Primary care payment models and avoidable hospitalizations in Ontario, Canada: A multivalued treatment effects analysis.

Improving access to primary care physicians' services may help reduce hospitalizations due to Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions (ACSCs). Ontario, Canada's most populous province, introduced blended payment models for primary care physicians in the early- to mid-2000s to increase access to primary care, preventive care, and better chronic disease management. We study the impact of payment models on avoidable hospitalizations due to two incentivized ACSCs (diabetes and congestive heart failure) and two non-incentivized ACSCs (angina and asthma). The data for our study came from health administrative data on practicing primary care physicians in Ontario between 2006 and 2015. We employ a two-stage estimation strategy on a balanced panel of 3710 primary care physicians (1158 blended-fee-for-service (FFS), 1388 blended-capitation models, and 1164 interprofessional team-based practices). First, we account for the differences in physician practices using a generalized propensity score based on a multinomial logit regression model, corresponding to three primary care payment models. Second, we use fractional regression models to estimate the average treatment effects on the treated outcome (i.e., avoidable hospitalizations). The capitation-based model sometimes increases avoidable hospitalizations due to angina (by 7 per 100,000 patients) and congestive heart failure (40 per 100,000) relative to the blended-FFS-based model. Switching capitation physicians into interprofessional teams mitigates this effect, reducing avoidable hospitalizations from congestive heart failure by 30 per 100,000 patients and suggesting better access to primary care and chronic disease management in team-based practices.

Physician Work Hours and the Gender Pay Gap - Evidence from Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: The gender gap in physician pay is often attributed in part to women working fewer hours than men, but evidence to date is limited by self-report and a lack of detail regarding clinical revenue and gender differences in practice style. METHODS: Using national all-payer claims and data from electronic health records, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 24.4 million primary care office visits in 2017 and performed comparisons between female and male physicians in the same practices. Our primary independent variable was physician gender; outcomes included visit revenue, visit counts, days worked, and observed visit time (interval between the initiation and the termination of a visit). We created multivariable regression models at the year, day, and visit level after adjustment for characteristics of the primary care physicians (PCPs), patients, and types of visit and for practice fixed effects. RESULTS: In 2017, female PCPs generated 10.9% less revenue from office visits than their male counterparts (-$39,143.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], -53,523.0 to -24,763.4) and conducted 10.8% fewer visits (-330.5 visits; 95% CI, -406.6 to -254.3) over 2.6% fewer clinical days (-5.3 days; 95% CI, -7.7 to -3.0), after adjustment for age, academic degree, specialty, and number of sessions worked per week, yet spent 2.6% more observed time in visits that year than their male counterparts (1201.3 minutes; 95% CI, 184.7 to 2218.0). Per visit, after adjustment for PCP, patient, and visit characteristics, female PCPs generated equal revenue but spent 15.7% more time with a patient (2.4 minutes; 95% CI, 2.1 to 2.6). These results were consistent in subgroup analyses according to the gender and health status of the patients and the type and complexity of the visits. CONCLUSIONS: Female PCPs generated less visit revenue than male colleagues in the same practices owing to a lower volume of visits, yet spent more time in direct patient care per visit, per day, and per year. (Funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.).

Association Between Individual Primary Care Physician Merit-based Incentive Payment System Score and Measures of Process and Patient Outcomes.

Importance: The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) influences reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of US physicians, but little is known about whether program performance accurately captures the quality of care they provide. Objective: To examine whether primary care physicians' MIPS scores are associated with performance on process and outcome measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 80 246 US primary care physicians participating in the MIPS program in 2019. Exposures: MIPS score. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between physician MIPS scores and performance on 5 unadjusted process measures, 6 adjusted outcome measures, and a composite outcome measure. Results: The study population included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80 246 primary care physicians, including 4773 physicians with low MIPS scores (≤30), 6151 physicians with medium MIPS scores (>30-75), and 69 322 physicians with high MIPS scores (>75). Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations (56.1% vs 63.2%; difference, -7.1 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -6.2]; P < .001), diabetic HbA1c screening (84.6% vs 89.4%; difference, -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -5.4 to -4.2]; P < .001), and mammography screening (58.2% vs 70.4%; difference, -12.2 percentage points [95% CI, -13.1 to -11.4]; P < .001) but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination (78.0% vs 76.8%; difference, 1.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.0 to 2.5]; P = .045] and tobacco screening (95.0% vs 94.1%; difference, 0.9 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]; P = .001). MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on 1 outcome (307.6 vs 316.4 emergency department visits per 1000 patients; difference, -8.9 [95% CI, -13.7 to -4.1]; P < .001), worse performance on 1 outcome (255.4 vs 225.2 all-cause hospitalizations per 1000 patients; difference, 30.2 [95% CI, 24.8 to 35.7]; P < .001), and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with low MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with high MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. Physicians with low MIPS scores but superior outcomes cared for more medically complex and socially vulnerable patients, compared with physicians with low MIPS scores and poor outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

Payment Discrepancies and Access to Primary Care Physicians for Dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Physicians often receive lower payments for dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries versus nondual Medicare beneficiaries because of state reimbursement caps. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) primary care fee bump temporarily eliminated this differential in 2013-2014. OBJECTIVE: To examine how dual payment policy impacts primary care physicians' (PCP) acceptance of duals. RESEARCH DESIGN: We assessed differences in the likelihood that PCPs had dual caseloads of ≥10% or 20% in states with lower versus full dual reimbursement using linear probability models adjusted for physician and area-level traits. Using a triple-difference approach, we examined changes in dual caseloads for PCPs versus a control group of specialists in states with fee bumps versus no change during years postbump versus prebump. SUBJECTS: PCPs and specialists (cardiologists, orthopedic surgeons, general surgeons) that billed fee-for-service Medicare. MEASURES: State dual payment policies and physicians' dual caseloads as a percentage of their Medicare patients. RESULTS: In 2012, 81% of PCPs had dual caseloads of ≥10% and this was less likely among PCPs in states with lower versus full dual reimbursement (eg, difference=-4.52 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -6.80 to -2.25). The proportion of PCPs with dual caseloads of ≥10% or 20% decreased significantly between 2012 and 2017 and the fee bump was not consistently associated with increases in dual caseloads. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-ACA, PCPs' participation in the dual program appeared to be lower in states with lower reimbursement for duals. Despite the ACA fee bump, dual caseloads declined over time, raising concerns of worsening access to care.

Payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Changes to the method of payment for healthcare providers, including pay-for-performance schemes, are increasingly being used by governments, health insurers, and employers to help align financial incentives with health system goals. In this review we focused on changes to the method and level of payment for all types of healthcare providers in outpatient healthcare settings. Outpatient healthcare settings, broadly defined as 'out of hospital' care including primary care, are important for health systems in reducing the use of more expensive hospital services. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings on the quantity and quality of health service provision, patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes, cost of service provision, and adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase (searched 5 March 2019), and several other databases. In addition, we searched clinical trials platforms, grey literature, screened reference lists of included studies, did a cited reference search for included studies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We screened records from an updated search in August 2020, with any potentially relevant studies categorised as awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies that compared different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient care settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted a structured synthesis. We first categorised the payment methods comparisons and outcomes, and then described the effects of different types of payment methods on different outcome categories. Where feasible, we used meta-analysis to synthesise the effects of payment interventions under the same category. Where it was not possible to perform meta-analysis, we have reported means/medians and full ranges of the available point estimates. We have reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the relative difference (as per cent change or mean difference (MD)) for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies in the review: 12 randomised trials, 13 controlled before-and-after studies, one interrupted time series, and one repeated measure study. Most healthcare providers were primary care physicians. Most of the payment methods were implemented by health insurance schemes in high-income countries, with only one study from a low- or middle-income country. The included studies were categorised into four groups based on comparisons of different payment methods. (1) Pay for performance (P4P) plus existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings P4P incentives probably improve child immunisation status (RR 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.36; 3760 patients; moderate-certainty evidence) and may slightly increase the number of patients who are asked more detailed questions on their disease by their pharmacist (MD 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.54; 454 patients; low-certainty evidence). P4P may slightly improve primary care physicians' prescribing of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medicines compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12; 362 patients; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of extra P4P incentives on mean blood pressure reduction for patients and costs for providing services compared with an existing payment method (very low-certainty evidence). Outcomes related to workload or other health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial found that compared to the control group, the performance of incentivised professionals was not sustained after the P4P intervention had ended. (2) Fee for service (FFS) compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings We are uncertain about the effect of FFS on the quantity of health services delivered (outpatient visits and hospitalisations), patient health outcomes, and total drugs cost compared to an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. The quality of service provision and health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial reported that physicians paid via FFS may see more well patients than salaried physicians (low-certainty evidence), possibly implying that more unnecessary services were delivered through FFS. (3) FFS mixed with existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings FFS mixed payment method may increase the quantity of health services provided compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of FFS mixed payment on quality of services provided, patient health outcomes, and health professional outcomes compared with an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. Cost outcomes and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. (4) Enhanced FFS compared with FFS for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings Enhanced FFS (higher FFS payment) probably increases child immunisation rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether higher FFS payment results in more primary care visits and about the effect of enhanced FFS on the net expenditure per year on covered children with regular FFS (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of service provision, patient outcomes, health professional outcomes, and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings, P4P or an increase in FFS payment level probably increases the quantity of health service provision (moderate-certainty evidence), and P4P may slightly improve the quality of service provision for targeted conditions (low-certainty evidence). The effects of changes in payment methods on health outcomes is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Information to explore the influence of specific payment method design features, such as the size of incentives and type of performance measures, was insufficient. Furthermore, due to limited and very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain if changing payment models without including additional funding for professionals would have similar effects. There is a need for further well-conducted research on payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries; more studies comparing the impacts of different designs of the same payment method; and studies that consider the unintended consequences of payment interventions.

Trends in Total and Out-of-Pocket Expenditures for Visits to Primary Care Physicians, by Insurance Type, 2002-2017.

PURPOSE: Total and out-of-pocket visit expenditures for primary care physician visits may affect how primary care is delivered. We determined trends in these expenditures for visits to US primary care physicians. METHODS: Using the 2002-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we ascertained changes in total and out-of-pocket visit expenditures for primary care visits for Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. We calculated mean values for each insurer using a generalized linear model and a 2-part model, respectively. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 750,837 primary care visits during 2002-2017. Over time, the proportion of primary care visits associated with private insurance or no insurance decreased, while Medicare- or Medicaid-associated visits increased. The proportion of visits with $0 out-of-pocket expenditure increased, primarily from an increase in $0 private insurance visits. Total expenditure per visit increased for private insurance and Medicare visits, but did not notably change for Medicaid visits. Out-of-pocket expenditures rose primarily from increases in private insurance visits with higher expenditures of this type. Medicare and Medicaid had minimal change in out-of-pocket expenditure per visit. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2002 and 2017, mean total expenditures and out-of-pocket expenditures increased for primary care visits, but at notably lower rates than those previously documented for emergency department visits. A rise in total expenditure per visit was identified for private insurance and Medicare, but not for Medicaid. Out-of-pocket expenditures increased marginally related to changes in out-of-pocket expenditures for private insurance visits. We would expect increasing difficulty with primary care physician access, particularly for Medicaid patients, if the current trends continue.

Variation Among Primary Care Physicians in 30-Day Readmissions.

Background: Whether readmission rates vary by primary care physician (PCP) is unknown, although federal policy holds PCPs accountable for reducing readmissions. Objective: To determine whether 30-day readmission rates vary by PCP. Design: Retrospective cohort study using marginal models and multilevel logistic regression with 100% of data on Texas Medicare claims from 2008 to 2015. Setting: Texas. Participants: Patients discharged alive between 1 January 2008 and 30 November 2015 who had a PCP in the prior year and whose PCP had at least 50 admissions in the study period. Measurements: Readmission within 30 days of discharge. Follow-up visits with a PCP within 7 days of discharge were also measured. Results: Between 2012 and 2015, the mean risk-standardized rate of 30-day readmissions was 12.9%. Of 4230 PCPs, 1 had a readmission rate that was significantly higher than the mean and none had a significantly lower rate. The 10th and 90th percentiles of PCP readmission rates were 12.4% and 13.4%, respectively, each only 0.5 percentage point different from the mean. The 99th percentile of PCP readmission rates was 14.0%, 1.1 percentage points higher than the mean. Detecting a 1.1-percentage point difference from the mean adjusted readmission rate would require more than 3500 admissions per PCP per year. Limitations: Only fee-for-service Medicare patients in a single state were included. The authors could not account for confounders not included in Medicare databases or classify readmissions as avoidable. Conclusion: Variation in readmission rates among PCPs is very low. Programs holding PCPs accountable for readmissions may prove ineffective. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Development and testing of a web module to IMPROVE generic prescribing of oral contraceptives among primary care physicians.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The use of generic oral contraceptives (OCPs) can improve adherence and reduce healthcare costs, yet scepticism of generic drugs remains a barrier to generic OCP discussion and prescription. An educational web module was developed to reduce generic scepticism related to OCPs, improve knowledge of generic drugs and increase physician willingness to discuss and prescribe generic OCPs. METHODS: A needs assessment was completed using in-person focus groups at American College of Physicians (ACP) Annual Meeting and a survey targeting baseline generic scepticism. Insights gained were used to build an educational web module detailing barriers and benefits of generic OCP prescription. The module was disseminated via email to an ACP research panel who completed our baseline survey. Post-module evaluation measured learner reaction, knowledge and intention to change behaviour along with generic scepticism. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The module had a response rate of 56% (n = 208/369). Individuals defined as generic sceptics at baseline were significantly less likely to complete our module compared to non-sceptics (responders 9.6% vs non-responders 16.8%, P = 0.04). The majority (85%, n = 17/20) of baseline sceptics were converted to non-sceptics (P < 0.01) following completion of the module. Compared to non-sceptics, post-module generic sceptics reported less willingness to discuss (sceptic 33.3% vs non-sceptic 71.5%, P < 0.01), but not less willingness to prescribe generic OCPs (sceptic 53.3% vs non-sceptic 67.9%, P = 0.25). Non-white physicians and international medical graduates (IMG) were more likely to be generic sceptics at baseline (non-white 86.9% vs white 69.9%, P = 0.01, IMG 13.0% vs USMG 5.0% vs unknown 18.2%, P = 0.03) but were also more likely to report intention to prescribe generic OCPs as a result of the module (non-white 78.7% vs white 57.3%, P < 0.01, IMG 76.1% vs USMG 50.3% vs unknown 77.3%, P = 0.03). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: A brief educational web module can be used to promote prescribing of generic OCPs and reduce generic scepticism.

Key factors for sustainable integration of pharmacists in team-based primary care physician practices.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) identify strategies for financial justification of pharmacists integrated into team-based primary care, (2) describe the payment models currently used for integration of pharmacists into team-based primary care, and (3) elicit key factors facilitating sustainable pharmacist-provided patient care services in the primary care setting. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Nonacademic outpatient primary care physician practices throughout the United States from January to April 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacists responsible for leadership of clinical pharmacists in primary care practices whose positions are supported through nondispensing patient care services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Current payment model, infrastructure, documentation strategies, and methods of quality assessment. RESULTS: Twelve interviews were conducted. Practices included a combination of single- and mixed-payer models in integrated and nonintegrated health systems. Various billing strategies were used, particularly in nonintegrated models, to sustain pharmacists in primary care practices utilizing both fee-for-service (FFS) and value-based incentives payments. Five main themes were elicited: (1) Pharmacists are integrated and valuable members of health care teams; (2) pharmacists are documenting in an accessible electronic health record; (3) data tracking is a facilitator for justifying and adapting practice; (4) systematized processes for pharmacist integration exist in each practice; and (5) pharmacists' responsibilities on the team have grown and evolved over time. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists' contributions to improving patients' medication-related care are the same regardless of payment model. Financially sustainable integration of pharmacists on the team involves using a combination of FFS and value-based incentive payments, consistent documentation, meaningful collection of pharmacists' contributions to improve the quality of care, and a firm understanding of the practice's needs and financial structure. These themes can be used as a guide for pharmacists as they establish themselves in an FFS environment and adapt to a future in value-based care.

A feasibility study of breast cancer genetic risk assessment in a federally qualified health center.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) endorses routine screening for genetic risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer as a component of primary health care. Implementation of this recommendation may prove challenging, especially in clinics serving disadvantaged communities. METHODS: The authors tested the feasibility of implementing the USPSTF mandate at a federally qualified health center (FQHC) to identify women who were eligible for genetic counseling (GC). A 12-month usual-care phase was followed by a 12-month intervention phase, during which time cancer genetic risk assessment (CGRA) was systematically performed for all women aged 25 to 69 years who presented for an annual examination. Women who were eligible for GC were recruited to participate in the study. RESULTS: After initiating CGRA, 112 women who were eligible for GC consented to study participation, and 56% of them received a referral for GC from their primary care physician. A subgroup of 50 participants were seen by the same primary care physician during both the usual-care and intervention phases. None of these patients was referred for GC during usual care, compared with 64% after the initiation of CGRA (P < .001). Only 16% of referred participants attended a GC session. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing USPSTF recommendations for CGRA as a standard component of primary health care in FQHCs is feasible and improves referral of minority women for GC, but more work is needed to understand the beliefs and barriers that prevent many underserved women from accessing cancer genetic services.

Cost-Effectiveness of Access Expansion to Treatment of Hepatitis C Virus Infection Through Primary Care Providers.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a major burden on individuals and health care systems. The Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (Project ECHO) enables primary care providers to deliver best-practice care for complex conditions to underserved populations. The US Congress passed the ECHO Act in late 2016, requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to investigate the model. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to assess diagnosis and treatment of HCV infection in a primary care patient panel with and without the implementation of Project ECHO. METHODS: We used Markov models to simulate disease progression, quality of life, and life expectancy among individuals with HCV infection and for the general population. Data from the University of New Mexico's ECHO operation for HCV show an increase in treatment rates. Corresponding increases in survival, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and resulting budget impact between ECHO and non-ECHO patients with HCV were then compared. RESULTS: Project ECHO increased costs and QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECHO was $10,351 per QALY compared with the status quo; >99.9% of iterations fell below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. We were unable to confirm whether the increase in rates of treatment associated with Project ECHO were due to increased or more targeted screening, higher adherence, or access to treatment. Our sensitivity analyses show that the results are largely independent of the cause. Budget impact analysis shows payers would have to invest an additional $339.54 million over a 5-year period to increase treatment by 4446 patients, per 1 million covered lives. CONCLUSION: Using a simulated primary care patient panel, we showed that Project ECHO is a cost-effective way to find and treat patients with HCV infection at scale using existing primary care providers. This approach could substantially reduce the burden of chronic HCV infection in the United States, but high budgetary costs suggest that incremental rollout of ECHO may be best.

County and Physician Variation in Benzodiazepine Prescribing to Medicare Beneficiaries by Primary Care Physicians in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Physicians widely prescribe benzodiazepines (BZD) despite well-recognized harms. OBJECTIVE: To determine county and provider characteristics that predict high-intensity BZD prescribing by primary care physicians (PCPs) to Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of the 2015 Medicare Part D Public Use Files (PUF). SUBJECTS: n = 122,054 PCPs who prescribed 37.3 billion medication days. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was intensity of BZD prescribing (days prescribed/total medication days) at the county- and physician levels. PCP and county characteristics were derived from the Part D PUF, Area Health Resources Files, and County Health Rankings. Logistic regression determined the characteristics associated with high-intensity (top quartile) BZD prescribing. KEY RESULTS: Beneficiaries were prescribed over 1.2 billion days of BZD in 2015, accounting for 2.3% of all medication days prescribed in Part D. Top quartile counties had 3.1 times higher BZD prescribing than the lowest (3.4% vs. 1.1%; F = 3293.8, df = 3, p < 0.001). Adjusting for county-level demographics and health care system characteristics (including supply of mental health providers), counties with more adults with at least some college had lower odds of high-intensity prescribing (per 5% increase, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.80, 99% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.87, p < 0.001), as did higher income counties (per US$1000 increase, AOR 0.93, CI 0.91-0.95, p < 0.001). Top quartile PCPs prescribed at 6.5 times the rate of the bottom (3.9% vs. 0.6%; F = 63,910.2, df = 3, p < 0.001). High-intensity opioid prescribing (AOR 4.18, CI 3.90-4.48, p < 0.001) was the characteristic most strongly associated with BZD prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: BZD prescribing appears to vary across counties and providers and is related to non-patient characteristics. Further work is needed to understand how such non-clinical factors drive variation.

Higher Primary Care Physician Continuity is Associated With Lower Costs and Hospitalizations.

PURPOSE: Continuity of care is a defining characteristic of primary care associated with lower costs and improved health equity and care quality. However, we lack provider-level measures of primary care continuity amenable to value-based payment, including the Medicare Quality Payment Program (QPP). We created 4 physician-level, claims-based continuity measures and tested their associations with health care expenditures and hospitalizations. METHODS: We used Medicare claims data for 1,448,952 beneficiaries obtaining care from a nationally representative sample of 6,551 primary care physicians to calculate continuity scores by 4 established methods. Patient-level continuity scores attributed to a single physician were averaged to create physician-level scores. We used beneficiary multilevel models, including beneficiary controls, physician characteristics, and practice rurality to estimate associations with total Medicare Part A & B expenditures (allowed charges, logged), and any hospitalization. RESULTS: Our continuity measures were highly correlated (correlation coefficients ranged from 0.86 to 0.99), with greater continuity associated with similar outcomes for each. Adjusted expenditures for beneficiaries cared for by physicians in the highest Bice-Boxerman continuity score quintile were 14.1% lower than for those in the lowest quintile ($8,092 vs $6,958; ß = -0.151; 95% CI, -0.186 to -0.116), and the odds of hospitalization were 16.1% lower between the highest and lowest continuity quintiles (OR = 0.839; 95% CI, 0.787 to 0.893). CONCLUSIONS: All 4 continuity scores tested were significantly associated with lower total expenditures and hospitalization rates. Such indices are potentially useful as QPP measures, and may also serve as proxy resource-use measures, given the strength of association with lower costs and utilization.

Can pay-for-performance to primary care providers stimulate appropriate use of antibiotics?

Antibiotic resistance is a major threat to public health worldwide. As the healthcare sector's use of antibiotics is an important contributor to the development of resistance, it is crucial that physicians only prescribe antibiotics when needed and that they choose narrow-spectrum antibiotics, which act on fewer bacteria types, when possible. Inappropriate use of antibiotics is nonetheless widespread, not least for respiratory tract infections (RTI), a common reason for antibiotics prescriptions. We examine if pay-for-performance (P4P) presents a way to influence primary care physicians' choice of antibiotics. During 2006-2013, 8 Swedish healthcare authorities adopted P4P to make physicians select narrow-spectrum antibiotics more often in the treatment of children with RTI. Exploiting register data on all purchases of RTI antibiotics in a difference-in-differences analysis, we find that P4P significantly increased the share of narrow-spectrum antibiotics. There are no signs that physicians gamed the system by issuing more prescriptions overall.

A multi-modal relative spatial access assessment approach to measure spatial accessibility to primary care providers.

Two-step floating catchment area (2SFCA) methods that account for multiple transportation modes provide more realistic accessibility representation than single-mode methods. However, the use of the impedance coefficient in an impedance function (e.g., Gaussian function) introduces uncertainty to 2SFCA results. This paper proposes an enhancement to the multi-modal 2SFCA methods through incorporating the concept of a spatial access ratio (SPAR) for spatial access measurement. SPAR is the ratio of a given place's access score to the mean of all access scores in the study area. An empirical study on spatial access to primary care physicians (PCPs) in the city of Albuquerque, NM, USA was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of SPAR in addressing uncertainty introduced by the choice of the impedance coefficient in the classic Gaussian impedance function. We used ESRI StreetMap Premium and General Transit Specification Feed (GTFS) data to calculate the travel time to PCPs by car and bus. We first generated two spatial access scores-using different catchment sizes for car and bus, respectively-for each demanding population location: an accessibility score for car drivers and an accessibility score for bus riders. We then computed three corresponding spatial access ratios of the above scores for each population location. Sensitivity analysis results suggest that the spatial access scores vary significantly when using different impedance coefficients (p < 0.05); while SPAR remains stable (p = 1). Results from this paper suggest that a spatial access ratio can significantly reduce impedance coefficient-related uncertainties in multi-modal 2SFCA methods.

A cost savings analysis of asynchronous teledermatology compared to face-to-face dermatology in Catalonia.

BACKGROUND: A teledermatology pilot scheme was first conducted in the town of Manresa (Barcelona) in the summer of 2010. The clinical success of the scheme prompted its expansion to the whole county of Bages in 2011 and to the adjacent county of Berguedà in 2012. In the teledermatology service, primary care physicians take a photograph of the lesion and attach it to the electronic medical records of the patient together with a brief clinical account. In the referral hospital, the consultant dermatologists access the electronic medical records, review the images and suggest a treatment or action plan. Next, the primary care physicians review these recommendations and call the patient to report the results. This whole process is usually completed in less than 5 working days. METHODS: A cost saving analysis comparing teledermatology with dermatology face-to-face visits was performed in the county of Bages measuring the cost difference attributable to visits saved. RESULTS: The estimated added costs of the teledermatology service during 2016 amounted to 61,870 €. For the same period, the estimated costs of traditional outpatient dermatology services were of 113,034 €. This represents savings of 51,164 € per year. After subtraction of societal costs, the savings equal 10,350 € per year. CONCLUSIONS: Using a teledermatology service instead of face-to-face dermatology consultations could save 51,164 € per year (11.4 € per patient visited) in the county of Bages. Societal savings are the most significant.

Primary Care Physician Perspectives on Barriers to Statin Treatment.

PURPOSE: Discontinuation of statin therapy represents a major challenge for effective cardiovascular disease prevention. It is unclear how often primary care physicians (PCPs) re-initiate statins and what barriers they encounter. We aimed to identify PCP perspectives on factors influencing statin re-initiation. METHODS: We conducted six nominal group discussions with 23 PCPs from the Deep South Continuing Medical Education network. PCPs answered questions about statin side effects, reasons their patients reported for discontinuing statins, how they respond when discontinuation is reported, and barriers they encounter in getting their patients to re-initiate statin therapy. Each group generated a list of responses in round-robin fashion. Then, each PCP independently ranked their top three responses to each question. For each PCP, the most important reason was given a weight of 3 votes, and the second and third most important reasons were given weights of 2 and 1, respectively. We categorized the individual responses into themes and determined the relative importance of each theme using a "percent of available votes" metric. RESULTS: PCPs reported that side effects, especially muscle/joint-related symptoms, were the most common reason patients reported for statin discontinuation (47% of available votes). PCPs reported statin re-challenge as their most common response when a patient discontinues statin use (31% of available votes). Patients' fear of side effects was ranked as the biggest challenge PCPs encounter in getting their patients to re-initiate statin therapy (70% of available votes). CONCLUSION: PCPs face challenges getting their patients to re-initiate statins, particularly after a patient reports side effects.

Stewardship of primary care physicians to contain cost in health care: an international cross-sectional survey.

Purpose: Physician stewardship towards cost control is potentially important in enhancing the financial sustainability of health care systems. Objective: Aim of this study was to identify the level of stewardship of cost containment of primary care physicians (PCPs) and to assess the associations between stewardship and characteristics of PCPs and health care systems. Methods: Secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional survey among 10 countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA. Participants were a random sample of 33312 PCPs with 11547 responses (34.7%). Outcome measure was a stewardship scale addressing cost-awareness and cost-consideration. Results: Across countries, 41.6% and 45.7% of the PCPs responded that they often were aware of treatment costs and considered cost, respectively. Female PCPs were less aware of costs (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.69-0.81) and considered costs less frequently in making treatment decisions (OR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.76-0.89). Older PCPs were more aware of the costs than younger PCPs for all age categories compared to those <35 years (P < 0.001). PCPs older than 65 years (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.54-0.78) and 55-64 years (OR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.73-0.97) were less likely to consider costs than the youngest age group. Cost-consideration of PCPs residing in countries with a single payer system was lower (OR: 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.95) than their colleagues in multiple payer systems. Conclusion: PCPs show moderate stewardship of health care resources with large intercountry differences. Cost-awareness may not be a necessary precondition for cost-consideration, and policies aimed at raising cost-consideration may be more important.

Funding and remuneration of interdisciplinary primary care teams in Canada: a conceptual framework and application.

BACKGROUND: Reliance on interdisciplinary teams in the delivery of primary care is on the rise. Funding bodies strive to design financial environments that support collaboration between providers. At present, the design of financial arrangements has been fragmented and not based on evidence. The root of the problem is a lack of systematic evidence demonstrating the superiority of any particular financial arrangement, or a solid understanding of options. In this study we develop a framework for the conceptualization and analysis of financial arrangements in interdisciplinary primary care teams. METHODS: We use qualitative data from three sources: (i) interviews with 19 primary care decision makers representing 215 clinics in three Canadian provinces, (ii) a research roundtable with 14 primary care decision makers and/or researchers, and (iii) policy documents. Transcripts from interviews and the roundtable were coded thematically and a framework synthesis approach was applied. RESULTS: Our conceptual framework differentiates between team level funding and provider level remuneration, and characterizes the interplay and consonance between them. Particularly the notions of hierarchy, segregation, and dependence of provider incomes, and the link between funding and team activities are introduced as new clarifying concepts, and their implications explored. The framework is applied to the analysis of collaboration incentives, which appear strongest when provider incomes are interdependent, funding is linked to the team as a whole, and accountability does not have multiple lines. Emergent implementation issues discussed by respondents include: (i) centrality of budget negotiations; (ii) approaches to patient rostering; (iii) unclear funding sources for space and equipment; and (iv) challenges with community engagement. The creation of patient rosters is perceived as a surprisingly contentious issue, and the challenges of funding for space and equipment remain unresolved. CONCLUSIONS: The development and application of a conceptual framework is an important step to the systematic study of the best performing financial models in the context of interdisciplinary primary care. The identification of optimal financial arrangements must be contextualized in terms of feasibility and the implementation environment. In general, financial hierarchy, both overt and covert, is considered a barrier to collaboration.

Doctors' views of patient expectations of medical care in Zhejiang Province, China.

OBJECTIVE: Physicians' prescribing patterns may be influenced by how they perceive their patients' expectations of medical care. This study explored doctors' perceptions of patient expectations of medical care. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews and a cross-sectional survey (September 2014-September 2015). SETTING: Primary- and tertiary-care facilities in Zhejiang province, China. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care practitioners (PCPs) and hospital specialists. MAIN OUTCOMES: Perceived patients' expectations. RESULTS: Seven focus groups and 21 individuals were interviewed. Questionnaires were completed by 460 PCPs and 651 specialists (response rate: 78%). About 36.8% of doctors reported generating profit for the facility at which they practiced as a foremost consideration. Participants perceived patients as holding high expectations of clinical performance and use of medical products. Respondents perceived that their patients expected either drug prescriptions (48.2%) or intravenous (IV) therapy (45.2%). Perceived patient expectations of an arrangement of tests and consultation fee refunds if no prescriptions were made were reported by 29.7 and 22.7%, respectively. Doctors reported feeling undervalued and disrespected when patients requested consultation fee refunds. Compared to those who did not report a need for profit-making, doctors who did were significantly more likely to perceive that their patients expected medication-based treatments (AOR = 1.62, P < 0.001), IV therapy (AOR = 1.32, P = 0.037), the arrangement of tests (AOR = 2.06, P < 0.001), and consultation fee refunds when no prescriptions were made (AOR = 1.92, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most doctors believed that patients had high expectations. Workplace profit-orientation demonstrated a strong association with doctors' perceptions.