Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Human Resources for Health
Published in: Human Resources for Health 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Research

Preferences of physicians for public and private sector work

Authors: Anthony Scott, Jon Helgeim Holte, Julia Witt

Published in: Human Resources for Health | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The public-private mix of healthcare remains controversial. This paper examines physicians’ preferences for public sector work in the context of dual practice, whilst accounting for other differences in the characteristics of jobs.

Methods

A discrete choice experiment is conducted with data from 3422 non-GP specialists from the Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) panel survey of physicians.

Results

Physicians prefer to work in the public sector, though the value of working in the public sector is very small at 0.14% of their annual earnings to work an additional hour per week. These preferences are heterogeneous. Contrary to other studies that show risk averse individuals prefer public sector work, for physicians, we find that those averse to taking career or clinical risks prefer to work in the private sector. Those with relatively low earnings prefer public sector work and those with high earnings prefer private sector work, though these effects are small.

Conclusions

Other job characteristics are more important than the sector of work, suggesting that these should be the focus of policy to influence specialist’s allocation of time between sectors.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
McPake B, Russo G, Hipgrave D, Hort K, Campbell J. Implications of dual practice for universal health coverage. Bull World Health Organ. 2016;94(2):142–6.PubMed
2.
Eggleston K, Bir A. Physician dual practice. Health Policy. 2006;78(2–3):157–66.PubMed
3.
González P, Macho-Stadler I. A theoretical approach to dual practice regulations in the health sector. J Health Econ. 2013;32(1):66–87.PubMed
4.
Socha KZ, Bech M. Physician dual practice: a review of literature. Health Policy. 2011;102(1):1–7.PubMed
5.
Johannessen K-A, Hagen TP. Physicians’ engagement in dual practices and the effects on labor supply in public hospitals: results from a register-based study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):299.PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Cheng TC, Kalb G, Scott A. Public, private or both? Analyzing factors influencing the labour supply of medical specialists. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique. 2018;51(2):660–92.
7.
Saether E. Physicians’ labour supply: the wage impact on hours and practice combinations. Labour. 2005;19(4):673–703.
8.
Mandeville KL, Lagarde M, Hanson K. The use of discrete choice experiments to inform health workforce policy: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):367.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Scott A. Eliciting GPs’ preferences for pecuniary and non-pecuniary job characteristics. J Health Econ. 2001;20:329–47.PubMed
10.
Buurman M, Delfgaauw J, Dur R, Van den Bossche S. Public sector employees: risk averse and altruistic? J Econ Behav Organ. 2012;83(3):279–91.
11.
Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner GG. Individual risk attitudes: measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J Eur Econ Assoc. 2011;9(3):522–50.
12.
Falk A, Becker A, Dohmen T, Enke B, Huffman D, Sunde U. Global evidence on economic preferences*. Q J Econ. 2018;133(4):1645–92.
13.
Caliendo M, Fossen F, Kritikos AS. Personality characteristics and the decisions to become and stay self-employed. Small Bus Econ. 2014;42(4):787–814.
14.
Zhao H, Seibert SE. The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: a meta-analytical review. J Appl Psychol. 2006;91(2):259.PubMed
15.
AIHW. Australia’s hospitals at a glance. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra; 2018.
16.
Cheng TC, Joyce CM, Scott A. An empirical analysis of public and private medical practice in Australia. Health Policy 2013;111(1):43-51.
17.
Joyce CM, Scott A, Jeon S-H, Humphreys J, Kalb G, Witt J, et al. The "Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL)" longitudinal survey - protocol and baseline data for a prospective cohort study of Australian doctors’ workforce participation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10(1):50.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
ABS. Private medical practitioners, report no. 8689.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2002.
19.
Ubach C, Scott A, French F, Awramenko M, Needham G. What do hospital consultants value about their jobs? A discrete choice experiment. Br Med J. 2003;326:1432.
20.
AIHW. National health labour force series, medical labour force 2003. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2003.
21.
Borges NJ, Navarro AM, Grover A, Hoban JD. How, when, and why do physicians choose careers in academic medicine? A literature review. Acad Med. 2010;85(4):680–6.PubMed
22.
Carlsson F, Martinsson P. Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. Health Econ. 2002;12:281–94.
23.
Kuhfeld WF. Marketing research methods in SAS: experimental design choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. SAS 9.1 Edition TS-722. 2005.
24.
Train KE. Discrete choice methods with simulation. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
25.
Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, Wasi N. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark Sci. 2010;29(3):393–421.
26.
Hess S, Train K. Correlation and scale in mixed logit models. Journal of Choice Modelling. 2017;23:1–8.
27.
Hess S, Rose JM. Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models? Transportation. 2012;39(6):1225–39.
28.
Scott A, Witt J, Humphreys J, Joyce C, Kalb G, Jeon SH, et al. Getting doctors into the bush: general practitioners’ preferences for rural location. Soc Sci Med. 2013;96:33–44.PubMed
29.
Greene W. NLOGIT version 4.0. Referecne guide. New York: Econometric Software Inc; 2007.
30.
Lagarde M. Investigating attribute non-attendance and its consequences in choice experiments with latent class models. Health Econ. 2013;22(5):554–67.PubMed
31.
Hole AR. A discrete choice model with endogenous attribute attendance. Econ Lett. 2011;110(3):203–5.
32.
Scott A. Identifying and analysing dominant preferences in discrete choice experiments: an application in health care. J Econ Psychol. 2002;23(3):383–98.
33.
Scott A, Jeon S-H, Joyce C, Humphreys J, Kalb G, Witt J, et al. A randomised trial and economic evaluation of the effect of response mode on response rate, response bias, and item non-response in a survey of doctors. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:126.PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Preferences of physicians for public and private sector work
Authors
Anthony Scott
Jon Helgeim Holte
Julia Witt
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Human Resources for Health / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-020-00498-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Human Resources for Health 1/2020 Go to the issue

Research

Clarifying workforce flexibility from a division of labor perspective: a mixed methods study of an emergency department team

Research

The association between the workload of general practitioners and patient experiences with care: results of a cross-sectional study in 33 countries

Editorial

Research to support evidence-informed decisions on optimizing the contributions of nursing and midwifery workforces

Research

More public health service providers are experiencing job burnout than clinical care providers in primary care facilities in China

Research

Gender inequality in the health workforce in the midst of achieving universal health coverage in Mexico

Research

Supervision as a tool for building surgical capacity of district hospitals: the case of Zambia