Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 383
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 27  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 128-135

Perspectives of Nigerian doctors on the practice of rebates, fee-splitting, and kickbacks


1 Department of Radiology, Union Diagnostics and Clinical Services Plc, Yaba, Lagos State, Nigeria
2 Department of Radiology, Afriglobal Medicare, Ikeja, Lagos State, Nigeria
3 Department of Radiology, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria
4 Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Bukunmi Michael Idowu
Department of Radiology, Union Diagnostics and Clinical Services Plc, No 37 Tejuosho Street, Yaba, Lagos State
Nigeria
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/wajr.wajr_19_19

Rights and Permissions

Background: Fee splitting is a global pandemic in the health-care industry, whereby financial and nonfinancial inducements are offered to health-care practitioners in exchange for guaranteed patient referral, continuous patronage, or preferential usage/prescription of the payer's products. Methods: We surveyed 280 medical doctors from August 2017 to October 2017 to assess their knowledge, perception, and attitude toward fee-splitting using self-administered questionnaires. Results: The majority (89%) of our respondents indicated that they were aware of the existence of fee-splitting in the Nigerian health-care industry. About 34% accept rebates, while 70% admitted to knowing other colleagues who accept rebates. The amount received as rebates was ≤20% of the cost of an investigation. More than half of the respondents (52%) opined that the practice is a nationwide phenomenon. An astonishing 78% of respondents either did not know (61%) or asserted wrongly (17%) that the practice is not a violation Nigerian Medical Council rules. Only 46% affirmed that the practice is unethical. Compared to private hospitals, fee-splitting is less in public hospitals. Sixty-one percent noted that other health-care workers (besides physicians) are also involved. The primary allures of fee-splitting were a quest for an extra source of income (64%), poor/irregular salaries (60%), ignorance of its illegality (56%), and greed (47%). The identified deleterious consequences were unnecessary investigations/procedures, inflated health-care cost, quackery, delayed treatment/prolonged hospital stay, beclouded clinical judgment, and negative public perception. Conclusion: Stricter regulatory enforcement and continuous ethics education are needed to disrupt the widespread fee-splitting culture.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed238    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal