Practitioner perceptions about optometric networks in South Africa

Simon A. Maluleke, V. Moodley
{"title":"Practitioner perceptions about optometric networks in South Africa","authors":"Simon A. Maluleke, V. Moodley","doi":"10.4102/aveh.v82i1.810","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Private healthcare in South Africa is largely financed by medical schemes. Optometrists reluctantly contract with administrators and networks to service these patients, despite them feeling networks are undesirable and exploitative. Networks contend that various mechanisms employed are necessary to ensure sustainability and prevent fraud, wastage and abuse. A working relationship between practitioners and networks should ideally be cordial and appreciated by each party as being mutually beneficial to the success of their respective businesses.Aim: To assess practitioners’ knowledge and perceptions regarding optometric networks.Setting: The study was conducted amongst optometric professionals in the private sector in South Africa.Methods: A descriptive, mixed-method study was conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire. Interviews with senior personnel from the networks were conducted.Results: Approximately 77% of respondents belonged to networks with 91% being knowledgeable about networks and their role within optometry. Opticlear had 72% members, while Iso Leso and preferred provider negotiators (PPN) had 67% and 41%, respectively. Most optometrists (69%) neither believed in the need for networks nor that they provide value to the profession, while 94.7% joined networks merely to receive direct payment and access patients, with no other benefits noted.Conclusion: Practitioners reluctantly contract to networks for direct payment and to access patients. Furthermore, practitioners feel that networks bully and victimise them while networks highlight their responsibility to reduce healthcare costs and negative practices of fraud, waste and abuse.Contribution: Providing sustainable, cost-effective and quality eye care services requires collaboration between networks and practitioners and appreciating each other’s roles in the delivery of eye care services. ","PeriodicalId":7694,"journal":{"name":"African Vision and Eye Health","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Vision and Eye Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/aveh.v82i1.810","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Private healthcare in South Africa is largely financed by medical schemes. Optometrists reluctantly contract with administrators and networks to service these patients, despite them feeling networks are undesirable and exploitative. Networks contend that various mechanisms employed are necessary to ensure sustainability and prevent fraud, wastage and abuse. A working relationship between practitioners and networks should ideally be cordial and appreciated by each party as being mutually beneficial to the success of their respective businesses.Aim: To assess practitioners’ knowledge and perceptions regarding optometric networks.Setting: The study was conducted amongst optometric professionals in the private sector in South Africa.Methods: A descriptive, mixed-method study was conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire. Interviews with senior personnel from the networks were conducted.Results: Approximately 77% of respondents belonged to networks with 91% being knowledgeable about networks and their role within optometry. Opticlear had 72% members, while Iso Leso and preferred provider negotiators (PPN) had 67% and 41%, respectively. Most optometrists (69%) neither believed in the need for networks nor that they provide value to the profession, while 94.7% joined networks merely to receive direct payment and access patients, with no other benefits noted.Conclusion: Practitioners reluctantly contract to networks for direct payment and to access patients. Furthermore, practitioners feel that networks bully and victimise them while networks highlight their responsibility to reduce healthcare costs and negative practices of fraud, waste and abuse.Contribution: Providing sustainable, cost-effective and quality eye care services requires collaboration between networks and practitioners and appreciating each other’s roles in the delivery of eye care services. 
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从业者对南非验光网络的看法
背景:南非的私人医疗保健主要由医疗计划提供资金。验光师不情愿地与管理人员和网络签订合同,为这些患者提供服务,尽管他们觉得网络是不受欢迎和剥削的。网络争辩说,为了确保可持续性和防止欺诈、浪费和滥用,必须采用各种机制。理想情况下,从业人员和网络之间的工作关系应该是亲切的,并为各方所赞赏,因为这对各自业务的成功是互利的。目的:评估从业人员对验光网络的认识和认知。环境:这项研究是在南非私营部门的验光专业人员中进行的。方法:采用半结构化问卷,采用描述性混合方法进行研究。采访了来自网络的高级人员。结果:大约77%的受访者属于网络,91%的人了解网络及其在验光中的作用。Opticlear拥有72%的成员,而Iso Leso和首选供应商谈判代表(PPN)分别拥有67%和41%的成员。大多数验光师(69%)既不相信网络的必要性,也不认为网络为职业提供了价值,而94.7%的验光师加入网络仅仅是为了直接获得报酬和接触患者,没有其他好处。结论:从业者不情愿地签约网络直接支付和接触病人。此外,从业人员认为网络欺凌和伤害他们,同时网络强调他们有责任降低医疗成本和欺诈、浪费和滥用的负面做法。贡献:提供可持续、具有成本效益和高质量的眼科保健服务需要网络和从业人员之间的合作,并欣赏彼此在提供眼科保健服务中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
African Vision and Eye Health
African Vision and Eye Health Health Professions-Optometry
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
期刊最新文献
Optometrists’ perspectives on speciality programme development in South Africa Pathophysiology of dry eye disease and novel therapeutic agents Impact of spectacle wear on the quality of life of learners with hearing impairment in Ghana Clinical characteristics and associated factors of diabetic retinopathy in Sudanese patients Refractive error accuracy and user perceptions of a smartphone home-based tester
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1