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.

An analysis of the resource use and costs of febrile neutropenia events in pediatric cancer patients in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer generally requires in-hospital care, but low-risk patients may be successfully managed in an outpatient setting, potentially reducing the overall healthcare costs. Updated data on the costs of FN care are lacking. METHODS: A bottom-up microcosting analysis was conducted from the healthcare system perspective using data collected alongside the Australian PICNICC (Predicting Infectious Complications of Neutropenic sepsis In Children with Cancer) study. Inpatient costs were accessed from hospital administrative records and outpatient costs from Medicare data. Costs were stratified by risk status (low/high risk) according to the PICNICC criteria. Estimated mean costs were obtained through bootstrapping and using a linear model to account for multiple events across individuals and other clinical factors that may impact costs. RESULTS: The total costs of FN care were significantly higher for FN events classified as high-risk ($17,827, 95% confidence interval [CI]: $17,193-$18,461) compared to low-risk ($10,574, 95% CI: $9818-$11,330). In-hospital costs were significantly higher for high-risk compared to low-risk events, despite no differences in the cost structure, mean cost per day, and pattern of resource use. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was the only modifiable factor significantly associated with total costs of care. Excluding antineoplastics, antimicrobials are the most commonly used medications in the inpatient and outpatient setting for the overall period of analysis. CONCLUSION: The FN costs are driven by in-hospital admission and LOS. This suggests that the outpatient management of low-risk patients is likely to reduce the in-hospital cost of treating an FN event. Further research will determine if shifting the cost to the outpatient setting remains cost-effective overall.

How Do Family Physicians Document Patients' Social Needs in Electronic Health Records?

Social needs are critical determinants of patient health, but their capture in clinical records began recently. A representative survey of family physicians showed that 61% of respondents document social needs using notes, with fewer using diagnosis codes or electronic forms. This preference for unstructured documentation may make it difficult to connect patients across organizations or for policymakers and planners to identify geographic variation in needs.

Estimated Costs of Intervening in Health-Related Social Needs Detected in Primary Care.

Importance: Health-related social needs are increasingly being screened for in primary care practices, but it remains unclear how much additional financing is required to address those needs to improve health outcomes. Objective: To estimate the cost of implementing evidence-based interventions to address social needs identified in primary care practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision analytical microsimulation of patients seen in primary care practices, using data on social needs from the National Center for Health Statistics from 2015 through 2018 (N = 19 225) was conducted. Primary care practices were categorized as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), non-FQHC urban practices in high-poverty areas, non-FQHC rural practices in high-poverty areas, and practices in lower-poverty areas. Data analysis was performed from March 3 to December 16, 2022. Intervention: Simulated evidence-based interventions of primary care-based screening and referral protocols, food assistance, housing programs, nonemergency medical transportation, and community-based care coordination. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was per-person per-month cost of interventions. Intervention costs that have existing federally funded financing mechanisms (eg, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) and costs without such an existing mechanism were tabulated. Results: Of the population included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 34.4 (25.9) years, and 54.3% were female. Among people with food and housing needs, most were program eligible for federally funded programs, but had low enrollment (eg, due to inadequate program capacity), with 78.0% of people with housing needs being program eligible vs 24.0% enrolled, and 95.6% of people with food needs being program eligible vs 70.2% enrolled. Among those with transportation insecurity and care coordination needs, eligibility criteria limited enrollment (26.3% of those in need being program eligible for transportation programs, and 5.7% of those in need being program eligible for care coordination programs). The cost of providing evidence-based interventions for these 4 domains averaged $60 (95% CI, $55-$65) per member per month (including approximately $5 for screening and referral management in clinics), of which $27 (95% CI, $24-$31) (45.8%) was federally funded. While disproportionate funding was available to populations seen at FQHCs, populations seen at non-FQHC practices in high-poverty areas had larger funding gaps (intervention costs not borne by existing federal funding mechanisms). Conclusions and Relevance: In this decision analytical microsimulation study, food and housing interventions were limited by low enrollment among eligible people, whereas transportation and care coordination interventions were more limited by narrow eligibility criteria. Screening and referral management in primary care was a small expenditure relative to the cost of interventions to address social needs, and just under half of the costs of interventions were covered by existing federal funding mechanisms. These findings suggest that many resources are necessary to address social needs that fall largely outside of existing federal financing mechanisms.

Interoperability among hospitals treating populations that have been marginalized.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether differences in hospital interoperability are related to the extent to which hospitals treat groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Data on 2393 non-federal acute care hospitals in the United States from the American Hospital Association Information Technology Supplement fielded in 2021, the 2019 Medicare Cost Report, and the 2019 Social Deprivation Index. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified five proxy measures related to marginalization and assessed the relationship between those measures and the likelihood that hospitals engaged in all four domains of interoperable information exchange and participated in national interoperability networks in cross-sectional analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In unadjusted analysis, hospitals that treated patients from zip codes with high social deprivation were 33% less likely to engage in interoperable exchange (Relative Risk = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.58-0.76) and 24% less likely to participate in a national network than all other hospitals (RR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.66-0.87). Critical Access Hospitals (CAH) were 24 percent less likely to engage in interoperable exchange (RR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.69-0.83) but not less likely to participate in a national network (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.88-1.06). No difference was detected for 2 measures (high Disproportionate Share Hospital percentage and Medicaid case mix) while 1 was associated with a greater likelihood to engage (high uncompensated care burden). The association between social deprivation and interoperable exchange persisted in an analysis examining metropolitan and rural areas separately and in adjusted analyses accounting for hospital characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that treat patients from areas with high social deprivation were less likely to engage in interoperable exchange than other hospitals, but other measures were not associated with lower interoperability. The use of area deprivation data may be important to monitor and address hospital clinical data interoperability disparities to avoid related health care disparities.

The Value of Funding a Primary Care Extension Program in the United States.

This Viewpoint discusses the potential of the Primary Care Extension Program to ensure access to high-quality primary care in the US.

Academic Medicine's Fourth Mission: Building on Community-Oriented Primary Care to Achieve Community-Engaged Health Care.

A 2021 article, "Now is our time to act: Why academic medicine must embrace community collaboration as its fourth mission," by Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) authors, including AAMC president and CEO Dr. David J. Skorton, offers 2 aims that are highly related: community collaboration and health equity. The AAMC's call to prioritize community collaboration and health equity as pillars of the academic medicine mission echo earlier work on community-oriented primary care (COPC) and an even more robust model that builds on COPC, community-engaged health care (CEHC). COPC is a tested, systematic approach to health care by which a health clinic or system collaborates with a community to reshape priorities and services based on assessed health needs and determinants of health. COPC affirms health inequities' socioeconomic and political roots, emphasizing health care as a relationship, not a transaction or commodity. Communities where COPC is implemented often see reductions in health inequities, especially those related to socioeconomic, structural, and environmental factors. COPC was the foundation on which community health centers were built, and early models had demonstrable effects on community health and engagement. Several academic health centers build on COPC to achieve CEHC. In CEHC, primary care remains critical, but more of the academic health center's functions are pulled into community engagement and trust building. Thus, the AAMC has described and embraced a care and training model for which there are good, longitudinal examples among medical schools and teaching hospitals. Spreading CEHC and aligning the Community Health Needs Assessment requirements of academic health centers with the fourth mission could go a long way to improving equity, building trust, and repairing the social contract for health care.

How the Gender Wage Gap for Primary Care Physicians Differs by Compensation Approach : A Microsimulation Study.

BACKGROUND: The physician gender wage gap may be due, in part, to productivity-based compensation models that undervalue female practice patterns. OBJECTIVE: To determine how primary care physician (PCP) compensation by gender differs when applying existing productivity-based and alternative compensation models. DESIGN: Microsimulation. SETTING: 2016 to 2019 national clinical registry of 1222 primary care practices. PARTICIPANTS: Male and female PCPs matched on specialty, years since medical school graduation, practice site, and sessions worked. MEASUREMENTS: Net annual, full-time-equivalent compensation for male versus female PCPs, under productivity-based fee-for-service, panel size-based capitation without or with risk adjustment, and hybrid payment models. Microsimulation inputs included patient and visit characteristics and overhead expenses. RESULTS: Among 1435 matched male (n = 881) and female (n = 554) PCPs, female PCP panels included patients who were, on average, younger, had lower diagnosis-based risk scores, were more often female, and were more often uninsured or insured by Medicaid rather than by Medicare. Under productivity-based payment, female PCPs earned a median of $58 829 (interquartile range [IQR], $39 553 to $120 353; 21%) less than male PCPs. This gap was similar under capitation ($58 723 [IQR, $42 141 to $140 192]). It was larger under capitation risk-adjusted for age alone ($74 695 [IQR, $42 884 to $152 423]), for diagnosis-based scores alone ($114 792 [IQR, $49 080 to $215 326] and $89 974 [IQR, $26 175 to $173 760]), and for age-, sex-, and diagnosis-based scores ($83 438 [IQR, $28 927 to $129 414] and $66 195 [IQR, $11 899 to $96 566]). The gap was smaller and nonsignificant under capitation risk-adjusted for age and sex ($36 631 [IQR, $12 743 to $73 898]). LIMITATION: Panel attribution based on office visits. CONCLUSION: The gender wage gap varied by compensation model, with capitation risk-adjusted for patient age and sex resulting in a smaller gap. Future models might better align with primary care effort and outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Physician- versus practice-level primary care continuity and association with outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare physician-level versus practice-level primary care continuity and their association with expenditure and acute care utilization among Medicare beneficiaries and evaluate whether continuity of outpatient primary care at either/both physician or/and practice level could be useful quality measures. DATA SOURCE: Medicare Fee-For-Service claims data for community dwelling beneficiaries without end-stage renal disease who were attributed to a national random sample of primary care practices billing Medicare (2011-2017). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective secondary data analysis at per Medicare beneficiary per year level. We used multivariable linear regression with practice-level fixed effects to estimate continuity of care score at physician versus practice level and their associations with outcomes. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHOD: We calculated clinician- and practice-level Bice-Boxerman continuity of care index scores, ranging from 0 to 1, using primary care outpatient claims. Medicare expenditures, hospital admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and readmissions were obtained from the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File: Cost and Utilization Segment. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) were defined using diagnosis codes on inpatient claims. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We studied 2,359,400 beneficiaries who sought care from 13,926 physicians. Every 0.1 increase in physician continuity score was associated with a $151 reduction in expenditure per beneficiary per year (p < 0.01), and every 0.1 increase in practice continuity score was associated with $282 decrease (p < 0.01) per beneficiary per year. Both physician- and practice-level continuity were associated with lower Medicare expenditures among small, medium, and large practices. Both physician- and practice-level continuity were associated with lower probabilities of hospitalization, ED visit, admissions for ACSC, and readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care continuity of care could serve as a potent value-based care quality metric. Physician-level continuity is a unique value center that cannot be supplanted by practice-level continuity.

Relationship Between Physician Burnout And The Quality And Cost Of Care For Medicare Beneficiaries Is Complex.

Despite reports of a physician burnout epidemic, there is little research on the relationship between burnout and objective measures of care outcomes and no research on the relationship between burnout and costs of care. Linking survey data from 1,064 family physicians to Medicare claims, we found no consistent statistically significant relationship between seven categories of self-reported burnout and measures of ambulatory care-sensitive admissions, ambulatory care-sensitive emergency department visits, readmissions, or costs. The coefficients for ambulatory care-sensitive admissions and readmissions for all burnout levels, compared with never being burned out, were consistently negative (fewer ambulatory care-sensitive admissions and readmissions), suggesting that, counterintuitively, physicians who report burnout may nevertheless be able to create better outcomes for their patients. Even if true, this hypothesis should not indicate that physician burnout is beneficial or that efforts to reduce physician burnout are unimportant. Our findings suggest that the relationship between burnout and outcomes is complex and requires further investigation.

Family Practices in Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative Showed No Changes in Medicare Costs or Utilization.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed that the Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative (TCPI) would improve health outcomes for patients, reduce utilization of institutional services, and generate significant savings for payers by the end of September 2019. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate whether participation in TCPI's Practice Transformation Networks (PTNs) was associated with improved cost and utilization outcomes for Medicare patients of family medicine-based practices in the first 2 years, that is, 2016-2017, of the Initiative. STUDY DESIGN: A quasi-experimental design with a longitudinal cohort of family medicine-based practices and a propensity-matched comparison sample. SUBJECTS: A total of 761 PTN practices and 3451 non-PTN practices. MEASURES: To measure practice-level patient outcomes, we attributed patients to practice based on the plurality of office visits. We obtained Medicare claims from 2011 to 2017 to assess PTN participation effects for Medicare Part A and B costs, hospital admission, and emergency department visit rates using a Difference-in-Differences design, adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: The differences in Medicare Part A and B costs (-1.71%, P=0.25), annual rates of hospitalization (-0.59%, P=0.12) and emergency department visit (-0.29%, P=0.46) were not significantly lower among PTN practices (N=761) than among propensity score-matched non-PTN practices (N=3541). CONCLUSIONS: TCPI's transforming efforts, such as the outcomes examined in the study, might need a longer time frame to manifest and require evaluation after the full 4-year participation period. The indistinguishable effect of PTN participation may also be attributed to the fact that non-PTN practices might have participated in other initiatives that changed their care and curbed health care utilization and costs consequently.

Rebuilding a US Federal Data Strategy After the End of the "Community Health Status Indicators".

For nearly 2 decades, the Community Health Status Indicators tool reliably supplied communities with standardized, local health data and the capacity for peer-community comparisons. At the same time, it created a large community of users who shared learning in addressing local health needs. The tool survived a transition from the Health Resources and Services Administration to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention before being shuttered in 2017. While new community data tools have come online, nothing has replaced Community Health Status Indicators, and many stakeholders continue to clamor for something new that will enable local health needs assessments, peer comparisons, and creation of a community of solutions. The National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics heard from many stakeholders that they still need a replacement data source. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(10):1865-1873. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306437).

Digital health needs for implementing high-quality primary care: recommendations from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

A National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee developed a plan to implement high-quality primary care. One of the 5 key objectives was designing information technology that serves the patient, family, and interprofessional care team. The committee defined high-quality primary care as the provision of whole person, integrated, accessible, and equitable healthcare by interprofessional teams who are accountable for addressing most of an individual's health across settings and through sustained relationships. The committee recommended 2 essential actions for digital health. The first action is developing the next phase of digital health certification standards that support relationship-based, continuous, person-centered care; simplify user experience; ensure equitable access; and hold vendors accountable. Second, the committee recommended adopting a comprehensive aggregate patient data system usable by any certified digital health tool. This article reviews primary care's digital health needs and describes successful digital health for primary care.

Uniting Public Health and Primary Care for Healthy Communities in the COVID-19 Era and Beyond.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has laid bare the dis-integrated health care system in the United States. Decades of inattention and dwindling support for public health, coupled with declining access to primary care medical services have left many vulnerable communities without adequate COVID-19 response and recovery capacity. "Health is a Community Affair" is a 1966 effort to build and deploy local communities of solution that align public health, primary care, and community organizations to identify health care problem sheds, and activate local asset sheds. After decades of independent effort, the COVID-19 pandemic offers an opportunity to reunite and align the shared goals of public health and primary care. Imagine how different things might look if we had widely implemented the recommendations from the 1966 report? The ideas and concepts laid out in "Health is a Community Affair" still offer a COVID-19 response and recovery approach. By bringing public health and primary care together in community now, a future that includes a shared vision and combined effort may emerge.

Primary care perspectives on pandemic politics.

While the COVID-19 pandemic now affects the entire world, countries have had diverse responses. Some responded faster than others, with considerable variations in strategy. After securing border control, primary health care approaches (public health and primary care) attempt to mitigate spread through public education to reduce person-to-person contact (hygiene and physical distancing measures, lockdown procedures), triaging of cases by severity, COVID-19 testing, and contact-tracing. An international survey of primary care experts' perspectives about their country's national responseswas conducted April to early May 2020. This mixed method paper reports on whether they perceived that their country's decision-making and pandemic response was primarily driven by medical facts, economic models, or political ideals; initially intended to develop herd immunity or flatten the curve, and the level of decision-making authority (federal, state, regional). Correlations with country-level death rates and implications of political forces and processes in shaping a country's pandemic response are presented and discussed, informed by our data and by the literature. The intersection of political decision-making, public health/primary care policies and economic strategies is analysed to explore implications of COVID-19's impact on countries with different levels of social and economic development.

Well-Being in the Nation: A Living Library of Measures to Drive Multi-Sector Population Health Improvement and Address Social Determinants.

Policy Points Well-being In the Nation (WIN) offers the first parsimonious set of vetted common measures to improve population health and social determinants across sectors at local, state, and national levels and is driven by what communities need to improve health, well-being, and equity. The WIN measures were codesigned with more than 100 communities, federal agencies, and national organizations across sectors, in alignment with the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, and Healthy People 2030. WIN offers a process for a collaborative learning measurement system to drive a learning health and well-being system across sectors at the community, state, and national levels. The WIN development process identified critical gaps and opportunities in equitable community-level data infrastructure, interoperability, and protections that could be used to inform the Federal Data Strategy.