could recover the cost of support service provision by charging GPs on a fee-for-service basis, and also that the Division itself would be the most acceptable organisation to take on this role. However, in four Divisional areas GPs revealed very low motivation towards either working together or with the local Division as a service company. Although these feasibility studies were carried out using different methods, and in a small sample of mostly urban Divisions, they suggest that many GPs would support their Divisions-or some other Division-related third party-to become more active providers of a range of practice support services.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/5897