Pig in a poke

Issue: BCMJ, vol. 48 , No. 8 , October 2006 , Pages 374 Editorials

The doctors of British Columbia are presently embroiled in yet another confusing round of arbitration and macro- and micro-allocations of contract monies. This is really too bad, and probably unnecessary.

When the doctors voted to accept the government’s offer of a 10.5% fee increase over 4 years, and another 8% to go to targeted programs, I believe most thought that was probably what they were going to get. That is, a 10.5% fee increase over 4 years for all doctors.

This is not the case, of course. All of that money is up for grabs, and the negotiations between the Society of Specialists and Society of General Practice have broken down and have gone to arbitration.

Once this arbitration is completed, then the Society of Specialists will take whatever amount has been allotted to them and a micro-allocation process will start to try to allot the money between 26 specialist groups. If this cannot be done, by unanimous agreement, then this process too will go to arbitration.

It seems to me that this is an unbelievably cumbersome process. In most jurisdictions in the world general practice negotiates at a setting completely separate from specialists. In Britain it is done on alternate years. Similarly, surgical groups negotiate for their own contract.

This method of voting for a contract that will probably bear little resemblance to what each subgroup actually sees seems like buying a pig in a poke. In my opinion, this method of distributing the money of the contract (after it has been voted on) allows too much room for decisions based on political ideation.

It would be better if the groups negotiated separately and were able to vote on a contract that actually represents what they may get, as opposed to what appears to be a bait and switch.

—AJS

Anthony J. Salvian, MD. Pig in a poke. BCMJ, Vol. 48, No. 8, October, 2006, Page(s) 374 - Editorials.



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

BCMJ Guidelines for Authors

Leave a Reply