The Gender Wage Gap Among Early-Career Family Physicians.

PURPOSE: Numerous studies have documented salary differences between male and female physicians. For many specialties, this wage gap has been explored by controlling for measurable factors that influence pay such as productivity, work-life balance, and practice patterns. In family medicine where practice activities differ widely between physicians, it is important to understand what measurable factors may be contributing to the gender wage gap, so that employers and policymakers and can address unjust disparities. METHODS: We used data from the 2017 to 2020 American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) National Graduate Survey (NGS) which is administered to family physicians 3 years after residency (n = 8608; response rate = 63.9%, 56.2% female). The survey collects clinical income and practice patterns. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed, which included variables on hours worked, degree type, principal professional activity, rural/urban, and region. RESULTS: Although early-career family physician incomes averaged $225,278, female respondents reported incomes that were $43,566 (17%) lower than those of male respondents (P = .001). Generally, female respondents tended toward lower-earning principal professional activities and US regions; worked fewer hours (2.9 per week); and tended to work more frequently in urban settings. However, in adjusted models, this gap in income only fell to $31,804 (13% lower than male respondents, P = .001). CONCLUSION: Even after controlling for measurable factors such as hours worked, degree type, principal professional activity, population density, and region, a significant wage gap persists. Interventions should be taken to eliminate gender bias in wage determinations for family physicians.

Measuring Primary Care Spending in the US by State.

This case series identifies states' estimates of primary care spending and recommends steps policymakers can take toward standardizing these estimates.

Racial Inequities in Female Family Physicians Providing Women's Health Procedures.

Patient-physician race concordant dyads have been shown to improve patient outcomes; the race and ethnicity of family physicians providing women's health procedures has not been described. Using self-reported data, this analysis highlights the racial disparities in scope of practice; underrepresented in medicine (URiM) females are less likely to perform women's health procedures which may lead to disparities in care received by minority women.

Racial/Ethnic Minority Identifying Family Physicians Are More Likely to Work in Solo Practices.

While the overall proportion of family physicians who work in solo practices has been steadily declining, Black, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian family physicians are more likely to work in these settings. Given their association with high levels of continuity and improved health outcomes, and given patient preference for racial concordance with their physicians, policy makers and payors should consider how to support family physicians in solo practice in the interest of promoting access to and quality of care for ethnic/racial minorities.

Female Family Physicians Are More Racially Diverse Than Their Male Counterparts in Federal Sites.

Supporting a diverse family physician workforce is an integral component of achieving health equity. This study compared the racial/ethnic composition of Federal family physicians (Military, Veterans Administration/Department of Defense) to the entire cohort of family physicians and stratified by gender. Female family physicians serving at Federal sites were more diverse than the overall population of female family physicians and, also than their male Federal counterparts. This gendered trend among Federal physicians needs further exploration.

Comparison of Quality Performance Measures for Patients Receiving In-Person vs Telemedicine Primary Care in a Large Integrated Health System.

Importance: Despite its rapid adoption during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is unknown how telemedicine augmentation of in-person office visits has affected quality of patient care. Objective: To examine whether quality of care among patients exposed to telemedicine differs from patients with only in-person office-based care. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study, standardized quality measures were compared between patients with office-only (in-person) visits vs telemedicine visits from March 1, 2020, to November 30, 2021, across more than 200 outpatient care sites in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Exposures: Patients completing telemedicine (video) visits. Main Outcomes and Measures: χ2 tests determined statistically significant differences in Health Care Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality performance measures between office-only and telemedicine-exposed groups. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities. Results: The study included 526 874 patients (409 732 office-only; 117 142 telemedicine exposed) with a comparable distribution of sex (196 285 [49.7%] and 74 878 [63.9%] women), predominance of non-Hispanic (348 127 [85.0%] and 105 408 [90.0%]) and White individuals (334 215 [81.6%] and 100 586 [85.9%]), aged 18 to 65 years (239 938 [58.6%] and 91 100 [77.8%]), with low overall health risk scores (373 176 [91.1%] and 100 076 [85.4%]) and commercial (227 259 [55.5%] and 81 552 [69.6%]) or Medicare or Medicaid (176 671 [43.1%] and 52 513 [44.8%]) insurance. For medication-based measures, patients with office-only visits had better performance, but only 3 of 5 measures had significant differences: patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) receiving antiplatelets (absolute percentage difference [APD], 6.71%; 95% CI, 5.45%-7.98%; P < .001), patients with CVD receiving statins (APD, 1.79%; 95% CI, 0.88%-2.71%; P = .001), and avoiding antibiotics for patients with upper respiratory infections (APD, 2.05%; 95% CI, 1.17%-2.96%; P < .001); there were insignificant differences for patients with heart failure receiving ß-blockers and those with diabetes receiving statins. For all 4 testing-based measures, patients with telemedicine exposure had significantly better performance differences: patients with CVD with lipid panels (APD, 7.04%; 95% CI, 5.95%-8.10%; P < .001), patients with diabetes with hemoglobin A1c testing (APD, 5.14%; 95% CI, 4.25%-6.01%; P < .001), patients with diabetes with nephropathy testing (APD, 9.28%; 95% CI, 8.22%-10.32%; P < .001), and blood pressure control (APD, 3.55%; 95% CI, 3.25%-3.85%; P < .001); this was also true for all 7 counseling-based measures: cervical cancer screening (APD, 12.33%; 95% CI, 11.80%-12.85%; P < .001), breast cancer screening (APD, 16.90%; 95% CI, 16.07%-17.71%; P < .001), colon cancer screening (APD, 8.20%; 95% CI, 7.65%-8.75%; P < .001), tobacco counseling and intervention (APD, 12.67%; 95% CI, 11.84%-13.50%; P < .001), influenza vaccination (APD, 9.76%; 95% CI, 9.47%-10.05%; P < .001), pneumococcal vaccination (APD, 5.41%; 95% CI, 4.85%-6.00%; P < .001), and depression screening (APD, 4.85%; 95% CI, 4.66%-5.04%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with telemedicine exposure, there was a largely favorable association with quality of primary care. This supports telemedicine's value potential for augmenting care capacity, especially in chronic disease management and preventive care. This study also identifies a need for understanding relationships between the optimal blend of telemedicine and in-office care.

Underrepresented Minority Family Physicians More Likely to Care for Vulnerable Populations.

Using data from 2016 to 2020, we found that family physicians who identify as underrepresented minorities in medicine were more likely to have a larger percentage of vulnerable patients in their panels. Increasing access to care for vulnerable patient populations will require a combination of advocating for policies to diversify the physician pipeline and those that encourage all primary care physicians to care for vulnerable patients.

Primary Care: The Actual Intelligence Required for Artificial Intelligence to Advance Health Care and Improve Health.

With conversational agents triaging symptoms, cameras aiding diagnoses, and remote sensors monitoring vital signs, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) outside of hospitals has the potential to improve health, according to a recently released report from the National Academy of Medicine. Despite this promise, the success of AI is not guaranteed, and stakeholders need to be involved with its development to ensure that the resulting tools can be easily used by clinicians, protect patient privacy, and enhance the value of the care delivered. A crucial stakeholder group missing from the conversation is primary care. As the nation's largest delivery platform, primary care will have a powerful impact on whether AI is adopted and subsequently exacerbates health disparities. To leverage these benefits, primary care needs to serve as a medical home for AI, broaden its teams and training, and build on government initiatives and funding.

Digital Health Interventions to Enhance Prevention in Primary Care: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Disease prevention is a central aspect of primary care practice and is comprised of primary (eg, vaccinations), secondary (eg, screenings), tertiary (eg, chronic condition monitoring), and quaternary (eg, prevention of overmedicalization) levels. Despite rapid digital transformation of primary care practices, digital health interventions (DHIs) in preventive care have yet to be systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify and describe the scope and use of current DHIs for preventive care in primary care settings. METHODS: A scoping review to identify literature published from 2014 to 2020 was conducted across multiple databases using keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms covering primary care professionals, prevention and care management, and digital health. A subgroup analysis identified relevant studies conducted in US primary care settings, excluding DHIs that use the electronic health record (EHR) as a retrospective data capture tool. Technology descriptions, outcomes (eg, health care performance and implementation science), and study quality as per Oxford levels of evidence were abstracted. RESULTS: The search yielded 5274 citations, of which 1060 full-text articles were identified. Following a subgroup analysis, 241 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily examined DHIs among health information technologies, including EHRs (166/241, 68.9%), clinical decision support (88/241, 36.5%), telehealth (88/241, 36.5%), and multiple technologies (154/241, 63.9%). DHIs were predominantly used for tertiary prevention (131/241, 54.4%). Of the core primary care functions, comprehensiveness was addressed most frequently (213/241, 88.4%). DHI users were providers (205/241, 85.1%), patients (111/241, 46.1%), or multiple types (89/241, 36.9%). Reported outcomes were primarily clinical (179/241, 70.1%), and statistically significant improvements were common (192/241, 79.7%). Results were summarized across the following 5 topics for the most novel/distinct DHIs: population-centered, patient-centered, care access expansion, panel-centered (dashboarding), and application-driven DHIs. The quality of the included studies was moderate to low. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive DHIs in primary care settings demonstrated meaningful improvements in both clinical and nonclinical outcomes, and across user types; however, adoption and implementation in the US were limited primarily to EHR platforms, and users were mainly clinicians receiving alerts regarding care management for their patients. Evaluations of negative results, effects on health disparities, and many other gaps remain to be explored.

Measuring State-Level Racial Inequity in Severe Maternal Morbidity in the Medicaid Population.

OBJECTIVE: Severe maternal morbidity represents a "near miss" mortality and is an important measure of quality and safety. Racial inequity in maternal morbidity is stark and the reasons for this disparity are poorly understood. We aimed to identify states achieving racial equity in maternal morbidity in order to identify policies that may promote racial equity. METHODS: We analyzed Medicaid deliveries from 2008 to 2009 in a sample that included 28 states and the District of Columbia. This dataset included approximately 80% of all Medicaid enrollees and 90% of minority Medicaid enrollees in the US. We determined the Non-Hispanic Black/Non-Hispanic white SMMI rate ratio for each state and categorized the states into groups by rate ratio. We described demographic features of both the general population and study population for these groups of states. RESULTS: In a sample that included a total of 1,489,134 births, we found that no state/district is achieving equity in severe maternal morbidity. The severe maternal morbidity rate is higher for Non-Hispanic Black than Non-Hispanic white patients in every state included. With a rate ratio ranging from 1.14 to 2.66, there are varying degrees of inequity. States in the group with the most equitable maternal morbidity rates had less inequity across racial subgroups with respect to educational attainment and poverty. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying geographic areas with varying degrees of inequity may be key to identifying policies to promote equity. Socioecological disparities and inadequate access to care may be factors in racial inequity in maternal morbidity.

Patient-Physician Racial Concordance Associated with Improved Healthcare Use and Lower Healthcare Expenditures in Minority Populations.

BACKGROUND: Racial concordance between patients and clinician has been linked to improved satisfaction and patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: (1) To examine the likelihood of clinician-patient racial concordance in non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients and (2) to evaluate the impact of patient-clinician race concordance on healthcare use and expenditures within each racial ethnic group. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2010-2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). We used bivariate and multivariate models to assess the association between patient-clinician race concordance and emergency department (ED) use, hospitalizations, and total healthcare expenses, controlling for patient socio-demographic factors, insurance coverage, health status, and survey year fixed effects. RESULTS: Of the 50,626 adults in the analysis sample, 32,350 had racial concordance with their clinician. Among Asian and Hispanic patients, low income, less education, and non-private insurance were associated with an increased likelihood of patient-clinician racial concordance. Emergency department use was lower among Whites and Hispanics with concordant clinicians compared to those without a discordant clinician (15.6% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.02 and 12.9% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.01 respectively). Total healthcare expenditures were lower among Black, Asian, and Hispanic patients with race-concordant clinicians than those with discordant clinicians (14%, 34%, and 20%, p < 0.001 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These results add to the body of evidence supporting the hypothesis that racial concordance contributes to a more effective therapeutic relationship and improved healthcare. These results emphasize the need for medical education surrounding cultural humility and the importance of diversifying the healthcare workforce.

Assessing Primary Care Contributions to Behavioral Health: A Cross-sectional Study Using Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To assess primary care contributions to behavioral health in addressing unmet mental healthcare needs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of 2016 to 2018 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey of non-institutionalized US adults. We performed bivariate analysis to estimate the number and percentage of office-based visits and prescription medications for depression and anxiety disorders, any mental illness (AMI), and severe mental illness (AMI) by physician specialty (primary care, psychiatry, and subspecialty) and medical complexity. We ran summary statistics to compare the differences in sociodemographic factors between patients with AMI by seeing a primary care physician versus those seeing a psychiatrist. Binary logistic regression models were estimated to examine the likelihood of having a primary care visit versus psychiatrist visit for a given mental illness. RESULTS: There were 394 023 office-based visits in the analysis sample. AMI patients seeing primary care physician were thrice as likely to report 1 or more chronic conditions compared to those seeing psychiatrist. Among patients with a diagnosis of depression or anxiety and AMI the proportion of primary care visits ([38% vs 32%, P < .001], [39% vs 34%, P < .001] respectively), and prescriptions ([50% vs 40%, P < .001], [47% vs 44%, P < .05] respectively) were higher compared to those for psychiatric care. Patients diagnosed with SMI had a more significant percentage of prescriptions and visits to a psychiatrist than primary care physicians. CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians provided most of the care for depression, anxiety, and AMI. Almost a third of the care for SMI and a quarter of the SMI prescriptions occurred in primary care settings. Our study underscores the importance of supporting access to primary care given primary care physicians' critical role in combating the COVID-19 related rise in mental health burden.

COVID-19's Financial Impact on Primary Care Clinicians and Practices.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted and undermined primary care delivery. The goal of this study was to examine the financial impacts the pandemic has had on primary care clinicians and practices. METHODS: The American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network and the Robert Graham Center distributed weekly surveys from March 27, 2020, through June 15, 2020, to a network of more than 1960 physicians. Responses to the question, "Could you please tell us about any financial impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on your practice, if any?" were analyzed using a grounded theory approach of qualitative analysis. The number of unique respondents who answered the financial impact question totaled 461 over the 12 weeks. RESULTS: Severe declines in patient visits, causing drastic revenue reductions, greatly impacted the ability to serve patients. Primary care clinicians and practices experienced significant changes in several areas about financial implications: patient visits, financial strain, staffing and telehealth. DISCUSSION: Preliminary findings revealed that even with Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as CARES Act, funding, business viability remains questionable for some primary care practices. CONCLUSIONS: Low patient visits directly resulted in decreased revenues, which in turn, impacted staffing decisions and fueled telehealth implementation. It is difficult to predict whether patient visits will increase after June. Alternate payment models could provide some financial stability and address business viability.

Primary Care's Historic Role in Vaccination and Potential Role in COVID-19 Immunization Programs.

PURPOSE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic recovery will require a broad and coordinated effort for infection testing, immunity determination, and vaccination. With the advent of several COVID-19 vaccines, the dissemination and delivery of COVID-19 immunization across the nation is of concern. Previous immunization delivery patterns may reveal important components of a comprehensive and sustainable effort to immunize everyone in the nation. METHODS: The delivery of vaccinations were enumerated by provider type using 2017 Medicare Part B Fee-For-Service data and the 2013-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The delivery of these services was examined at the service, physician, and visit level. RESULTS: In 2017 Medicare Part B Fee-For-Service, primary care physicians provided the largest share of services for vaccinations (46%), followed closely by mass immunizers (45%), then nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NP/PAs) (5%). The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey showed that primary care physicians provided most clinical visits for vaccination (54% of all visits). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians have played a crucial role in delivery of vaccinations to the US population, including the elderly, between 2012-2017. These findings indicate primary care practices may be a crucial element of vaccine counseling and delivery in the upcoming COVID-19 recovery and immunization efforts in the United States.

Capacity of Primary Care to Deliver Telehealth in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Because of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) pandemic, many primary care practices have transitioned to telehealth visits to keep patients at home and decrease the transmission of the disease. Yet, little is known about the nationwide capacity for delivering primary care services via telehealth. METHODS: Using the 2016 National Ambulatory Medical Survey we estimated the number and proportion of reported visits and services that could be provided via telehealth. We also performed cross-tabulations to calculate the number and proportion of physicians providing telephone visits and e-mail/internet encounters. RESULTS: Of the total visits (nearly 400 million) to primary care physicians, 42% were amenable to telehealth and 73% of the total services rendered could be delivered through telehealth modalities. Of the primary care physicians, 44% provided telephone consults and 19% provided e-consults. DISCUSSION: This study underscores how and where primary care services could be delivered. It provides the first estimates of the capacity of primary care to provide telehealth services for COVID-19 related illness, and for several other acute and chronic medical conditions. It also highlights the fact that, as of 2016, most outpatient telehealth visits were done via telephone. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an estimate of the primary care capacity to deliver telehealth and can guide practices and payers as care delivery models change in a post-COVID 19 environment.

Gender Concordance of First and Senior Authors in Family Medicine Journals.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Women have increased in presence within academic family medicine over time yet remain underrepresented among senior faculty. Mentorship is a mechanism by which senior faculty support scholarly achievements, accelerating advancement of junior faculty. METHODS: We analyzed 10 years (2008-2017) of original research articles in three peer-reviewed family medicine journals. We examined first author/last author pairs by gender as a proxy for mentorship of junior faculty by senior faculty. We compiled family medicine faculty data across 9 years to compare trends in scholarly mentorship with faculty advancement. RESULTS: Female last authorship increased from 28.8% (55/191) of original research articles with a first and last author in 2008 to 41.8% (94/225) in 2017. The share of female first authors on articles with a female last author was 56.4% in 2008 and 2017. The share of female first authors on articles with a male last author increased from 41.2% (56/136) to 55.7% (73/131) between 2008 and 2017. From 2009-2017, the proportion of women increased for assistant, associate, and full professor roles, but remained under 50% for the associate professor role and at 35% for professorship in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Despite disproportionate rates of last authorship and senior faculty positions in family medicine departments, senior female authors have equal if not greater rates of mentorship of female first authors in family medicine literature. The increase in first authorship, last authorship, and faculty position indicates that improvements have occurred in gender advancement over the study period, but gains are still needed to improve gender equity within the field.