Since I was on the BCMA Board of Directors about 30 years ago, little has been done to properly address the plight of full-service general practitioners. We are still unable to ensure each of them a sufficient salary in order to keep them in full-service practices and to attract new graduates into this field.
Two problems are immediately clear. One, that the old Board policy of keeping the average GP earnings at 80% of the average specialist earnings has been lost; two, our association has failed to separate GPs into two groups: those who provide full-service practice and those working in walk-in clinics in urban settings.
I propose a solution.
Our association has been successful with the two programs it has implemented in paying bonuses to practitioners—namely, the Northern and Isolation Allowances and the Retention Fees (even if these are sometimes paid to doctors who want to be in these locations to ski, fish, etc.).
Let us have an urban full-service GP retention fee paid to all those GPs who earn 20% or more of their income from fees other than 0100 or 0120; i.e., for seeing the elderly and the very young, obstetrics, hospital and nursing home visits, and minor surgical procedures.
How much should this fee be? Consider the fact that several GPs on the North Shore have abandoned their practices to become hospitalists in Lions Gate Hospital for a salary of $175000 for a 48-week work year. Forty percent of our fees pay for our overhead. The hospitalists have no overhead, so a full-service GP should be paid $291000 for 48 weeks or $315000 for a full year. The fee might also be based on the full-service GP receiving 80% of what the average specialist earns (I don’t know the figures for this). Judging from my family practice, a bonus of about $50000 per year would be entirely reasonable.
|—||Garry R. Jenkins, MD
Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee
of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally
accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.
About the ICMJE and citation styles
The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.
An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.
BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:
- Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
- There is no period after the journal name.
- Page numbers are not abbreviated.
For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org