Orthopedic and Trauma Physicians’ Ability to Identify Selected SUT Reimbursement Amounts in Türkiye: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Healthcare (Switzerland), cilt.14, sa.19, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, SSCI, Scopus)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 14 Sayı: 19
- Basım Tarihi: 2026
- Doi Numarası: 10.3390/healthcare14193284
- Dergi Adı: Healthcare (Switzerland)
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, CINAHL, Health Research Premium Collection (ProQuest)
- Anahtar Kelimeler: hypothetical clinical scenarios, orthopedics, physician knowledge, reimbursement tariffs, SUT, traumatology, Türkiye
- Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Background: The Turkish Social Security Institution Health Implementation Communiqué (SUT) specifies administrative reimbursement tariffs that are distinct from actual healthcare delivery costs. Physicians’ familiarity with these tariffs can be examined across different areas of orthopedic practice. Objective: To assess orthopedic and trauma physicians’ ability to identify selected SUT reimbursement amounts and to describe their responses to hypothetical clinical scenarios. Methods: This cross-sectional online survey included 102 orthopedic and trauma physicians practicing in Türkiye, recruited voluntarily through a national professional society e-mail group. Analyses included demographic and professional information, previous healthcare-cost education, 18 single-response multiple-choice tariff questions, and three hypothetical clinical scenarios. Each correct tariff response received one point, yielding an unweighted total of 0–18. Questions had two to four response options with nonuniform monetary intervals; some options were individual amounts. Scenario responses were treated as descriptive rather than measures of individual decision change. Results: The mean tariff-response score was 6.02 ± 2.38, with a median of 6 (IQR, 4–8). Overall, 614 of 1836 responses were correct (33.4%). Assuming one correct option per question and uniform random selection, the theoretical expected accuracy was 31.5%. Accuracy ranged from 22.1% for outpatient procedures to 52.9% for implants, although differences in response formats limit comparisons between categories. Six participants (5.9%) reported previous healthcare-cost education. Non-equivalent scenario response formats and internally inconsistent response combinations prevented valid assessment of individual decision changes. Conclusions: Participants selected the reference-matching response for approximately one-third of the tariff questions. Interpretation is limited by heterogeneous response options, the possibility of correct answers through guessing, and the voluntary, nonrepresentative sample. The findings concern selected administrative reimbursement amounts and do not measure actual healthcare costs or comprehensive health-economic knowledge. The hypothetical scenario responses do not establish effects of tariff information on clinical behavior, appropriateness, utilization, expenditure, or patient outcomes.