Increased Organizational Stress in Primary Care: Understanding the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Medicaid Expansion, and Practice Ownership.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is the foundation of health care, resulting in longer lives and improved equity. Primary care was the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic public response and essential for access to care. Yet primary care faces substantial structural and systemic challenges. As part of a longitudinal analysis to track the capacity and health of primary care, we surveyed every primary care practice in Virginia in 2018 and again in 2022. METHODS: Surveys were emailed or mailed up to 6 times and nonresponders received a phone call. Questions assessed organizational characteristics, scope of care, capacity, and organizational stress in the prior year. From respondents, 39 clinicians, nurses, staff, administrators, and practice managers were interviewed. RESULTS: 526 out of 2296 primary care practices (23% response rate) completed the survey, with broad representation across geography, ownership, and payer mix. Compared with 2018, in 2022 there were increases in practices owned by health systems (25% vs 43%, P < .0001) and average percent of patients with Medicaid per practice (12% vs 22%, P < .0001). The percent of practices reporting any major stressor increased from 34% to 53% (P < .0001). The main increased stress was losing a clinician, with 13% of practices in 2018 versus 42% in 2022 reporting losing a clinician (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices are resilient and continue to serve their communities, including a broad scope of services and care for underserved people. However, the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant stress. With an increase in clinicians leaving clinical practice, we anticipate worsening access to primary care.

Reallocating Cervical Cancer Preventive Service Spending from Low- to High-Value Clinical Scenarios.

Timely follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test result is critical to the prevention and early diagnosis of cervical cancer. The current inadequate and inequitable delivery of these potentially life-saving services is attributed to several factors, including patient out-of-pocket costs. Waiving of consumer cost-sharing for follow-up testing (e.g., colposcopy and related cervical services) is likely to improve access and uptake, especially among underserved populations. One approach to defray the incremental costs of providing more generous coverage for follow-up testing is reducing expenditures on "low-value" cervical cancer screening services. To explore the potential fiscal implications of a policy that redirects cervical cancer screening resources from potentially low- to high-value clinical scenarios, we analyzed 2019 claims from the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database to quantify (i) total spending on low-value cervical cancer screening and (ii) out-of-pocket costs associated with colposcopy and related cervical services among commercially insured Virginians. In a cohort of 1,806,921 female patients (ages 48.1 ± 24.8 years), 295,193 claims for cervical cancer screening were reported, 100,567 (34.0%) of which were determined to be low-value ($4,394,361 total; $4,172,777 for payers and $221,584 out-of-pocket [$2/patient]). Claims for 52,369 colposcopy and related cervical services were reported ($40,994,016 total; $33,457,518 for payers and $7,536,498 out-of-pocket [$144/patient]). These findings suggest that reallocating savings incurred from unnecessary spending to fund more generous coverage of necessary follow-up care is a feasible approach to enhancing cervical cancer prevention equity and outcomes. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Out-of-pocket fees are a barrier to follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test. Among commercially insured Virginians, out-of-pocket costs for follow-up services averaged $144/patient; 34% of cervical cancer screenings were classified as low value. Reallocating low-value cervical cancer screening expenditures to enhance coverage for follow-up care can improve screening outcomes. See related Spotlight, p. 363.

Using State All-Payer Claims Data to Identify the Active Primary Care Workforce: A Novel Study in Virginia.

PURPOSE: Primary care is the foundation of the health care workforce and the only part that extends life and improves health equity. Previous research on the geographic and specialty distribution of physicians has relied on the American Medical Association's Masterfile, but these data have limitations that overestimate the workforce. METHODS: We present a pragmatic, systematic, and more accurate method for identifying primary care physicians using the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD). Between 2015 and 2019, we identified all Virginia physicians and their specialty through the NPPES. Active physicians were defined by at least 1 claim in the VA-APCD. Specialty was determined hierarchically by the NPPES. Wellness visits were used to identify non-family medicine physicians who were providing primary care. RESULTS: In 2019, there were 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, of whom 5,899 (28.1%) were classified as providing primary care. Of this primary care physician workforce, 52.4% were family medicine physicians; the remaining were internal medicine physicians (18.5%), pediatricians (16.8%), obstetricians and gynecologists (11.8%), and other specialists (0.5%). Over 5 years, the counts and relative percentages of the workforce made up by primary care physicians remained relatively stable. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel method of identifying active physicians with a primary care scope provides a realistic size of the primary care workforce in Virginia, smaller than some previous estimates. Although the method should be expanded to include advanced practice clinicians and to further delineate the scope of practice, this simple approach can be used by policy makers, payers, and planners to ensure adequate primary care capacity.

Primary Care: A Critical Stopgap of Mental Health Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a worsening mental health crisis, while also dramatically reducing access to in-person primary care services. Primary care, an essential provider of mental health services, rapidly adopted telemedicine to address behavioral health needs. Here we examine the provision of mental health services by primary care during the pandemic, including the essential use of telemedicine. METHODS: Data were collected via a series of national, cross-sectional surveys of primary care clinicians in November 2020 by the Larry A. Green Center. The survey was distributed through a network of partner organizations and subscribers. Descriptive and chi squared analysis were utilized. RESULTS: Among 1,472 respondents, 88% reported increased mental health needs and 37% reported higher rates of substance use among patients. Most (65%) clinicians became more involved in providing mental health support, and 64% reported using telemedicine to provide behavioral health services. Phone-based care was more common for care delivery among patients who were uninsured (60% vs 42%, P < .01), Medicare beneficiaries (45% vs 36%, P < .05), non-English speaking (67% vs 40%, P < .001), and racial and ethnic minorities (58% vs 34%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care is a leading provider of mental health services and has played a critical role during the pandemic. Primary care clinicians have strong relationships with their patients as well as outreach within communities that may otherwise struggle to access mental health services. The use of telemedicine in primary care, and specifically phone-based services, has been an essential tool to providing equitable access to mental health services.

Health Equity: The Only Path Forward for Primary Care.

The 2021 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report on Implementing High-Quality Primary Care identifies 5 high-level objectives regarding payment, access, workforce development, information technology, and implementation. Nine junior primary care leaders (3 internal medicine, 3 family medicine, 3 pediatrics) invited from broad geographies, practice settings, and academic backgrounds used appreciative inquiry to identify priorities for the future of primary care. Highlighting the voices of these early career clinicians, we propose a response to the report from the perspective of early career primary care physicians. Health equity must be the foundation of the future of primary care. Because Barbara Starfield's original 4 Cs (first contact, coordination, comprehensiveness, and continuity) may not be inclusive of the needs of under-resourced communities, we promote an extension to include 5 additional Cs: convenience, cultural humility, structural competency, community engagement, and collaboration. We support the NASEM report's priorities and its focus on achieving health equity. We recommend investing in local communities and preparatory programs to stimulate diverse individuals to serve in health care. Finally, we support a blended value-based care model with risk adjustment for the social complexity of our patients.Appeared as Annals "Online First" article.

Stakeholder input on a care planning tool to address unhealthy behaviors, mental health needs, and social risks: The value of different stakeholder perspectives.

This report describes how stakeholder groups informed a web-based care planning tool's development for addressing root causes of poor health. Stakeholders included community members (n = 6), researchers (n = 6), community care providers (n = 9), and patients (n = 17). Feedback was solicited through focus groups, semi-structured interviews, and user experience observations and then qualitatively analyzed to identify themes. Each group contributed a unique perspective. Researchers wanted evidence-based content; community members and providers focused on making goals manageable; patients wanted care team support and simple action-oriented language. Our findings highlight the benefits of stakeholder input. Blending perspectives from multiple groups results in a more robust intervention design.

Practice facilitation to promote evidence-based screening and management of unhealthy alcohol use in primary care: a practice-level randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Unhealthy alcohol use is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Evidence demonstrates that screening for unhealthy alcohol use and providing persons engaged in risky drinking with brief behavioral and counseling interventions improves health outcomes, collectively termed screening and brief interventions. Medication assisted therapy (MAT) is another effective method for treatment of moderate or severe alcohol use disorder. Yet, primary care clinicians are not regularly screening for or treating unhealthy alcohol use. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are initiating a clinic-level randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate how primary care clinicians can impact unhealthy alcohol use through screening, counseling, and MAT. One hundred and 25 primary care practices in the Virginia Ambulatory Care Outcomes Research Network (ACORN) will be engaged; each will receive practice facilitation to promote screening, counseling, and MAT either at the beginning of the trial or at a 6-month control period start date. For each practice, the intervention includes provision of a practice facilitator, learning collaboratives with three practice champions, and clinic-wide information sessions. Clinics will be enrolled for 6-12 months. After completion of the intervention, we will conduct a mixed methods analysis to identify changes in screening rates, increase in provision of brief counseling and interventions as well as MAT, and the reduction of alcohol intake for patients after practices receive practice facilitation. DISCUSSION: This study offers a systematic process for dissemination and implementation of the evidence-based practice of screening, counseling, and treatment for unhealthy alcohol use. Practices will be asked to implement a process for screening, counseling, and treatment based on their practice characteristics, patient population, and workflow. We propose practice facilitation as a robust and feasible intervention to assist in making changes within the practice. We believe that the process can be replicated and used in a broad range of clinical settings; we anticipate this will be supported by our evaluation of this approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04248023, Registered 5 February 2020.

Payment Structures That Support Social Care Integration With Clinical Care: Social Deprivation Indices and Novel Payment Models.

The U.S. lags behind other developed countries in the use of indices and novel reimbursement models to adjust for social determinants of health (SDH) in medicine. This may be due in part to the inadequate body of research regarding outcomes after implementation of healthcare payments designed to address SDH. This perspective article focuses on four models employed both internationally and domestically to outline the implementation, successes, limitations, and research needed to support national application of SDH models. A brief history of prior models is introduced as a primer to the current U.S. system. Internationally, the United Kingdom and New Zealand employ small area indices to adjust healthcare dollar allocation based on increased social need in an area. Despite published evidence of disparate health outcomes based on SDH, research is limited on the association of SDH indices, subsequent increased reimbursement, and improved healthcare equity. In the U.S., the Massachusetts Managed Care Organization assesses and addresses social needs within communities served by Medicaid. Unsurprisingly, there is evidence of overlap between those with worse health outcomes and those with high social need. However, implementation in Massachusetts is too recent to demonstrate reduced healthcare disparities. Within Minnesota, Hennepin Healthcare System initiated a novel Medicaid waiver that provides extended services to high-need patients under a partial capitation reimbursement program. These services, including increased access to primary care, have promising results in financial improvement of the system, but have not yet demonstrated patient-oriented outcomes. The association between high social risk and poor medical outcomes has been established globally; however, healthcare payment policies designed to respond to this relationship generally lack evidence of affecting outcomes. U.S. policymakers are demonstrating increasing interest in requiring capture of SDH in health care, creating accountability for addressing SDH, paying differentially for patients with increased social risk, or all three. In countries with a legacy of adjusting healthcare payments for social risk, more robust evaluation of associated effects could be helpful. Payers, states, or health systems making similar resource commitments should build in robust longitudinal evaluations of outcomes to inform evolution of their payment policies. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.