Understanding the training, mentorship, and professional development priorities of early career embedded researchers.

INTRODUCTION: Health systems are constantly evolving in response to existing and emerging health challenges and are increasingly adopting the Quintuple Aim to guide transformation and improvement efforts. Addressing health challenges and achieving the Quintuple Aim (enhancing patient experience, improving healthcare provider experience, promoting population health, optimising the value of healthcare services, and advancing health equity) may be enhanced with the use of a Learning Health Systems approach that fosters the real-time use of data and evidence to inform improvement efforts and harnesses embedded researchers to co-produce timely, relevant evidence to address priorities. Training programs have emerged to build embedded research capacity within health system organisations and have focused predominantly on the postdoctoral career stage, with little attention paid to the early career researcher (ECR) stage. The objective of this study was to understand ECR training and mentorship needs in the embedded research context to inform the creation new or adaptation of existing programs to build embedded ECR capacity. METHODS: This study used a qualitative approach to garner insight from embedded and applied scholars and health systems leaders in Canada from various professional backgrounds and at various career stages using a combination of focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and an online survey. Thematic content analysis was used to examine the responses of study participants within the interview themes. RESULTS: Twenty-six (26) participants were included in the study. Results were organised according to four key themes: (1) key competencies and skills needed by embedded ECRs; (2) additional training and capacity development needs; (3) training delivery approaches; and (4) enablers and challenges faced by embedded ECRs. Results highlight the importance of supporting ECRs to develop their leadership and organisational management capabilities; their knowledge of and ability to use research approaches that are well-suited to real-world, complex, evolving environments; and their opportunities to learn with and from each other and mentors. Results underscore the perceived importance of context, including being embedded in a supportive environment that values research and evidence and of academic incentives that recognise and value real-world research impact. The challenges of responding to shifting organisational and system priorities were identified. Additional insights from health systems leaders were also highlighted. CONCLUSION: This study identified the multifaceted needs of embedded ECRs and the challenges they face within healthcare systems. Designing new programs or tailoring existing ones to address these needs would build their capacity, foster career progression, and ensure their impact as leaders of evidence-informed health system improvement which is crucial for achieving the Quintuple Aim.

Early Career Outcomes of Embedded Research Fellows: An Analysis of the Health System Impact Fellowship Program.

BACKGROUND: This descriptive study reports the early career outcomes of postdoctoral fellows who completed a novel embedded fellowship training program, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Health System Impact (HSI) Fellowship. The program was designed to support impact-oriented career paths of doctoral graduates, build research capacity within health system organizations, and help to advance learning health systems in Canada. METHODS: Employment of fellowship alumni upon completion of the program were tracked using internet searches of publicly accessible online sources and complemented with program survey data. RESULTS: Descriptive analyses show that all 87 eligible alumni included in the study are currently employed (100% of 87), with 92% employed in Canada. Their employment spans several sectors, including in academic (37%), public (29%), healthcare delivery (17%), and private (14%) sectors. Altogether, 32% of alumni held hybrid roles with an affiliation in academia and another sector. The most common position types were senior scientist (42%), professorships (18%), and director, manager or administrator roles (12%). Program reporting data indicate that these employment outcomes are generally consistent with the group's career aspirations reported at the start of the fellowship program, and that the program receives high ratings from fellows in the extent it is believed to support their career preparedness and readiness (4.49 out of 5). CONCLUSION: We find that HSI Fellow alumni are employed mostly in research-related roles in a range of sectors including, but not limited to academia, that they positively perceive the program's success in elevating their career readiness and potential to make an impact - suggesting that the program may help equip fellows with the skills, readiness and networks for a broad array of employment sectors and roles. The findings are a promising signal of the demand for research talent and the growing capacity for learning health systems in Canada.

Effect of Free Medicine Distribution on Health Care Costs in Canada Over 3 Years: A Secondary Analysis of the CLEAN Meds Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Few interventions are proven to reduce total health care costs, and addressing cost-related nonadherence has the potential to do so. Objective: To determine the effect of eliminating out-of-pocket medication fees on total health care costs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized clinical trial using a prespecified outcome took place across 9 primary care sites in Ontario, Canada (6 in Toronto and 3 in rural areas), where health care services are generally publicly funded. Adult patients (≥18 years old) reporting cost-related nonadherence to medicines in the past 12 months were recruited between June 1, 2016, and April 28, 2017, and followed up until April 28, 2020. Data analysis was completed in 2021. Interventions: Access to a comprehensive list of 128 medicines commonly prescribed in ambulatory care with no out-of-pocket costs for 3 years vs usual medicine access. Main Outcome and Measures: Total publicly funded health care costs over 3 years, including costs of hospitalizations. Health care costs were determined using administrative data from Ontario's single-payer health care system, and all costs are reported in Canadian dollars with adjustments for inflation. Results: A total of 747 participants from 9 primary care sites were included in the analysis (mean [SD] age, 51 [14] years; 421 [56.4%] female). Free medicine distribution was associated with a lower median total health care spending over 3 years of $1641 (95% CI, $454-$2792; P = .006). Mean total spending was $4465 (95% CI, -$944 to $9874) lower over the 3-year period. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, eliminating out-of-pocket medication expenses for patients with cost-related nonadherence in primary care was associated with lower health care spending over 3 years. These findings suggest that eliminating out-of-pocket medication costs for patients could reduce overall costs of health care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02744963.

Clinical and economic impact of a community-based, hybrid model of in-person and virtual care in a Canadian rural setting: a cross-sectional population-based comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical and economic impact of a community-based, hybrid model of in-person and virtual care by comparing health-system performance of the rural jurisdiction where this model was implemented with neighbouring jurisdictions without such a model and the broader regional health system. DESIGN: A cross-sectional comparative study. SETTING: Ontario, Canada, with a focus on three largely rural public health units from 1 April 2018 until 31 March 2021. PARTICIPANTS: All residents of Ontario, Canada under the age of 105 eligible for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: An innovative, community-based, hybrid model of in-person and virtual care, the Virtual Triage and Assessment Centre (VTAC), was implemented in Renfrew County, Ontario on 27 March 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was a change in emergency department (ED) visits anywhere in Ontario, secondary outcomes included changes in hospitalisations and health-system costs, using per cent changes in mean monthly values of linked health-system administrative data for 2 years preimplementation and 1 year postimplementation. RESULTS: Renfrew County saw larger declines in ED visits (-34.4%, 95% CI -41.9% to -26.0%) and hospitalisations (-11.1%, 95% CI -19.7% to -1.5%) and slower growth in health-system costs than other rural regions studied. VTAC patients' low-acuity ED visits decreased by -32.9%, high-acuity visits increased by 8.2%, and hospitalisations increased by 30.0%. CONCLUSION: After implementing VTAC, Renfrew County saw reduced ED visits and hospitalisations and slower health-system cost growth compared with neighbouring rural jurisdictions. VTAC patients experienced reduced unnecessary ED visits and increased appropriate care. Community-based, hybrid models of in-person and virtual care may reduce the burden on emergency and hospital services in rural, remote and underserved regions. Further study is required to evaluate potential for scale and spread.

What is the role of primary care in the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out and the barriers and facilitators to an equitable vaccine roll-out? A rapid scoping review of nine jurisdictions.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to: (1) examine the experience of nine global jurisdictions that engaged primary care providers (PCPs) to administer COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic; (2) describe how vaccine hesitancy and principles of equity were incorporated in the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out strategies and (3) identify the barriers and facilitators to the vaccine roll-out. DESIGN: Rapid scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Searches took place in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and PsycINFO, Google, and the websites of national health departments. Searches and analyses took place from May 2021 to July 2021. RESULTS: Sixty-two documents met the inclusion criteria (35=grey literature; 56% and 27=peer reviewed; 44%). This review found that the vaccine distribution approach started at hospitals in almost all jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, PCPs were engaged at the beginning, and the majority included PCPs over time. In many jurisdictions, equity was considered in the prioritisation policies for various marginalised communities. However, vaccine hesitancy was not explicitly considered in the design of vaccine distribution approaches. The barriers to the roll-out of vaccines included personal, organisational and contextual factors. The vaccine roll-out strategy was facilitated by establishing policies and processes for pandemic preparedness, well-established and coordinated information systems, primary care interventions, adequate supply of providers, education and training of providers, and effective communications strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Empirical evidence is lacking on the impact of a primary care-led vaccine distribution approach on vaccine hesitancy, adoption and equity. Future vaccine distribution approaches need to be informed by further research evaluating vaccine distribution approaches and their impact on patient and population outcomes.

Effect of a multimorbidity intervention on health care utilization and costs in Ontario: randomized controlled trial and propensity-matched analyses.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multimorbidity require coordinated and patient-centred care. Telemedicine IMPACT Plus provides such care for complex patients in Toronto, Ontario. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing health care utilization and costs at 1-year postintervention for an intervention group and 2 control groups (RCT and propensity matched). METHODS: Data for 82 RCT intervention and 74 RCT control participants were linked with health administrative data. We created a second control group using health administrative data-derived propensity scores to match (1:5) intervention participants with comparators. We evaluated 5 outcomes: acute hospital admissions, emergency department visits, costs of all insured health care, 30-day hospital readmissions and 7-day family physician follow-up after hospital discharge using generalized linear models for RCT controls and generalized estimating equations for propensity-matched controls. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between intervention participants and either control group. For hospital admissions, emergency department visits, costs and readmissions, the relative differences ranged from 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-2.60) to 1.67 (95% CI 0.82-3.38) with intervention costs at about Can$20 000, RCT controls costs at around Can$15 000 and propensity controls costs at around Can$17 000. There was a higher rate of follow-up with a family physician for the intervention participants compared with the RCT controls (53.13 v. 21.43 per 100 hospital discharges; relative difference 2.48 [95% CI 0.98-6.29]) and propensity-matched controls (49.94 v. 28.21 per 100 hospital discharges; relative difference 1.81 [95% CI 0.99-3.30]). INTERPRETATION: Despite a complex patient-centred intervention, there was no significant improvement in health care utilization or cost. Future research requires larger sample sizes and should include outcomes important to patients and the health care system, and longer follow-up periods. ONTARIO: ClinicalTrials.gov : 104191.

Association of physician financial incentives with primary care enrolment of adults with serious mental illnesses in Ontario: a retrospective observational population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Financial incentives may improve primary care access for adults with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder (serious mental illness [SMI]). We studied the association between receipt of the SMI financial premium paid to primary care physicians and rostering of adults with SMI in different patient enrolment models (PEMs), including enhanced fee-for-service and capitation-based models with and without interdisciplinary team-based care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving Ontario adults (≥18 yr) with SMI in PEM practices, in fiscal years 2016/17 and 2017/18. Using negative binomial models, we examined relations between rostering and the primary care model and the contribution of the incentive. Similar models were developed for adults with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus and the general population. RESULTS: Among 9730 physicians in PEM practices, 4866 (50.0%) received a premium and 448 319 (88.4%) people with SMI in PEMs were rostered. Compared with enhanced fee for service, the likelihood of rostering people with SMI was 3.0% higher for patients in capitation with team-based care (adjusted relative risk [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.04), with similar results for capitation without team-based care (adjusted RR 1.00 95% CI 0.99-1.01). Rostering for people with diabetes was similar in team-based care (adjusted RR 1.02, 95% CI 1.02-1.03) but higher in capitation without team-based care (adjusted RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.03) and slightly higher for the Ontario population (team-based care 1.04, 95% CI 1.04-1.05, capitation without team-based care 1.03, 95% CI 1.03-1.04). INTERPRETATION: Rostering of people with SMI was lower than for the general population. Additional policy measures are needed to address persisting inequities and to promote rostering of this underserved population with complex needs.

Team-based primary care reforms and older adults: a descriptive assessment of sociodemographic trends and prescribing endpoints in two Canadian provinces.

BACKGROUND: Team-based primary care reforms aim to improve care coordination by involving multiple interdisciplinary health professionals in patient care. Team-based primary care may support improved medication management for older adults with polypharmacy and multiple points of contact with the healthcare system. However, little is known about this association. This study compares sociodemographic and prescribing trends among older adults in team-based vs. traditional primary care models in Ontario and Quebec. METHODS: We constructed two provincial cohorts using population-level health administrative data from 2006-2018. Our primary exposure was enrollment in a team-based model of care. Key endpoints included adverse drug events (ADEs), potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs), and polypharmacy. We plotted prescribing trends across the observation period (stratified by model of care) in each province. We used standardized mean differences to compare characteristics of older adults and providers, as well as prescribing endpoints. RESULTS: Formal patient/physician enrollment increased in both provinces since the time of policy implementation; team-based enrollment among older adults was higher in Quebec (47%) than Ontario (33%) by the end of our observation period. The distribution of sociodemographic characteristics was reasonably comparable between team-based and non-team-based patients in both provinces, aside from a persistently higher share of rural patients in team-based care. Most PIPs assessed either declined or remained relatively steady over time, regardless of model of care and province. Several PIPs were more common among team-based patients than non-team-based patients, particularly in Quebec. We did not detect notable trends in ADEs or polypharmacy in either province. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings offer encouraging evidence that many PIPs are declining over time in this population, regardless of patients' enrollment in team-based care. Rates of decline appear similar across models of care, suggesting these models may not meaningfully influence prescribing endpoints. Additional efforts are needed to understand the impact of team-based care among older adults and improve primary care prescribing practices.

Relational Continuity, Physician Payment, and Team-Based Primary Care in the Canadian Health Care System.

PURPOSE: Continuity is a core component of primary care and known to differ by patient characteristics. It is unclear how primary care physician payment and organization are associated with continuity. METHODS: We analyzed administrative data from 7,110,036 individuals aged 16+ in Ontario, Canada who were enrolled to a physician and made at least 2 visits between October 1, 2017 and September 30, 2019. Continuity with physician and practice group was quantified using the usual provider of care index. We used log-binomial regression to assess the relationship between enrollment model and continuity adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Mean physician and group continuity were 67.3% and 73.8%, respectively, for patients enrolled in enhanced fee-for-service, 70.7% and 76.2% for nonteam capitation, and 70.6% and 78.7% for team-based capitation. These differences were attenuated in regression models for physician-level continuity and group-level continuity. Older age was the most notable factor associated with continuity. Compared with those 16 to 34, those 80 and older had 1.45 times higher continuity with their physician. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that continuity does not differ substantially by physician payment or organizational model among primary care patients who are formally enrolled with a physician in a setting with universal health insurance.

Health Care Use and System Costs Among Pediatric Refugees in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Resettled refugees land in Canada through 3 sponsorship models with similar health insurance and financial supports but differences in how resettlement is facilitated. We examined whether health system utilization, costs, and aggregate 1-year morbidity differed by resettlement model. METHODS: Population-based matched cohort study in Ontario, 2008 to 2018, including pediatric (0-17 years) resettled refugees and matched Ontario-born peers and categorized refugees by resettlement model: (1) private sponsorship (PSRs), (2) Blended Visa Office-Referred program (BVORs), and (3) government-assisted refugee (GAR). Primary outcomes were health system utilization and costs in year 1 in Canada. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test the associations between sponsorship model and major illnesses. RESULTS: We included 23 287 resettled refugees (13 360 GARs, 1544 BVORs, 8383 PSRs) and 93 148 matched Ontario-born. Primary care visits were highest among GARs and lowest in PSRs (median visits [interquartile range], GARs 4[2-6]; BVORs 3[2-5]; PSRs 3[2-5]; P <.001). Emergency department visits and hospitalizations were more common among GARs and BVORs versus PSRs (emergency department: GARs 19.2%; BVORs 23.4%; PSRs 13.8%; hospitalizations: GARs 2.5%; BVORs 3.2%; PSRs 1.1%, P <.001). Mean 1-year health system costs were highest among GARs (mean [standard deviation] $1278 [$7475]) and lowest among PSRs ($555 [$2799]; Ontario-born $851 [9226]). Compared with PSRs, GARs (adjusted odds ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.47-1.81) and BVORs (adjusted odds ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.26-1.84) were more likely to have major illnesses. CONCLUSIONS: Health care use and morbidity of PSRs suggests they are healthier and less costly than GARs and BVOR model refugees. Despite a greater intensity of health care utilization than Ontario-born, overall excess demand on the health system for all resettled refugee children is low.

Family Physicians Stopping Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Ontario, Canada.

We conducted 2 analyses using administrative data to understand whether more family physicians in Ontario, Canada stopped working during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with previous years. First, we found 3.1% of physicians working in 2019 (n = 385/12,247) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic; compared with other family physicians, a higher portion were aged 75 years or older (13.0% vs 3.4%, P <0.001), had fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs 24.9%, P <0.001), and had a panel size under 500 patients (40.0% vs 25.8%, P <0.001). Second, a fitted regression line found the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians stopping work was 0.03% per year from 2010 to 2019 (P = 0.042) but 1.2% between 2019 to 2020 (P <0.001). More research is needed to understand the impact of physicians stopping work on primary care attachment and access to care.

Accelerating Health System Transformation through Research to Achieve the Quadruple Aim and Health Equity.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research - Institute of Health Services and Policy Research's (IHSPR's) Strategic Plan 2021-2026: Accelerate Health Care System Transformation through Research to Achieve the Quadruple Aim and Health Equity for All (CIHR IHSPR 2021) outlines the Institute's key priority areas for investment and activity over the next five years. IHSPR used an evidence-informed strategic planning process that was pan-Canadian in scope and designed to elicit the health services and policy research priorities of decision makers, providers, researchers, patients, communities and the public. This paper outlines IHSPR's four key strategic priorities for supporting and optimizing research in transforming Canada's healthcare delivery systems over the next five years.

From Strategy to Implementation: Optimizing the Contribution of Health Services and Policy Research to Equitable Healthcare System Transformation.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research - Institute of Health Services and Policy Research's (IHSPR) Strategic Plan 2021-2026 (CIHR IHSPR 2021) aims to accelerate healthcare system transformation to achieve the Quadruple Aim and health equity through research. This special issue features a collection of commentaries from academic and health system leaders who were invited to respond to IHSPR's strategic plan and share insights regarding the opportunities the plan presents and areas where more attention may be needed. The present paper features a response from the IHSPR team and outlines the next steps regarding implementation. IHSPR is deeply grateful to the commentary authors for their insight, advice and recommendations, which will help to inform the implementation of the plan.

Impact of Team-Based Care on Emergency Department Use.

PURPOSE: We sought to assess the impact of team-based care on emergency department (ED) use in the context of physicians transitioning from fee-for-service payment to capitation payment in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis to assess annual ED visit rates before and after transition from an enhanced fee-for-service model to either a team capitation model or a nonteam capitation model. We included Ontario residents aged 19 years and older who had at least 3 years of outcome data both pretransition and post-transition (N = 2,524,124). We adjusted for age, sex, income quintile, immigration status, comorbidity, and morbidity, and we stratified by rurality. A sensitivity analysis compared outcomes for team vs nonteam patients matched on year of transition, age, sex, rurality, and health region. RESULTS: We compared 387,607 team and 1,399,103 nonteam patients in big cities, 213,394 team and 380,009 nonteam patients in small towns, and 65,289 team and 78,722 nonteam patients in rural areas. In big cities, after adjustment, the ED visit rate increased by 2.4% (95% CI, 2.2% to 2.6%) per year for team patients and 5.2% (95% CI, 5.1% to 5.3%) per year for nonteam patients in the years after transition (P <.001). Similarly, there was a slower increase in ED visits for team relative to nonteam patients in small towns (0.9% [95% CI, 0.7% to 1.1%] vs 2.9% [95% CI, 2.8% to 3.1%], P <.001) and rural areas (‒0.5% [95% CI, -0.8% to 0.2%] vs 1.3% [95% CI, 1.0% to 1.6%], P <.001). Results were much the same in the matched analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of team-based primary care may reduce ED use. Further research is needed to understand optimal team composition and roles.

Primary care bonus payments and patient-reported access in urban Ontario: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Rurality strongly correlates with higher pay-for-performance access bonuses, despite higher emergency department use and fewer primary care services than in urban settings. We sought to evaluate the relation between patient-reported access to primary care and access bonus payments in urban settings. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, secondary data analysis using Ontario survey and health administrative data from 2013 to 2017. We used administrative data to calculate annual access bonuses for eligible urban family physicians. We linked this payment data to adult (≥ 16 yr) patient data from the Health Care Experiences Survey to examine the relation between access bonus achievement (in quintiles of the proportion of bonus achieved, from lowest [Q1, reference category] to highest [Q5]) and 4 patient-reported access outcomes. The average survey response rate to the patient survey during the study period was 51%. We stratified urban geography into large, medium and small settings. In a multilevel regression model, we adjusted for patient-, physician- and practice-level covariates. We tested linear trends, adjusted for clustering, for each outcome. RESULTS: We linked 18 893 respondents to 3940 physicians in 414 bonus-eligible practices. Physicians in small urban settings earned the highest proportion of their maximum potential access bonuses. Access bonus achievement was positively associated with telephone access (Q2 odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.42; Q3 OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10-1.63; Q4 OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.19-1.79; Q5 OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.50-2.33), after hours access (Q2 OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09-1.47; Q3 OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.23-1.74; Q4 OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.46-2.15; Q5 OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.52-2.32), wait time for care (Q2 OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85-1.20; Q3 OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.41; Q4 OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.55; Q5 OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.32-2.00) and timeliness (Q2 OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.98-1.69; Q3 OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.94-1.77; Q4 OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.16-2.13; Q5 OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.38-2.82). When stratified by geography, we observed several of these associations in large urban settings, but not in small urban settings. Trend tests were statistically significant for all 4 outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Although the access bonus correlated with access in larger urban settings, it did not in smaller settings, aligning with previous research questioning its utility in smaller geographies. The access bonus may benefit from a redesign that considers geography and patient experience.

Inequities in access to primary care among opioid recipients in Ontario, Canada: A population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Stigma and high-care needs can present barriers to the provision of high-quality primary care for people with opioid use disorder (OUD) and those prescribed opioids for chronic pain. We explored the likelihood of securing a new primary care provider (PCP) among people with varying histories of opioid use who had recently lost access to their PCP. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data among residents of Ontario, Canada whose enrolment with a physician practicing in a primary care enrolment model (PEM) was terminated between January 2016 and December 2017. We assigned individuals to 3 groups based upon their opioid use on the date enrolment ended: long-term opioid pain therapy (OPT), opioid agonist therapy (OAT), or no opioid. We fit multivariable models assessing the primary outcome of primary care reattachment within 1 year, adjusting for demographic characteristics, clinical comorbidities, and health services utilization. Secondary outcomes included rates of emergency department (ED) visits and opioid toxicity events. Among 154,970 Ontarians who lost their PCP, 1,727 (1.1%) were OAT recipients, 3,644 (2.4%) were receiving long-term OPT, and 149,599 (96.5%) had no recent prescription opioid exposure. In general, OAT recipients were younger (median age 36) than those receiving long-term OPT (59 years) and those with no recent prescription opioid exposure (44 years). In all exposure groups, the majority of individuals had their enrolment terminated by their physician (range 78.1% to 88.8%). In the primary analysis, as compared to those not receiving opioids, OAT recipients were significantly less likely to find a PCP within 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50 to 0.61, p < 0.0001). We observed no significant difference between long-term OPT and opioid unexposed individuals (aHR 0.96; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01, p = 0.12). In our secondary analysis comparing the period of PCP loss to the year prior, we found that rates of ED visits were elevated among people not receiving opioids (adjusted rate ratio (aRR) 1.20, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.22, p < 0.0001) and people receiving long-term OPT (aRR 1.37, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.48, p < 0.0001). We found no such increase among OAT recipients, and no significant increase in opioid toxicity events in the period following provider loss for any exposure group. The main limitation of our findings relates to their generalizability outside of PEMs and in jurisdictions with different financial incentives incorporated into primary care provision. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed gaps in access to primary care among people who receive prescription opioids, particularly among OAT recipients. Ongoing efforts are needed to address the stigma, discrimination, and financial disincentives that may introduce barriers to the healthcare system, and to facilitate access to high-quality, consistent primary care services for chronic pain patients and those with OUD.

Delisted routine eye examinations for nonrefractive eye conditions: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2004, Ontario delisted routine eye examinations for people aged 20-64 years, potentially encouraging patients seeking eye care to visit government-insured primary care providers (PCPs) rather than optometrists whose services had been deinsured. We investigated if utilization of PCP services for nonrefractive eye conditions increased after 2004 among Ontarians who were affected by the delisting. METHODS: We conducted a comparative analysis of the utilization of PCP services for nonrefractive eye conditions in Ontario using administrative data from 2000 to 2014. We included participants without a visit to government-insured optometrists or ophthalmologists in the year before the study year; we excluded participants with existing diabetes. Changes in utilization before and after delisting were statistically assessed using segmented regression analysis in subgroups stratified by age, sex, rurality and neighbourhood income. RESULTS: A significant increase in utilization of PCP services for nonrefractive ocular diagnoses after 2004 was documented among people affected by the delisting: 17.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.0% to 18.7%) for people aged 20-39 years and 11.6% (95% CI 10.6% to 12.5%) for people aged 40-64 years. This corresponds to an increase in the number of patients who visited PCPs for nonrefractive ocular diagnoses of 10 690 (95% CI 321 to 21 059) for people aged 20-39 years and 20 682 (95% CI -94 to 41 457) for people aged 40-64 years. Among people aged 65 years and older (an age group not affected by the delisting), utilization of PCP services for nonrefractive ocular diagnoses was stable (p = 0.95) throughout the study period. Changes in utilization of PCP services for nonocular diagnoses were nonsignificant among people aged 0-19, 40-64 and 65 years and older. INTERPRETATION: After delisting, utilization of the services of government-funded PCPs for nonrefractive ocular diagnoses significantly increased among Ontarians affected by the delisting. The impact on ocular outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of increased use of PCPs for ocular management warrants further investigation and policy-makers' consideration.

Primary care reform and funding equity for mental health disorders in Ontario: a retrospective observational population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders are associated with high morbidity and reduced life expectancy, and are largely managed in primary care. We sought to assess the equity of distribution of new alternative payment models and teams introduced under primary care reform in Ontario for patients with mental health disorders. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study using population-level administrative data for insured Ontario adults (age ≥ 18 yr) to identify all primary care payments to physicians that were allocated to individual patients in 2002/03 and 2011/12. We identified patients with mental health disorders using validated algorithms, and modelled the relations between per capita primary care costs and mental health disorders over time, stratified by type of mental health or substance use disorder and type of primary care payment. In an adjusted model, we adjusted for age, sex, rurality, neighbourhood income quintile, immigrant status, comorbidity and primary care model. For comparative purposes, we also examined the distribution of primary care payments for people with diabetes mellitus. RESULTS: Total per capita primary care payments increased more slowly over the study period for patients with mental health disorders (62.0%) than for the general population (88.3%). Total payments for patients with substance use disorders increased by 142.7%, largely owing to urine drug testing in opioid substitution clinics. Adjusted total payments for those with versus without mental health disorders decreased by 10% between 2002/03 and 2011/12, driven by lower alternative payments. Similar decreases, also driven by lower alternative payments, were found for all mental health disorder subgroups except substance use and for diabetes. INTERPRETATION: Payment and team reforms were associated with inequitable resource allocation to people with mental health disorders. The findings suggest the need for monitoring reforms for their impact on high-needs populations and making appropriate adjustments.

Association of physician payment model and team-based care with timely access in primary care: a population-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how patient-reported access to primary care differs by physician payment model and participation in team-based care. We examined the association between timely and after-hours access to primary care and physician payment model and participation in team-based care, and sought to assess how access varied by patient characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adult (age ≥ 16 yr) Ontarians who responded to the Ontario Health Care Experience Survey between January 2013 and September 2015, reported having a primary care provider and agreed to have their responses linked to health administrative data. Access measures included the proportion of respondents who reported same-day or next-day access when sick, satisfaction with time to appointment when sick, telephone access and knowledge of an after-hours clinic. We tested the association between practice model and measures of access using logistic regression after stratifying for rurality. RESULTS: A total of 33 665 respondents met our inclusion criteria. In big cities, respondents in team and nonteam capitation models were less likely to report same-day or next-day access when sick than respondents in enhanced fee-for-service models (team capitation 43%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.98; nonteam capitation 39%, adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70-0.87; enhanced fee-for-service 46% [reference]). Respondents in team and nonteam capitation models were more likely than those in enhanced fee-for-service models to report that their provider had an after-hours clinic (team capitation 59%, adjusted OR 2.59, 95% CI 2.39-2.81; nonteam capitation 51%, adjusted OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.76-2.04; enhanced fee-for service 34% [reference]). Patterns were similar for respondents in small towns. There was minimal to no difference by model for satisfaction with time to appointment or telephone access. INTERPRETATION: In our setting, there was an association between some types of access to primary care and physician payment model and team-based care, but the direction was not consistent. Different measures of timely access are needed to understand health care system performance.

Do Incentive Payments Reward The Wrong Providers? A Study Of Primary Care Reform In Ontario, Canada.

Primary care payment reform in the US and elsewhere usually involves capitation, often combined with bonuses and incentives. In capitation systems, providing care within the practice group is needed to contain costs and ensure continuity of care, yet this is challenging in settings that allow patient choice in access to services. We used linked population-based administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, to examine a substantial payment called the "access bonus" designed to incentivize primary care access and to minimize primary care visits outside of capitation practices. We found that the access bonus flowed disproportionately to physicians outside large cities and to those whose patients made fewer primary care visits, received less after-hours care, made more emergency department visits, and had higher adjusted ambulatory costs. Our findings indicate a lack of alignment between these payments and their intended purpose. Financial incentives should be prospectively evaluated and frequently revisited to ensure relevance, alignment with system goals, efficiency, and equity.