Evaluación quinquenal de los ejes sanitarios de un programa nacional de Atención Primaria de la Salud / Five-year evaluation of the sanitary axes of a national program of Primary Health Care

Se realizó una evaluación quinquenal de los ejes sanitarios (que dan lugar a objetivos estratégicos con sus correspondientes metas e indicadores, áreas de intervención y líneas de acción) dentro del marco de la gestión sanitaria de uno de los 10 principales agentes de la seguridad social argentinos quien implementaba desde hacía 20 años un Programa Nacional de Atención Primaria de la Salud (PNAPS). El mismo promedió alrededor de 800 mil beneficiarios anuales dentro de una red asistencial nacional propia en el primer nivel de atención compuesta por 45 Centros de Atención Primaria (CAPs). Se implementó una investigación evaluativa que incluyó un trazado de línea de base con la valoración de cinco Ejes Sanitarios (ES). Se trata de un diseño de corte transversal de un periodo de 5 años. Se definieron metas, indicadores y recomendaciones para cada uno de los ES, recopilando información de fuentes diferentes y complementarias para su análisis. Los resultados mostraron una evolución favorable en el período evaluado, aunque el cumplimiento de las metas estuvo bastante alejado de lo propuesto de manera teórica. Conclusiones: este trabajo aporta información valiosa y original para subsidiar la toma de decisiones e incentivar la investigación en el ámbito de la APS, buscando reformular los actuales modelos de gestión y de atención de la salud (AU)

A five-year evaluation of the health axes (which give rise to strategic objectives with their corresponding goals and indicators, areas of intervention and lines of action) was carried out within the framework of health management of one of the 10 main argentine social security agents who had been implementing a National Primary Health Care Program (PNAPS) for 20 years. It averaged around 800,000 annual beneficiaries within its own national care network at the first level of care made up of 45 Primary Care Centers (CAPs). An evaluative investigation was implemented that included a baseline drawing with the assessment of five Sanitary Axis (ES). It is a cross-sectional design of a period of 5 years. Goals, indicators and recommendations were defined for each of the ES, collecting information from different and complementary sources for analysis. Results: they showed a favorable evolution in the period evaluated, although the fulfillment of the goals was quite far from what was theoretically proposed. The results of this work provides valuable and original information to support decision-making and encourage research in the field of PHC, seeking to reformulate current management and health care models (AU)

Primary care patterns among dual eligibles with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is essential for persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). Prior research suggests that the propensity to provide high-quality, continuous primary care varies by provider setting, but the settings used by Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligibles with ADRD have not been described at the population level. METHODS: Using 2012-2018 Medicare data, we identified dual-eligibles with ADRD. For each person-year, we identified primary care visits occurring in six settings. We calculated descriptive statistics for beneficiaries with a majority of visits in each setting, and conducted a k-means cluster analysis to determine utilization patterns, using the standardized count of primary care visits in each setting. RESULTS: Each year from 2012 to 2018, at least 45.6% of dual-eligibles with ADRD received a majority of their primary care in nursing facilities, while at least 25.2% did so in physician offices. Over time, the share relying on nursing facilities for primary care decreased by 5.2 percentage points, offset by growth in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and miscellaneous settings (2.3 percentage points each). Dual-eligibles relying on nursing facilities had more annual primary care visits (16.1) than those relying on other settings (range: 6.8-10.7 visits). Interpersonal care continuity was also higher in nursing facilities (97.0%) and physician offices (87.9%) than in FQHCs (54.2%), rural health clinics (RHCs, 46.6%), or hospital-based clinics (56.8%). Among dual-eligibles without care continuity, 82.7% were assigned to a cluster with few primary care visits. CONCLUSIONS: A trend toward care in different settings likely reflects improved access to patient-centered primary care. Low rates of interpersonal care continuity in FQHCs, RHCs, and physician offices may warrant concern, unless providers in these settings function as a care team. Nonetheless, every healthcare system encounter presents an opportunity to designate a primary care provider for dual-eligibles with ADRD who use little or no primary care.

¿Cómo evolucionó la distribución de médicas y médicos especialistas en Argentina?: un análisis demográfico de la profesión médica al 2020 / How did the distribution of doctors and medical specialists evolve in Argentina?: a demographic analysis of the medical profession to 2020

Las políticas sobre trabajadores/as de salud deben garantizar su distribución adecuada. En Argentina dicha distribución es desigual, sobre todo en especialistas en atención primaria de la salud (APS). El objetivo de este trabajo fue describir la distribución de médicos/as, especialistas lineales y en APS en Argentina, durante el año 2020, teniendo en cuenta la situación económica y sanitaria de cada jurisdicción. Se trata de un trabajo descriptivo y analítico, que utilizó fuentes de datos primarias y secundarias. Se correlacionó la tasa de mortalidad infantil y el producto bruto per cápita de cada jurisdicción ordenándolas de mejores a peores indicadores. La tasa de médicos fue 3,88 médicos/as cada 1000 habitantes, 72% concentrándose en 4 jurisdicciones (Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Provincia de Buenos Aires, Córdoba y Santa Fe). El 53% son especialistas y el 27,6% lo son en APS. CABA tuvo una tasa de 16,5 médicos/as por mil; Santiago del Estero y Formosa alcanzaron valores de 1,8 y 1,9 médicas/os por mil habitantes respectivamente. Con respecto a 2014, se observó disminución de especialistas en APS (-14,8%), registrándose las mayores pérdidas en Santiago del Estero, Formosa y Catamarca (-84,5%; -70,1% y -87,3%). La situación nacional sobre la distribución de médicos/as en Argentina desde 1954 a la actualidad fue empeorando en detrimento de las provincias con mayores necesidades. La baja adherencia al sistema de residencias a especialidades de APS pronostica un empeoramiento de la situación de no haber cambios estructurales. Será necesario un fortalecimiento del rol rector del estado en el abordaje de esta problemática (AU)

Policies on health workers must guarantee their adequate distribution. In Argentina, this distribution is unequal, particularly among primary care specialists (PHC).The objective of this article is to describe the distribution of physicians, PHC and non-PHC specialists in Argentina in 2020, considering the economic and health situation of each jurisdiction.We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study with an analytical stage using primary and secondary data sources. The jurisdictions were classified according to the correlation between infant mortality rate and gross product per capita.The rate of physicians in Argentina in 2020 was 3.88 physicians per 1,000 inhabitants. 72% are concentrated in 4 jurisdictions (City of Buenos Aires, Province of Buenos Aires, Córdoba and Santa Fe). 53% are specialists and 27.6% are PHC specialists. The City of Buenos Aires has a rate of 16.5 physicians per thousand; and Santiago del Estero and Formosa reach values of 1.8 and 1.9 physicians per thousand inhabitants, respectively.There was a decrease in PHC specialists (-14.8%), with major losses recorded in Santiago del Estero, Formosa and Catamarca (-84.5%; -70.1% and -87.3%, respectively).The distribution of physicians in Argentina from 1954 to the present has worsened to the detriment of the provinces with the greatest needs. The lack of adheren-ce to the specialty of PHC predicts a worsening of the situation if there are no structural changes. It is necessary to strengthen the leading role of the state in addressing this problem (AU)

Culturally Sensitive Interventions in Pediatric Primary Care Settings: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Culturally sensitive interventions in the pediatric primary care setting may help reduce health disparities. Less is known on the development of these interventions, their target groups, and their feasibility, acceptability, and impact on health outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to describe culturally sensitive interventions developed for the pediatric primary care setting. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycInfo (January 2000 to July 2020). STUDY SELECTION: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were (1) original research on an intervention with an evaluation, (2) within a pediatric primary care setting, (3) not limited to education for providers, (4) not limited to interpreter use, and (5) based in the United States. DATA EXTRACTION: The following were extracted: study topic, study design, intervention, cultural sensitivity strategies and terminology, setting, target group, sample size, feasibility, acceptability, and health outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies described 23 interventions targeting a variety of health topics. Multiple cultural sensitivity strategies were used, most commonly sociocultural (83%). Most interventions (57%) were focused on Hispanic/Latino families. Interventions were generally reported as being feasible and acceptable; some also changed health outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Small samples and heterogenous methods subject to bias were used. Relevant articles may have been missed because of the variety of terms used to describe cultural sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The included articles provide preliminary evidence that culturally sensitive interventions can be feasible and effective and may help eliminate disparities for patients from communities with barriers to equitable care.

Trends in Outpatient Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Implications for Primary Care, 2000 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Despite the central role of primary care in improving health system performance, there are little recent data on how use of primary care and specialists has evolved over time and its implications for the range of care coordination needed in primary care. OBJECTIVE: To describe trends in outpatient care delivery and the implications for primary care provider (PCP) care coordination. DESIGN: Descriptive, repeated, cross-sectional study using Medicare claims from 2000 to 2019, with direct standardization used to control for changes in beneficiary characteristics over time. SETTING: Traditional fee-for-service Medicare. PATIENTS: 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries. MEASUREMENTS: Annual counts of outpatient visits and procedures, the number of distinct physicians seen, and the number of other physicians seen by a PCP's assigned Medicare patients. RESULTS: The proportion of Medicare beneficiaries with any PCP visit annually only slightly increased from 61.2% in 2000 to 65.7% in 2019. The mean annual number of primary care office visits per beneficiary also changed little from 2000 to 2019 (2.99 to 3.00), although the mean number of PCPs seen increased from 0.89 to 1.21 (36.0% increase). In contrast, the mean annual number of visits to specialists increased 20% from 4.05 to 4.87, whereas the mean number of unique specialists seen increased 34.2% from 1.63 to 2.18. The proportion of beneficiaries seeing 5 or more physicians annually increased from 17.5% to 30.1%. In 2000, a PCP's Medicare patient panel saw a median of 52 other physicians (interquartile range, 23 to 87), increasing to 95 (interquartile range, 40 to 164) in 2019. LIMITATION: Data were limited to Medicare beneficiaries and, because of the use of a 20% sample, may underestimate the number of other physicians seen across a PCP's entire panel. CONCLUSION: Outpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries has shifted toward more specialist care received from more physicians without increased primary care contact. This represents a substantial expansion of the coordination burden faced by PCPs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Association of a Medicare Outpatient Payment Reform With Hospital-Primary Care Integration: Heterogeneity Across Markets and Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-physician integration increased rapidly in the past decade, threatening the affordability of care with minimal gains in quality. Medicare recently reformed its facility fee payments to hospitals for office consultations delivered by hospital-integrated physicians. This policy reform, affecting 200 million office visits annually, may have inadvertently encouraged hospitals to integrate with certain primary care physicians. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether the policy reform was associated with hospital-primary care integration. RESEARCH DESIGN: I used a large sample of primary care physicians (n=98,884) drawn from Medicare claims data. I estimated cross-sectional multivariable linear probability models to measure whether the change in physicians' value-to-hospitals was associated with integration. RESULTS: The reform created heterogenous results: some physicians' value-to-hospitals decreased, while others increased (first percentile to 99th percentile, -$16,000 to $47,000). This change in value had a small association with integration: for every $10,000 increase, a physician was about 0.34 percentage points (95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.52) more likely to become integrated. Among high-volume physicians, the reform had larger effects: physicians whose value-to-hospitals grew by $20,000 or more were nearly 3 percentage points more likely to become integrated. Changes in value had no effect in concentrated hospital markets and rural areas. CONCLUSIONS: Effects of Medicare's site-based payments on hospital-primary care integration were concentrated among a small subset of physicians. Reforms to Medicare payment policy could influence integration among this group.

Economic Aspects of Delivering Primary Care Services: An Evidence Synthesis to Inform Policy and Research Priorities.

Policy Points The 2018 Declaration of Astana reemphasized the importance of primary health care and its role in achieving universal health coverage. While there is a large amount of literature on the economic aspects of delivering primary care services, there is a need for more comprehensive overviews of this evidence. In this article, we offer such an overview. Evidence suggests that there are several strategies involving coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance arrangements which can, if implemented, have positive economic impacts on the delivery of primary care services. These include arrangements such as worker task-shifting and telemedicine. The implementation of any such arrangements, based on positive economic evidence, should carefully account for potential impacts on overall health care access and quality. There are many opportunities for further research, with notable gaps in evidence on the impacts of increasing primary care funding or the overall supply of primary care services. CONTEXT: The 2018 Declaration of Astana reemphasized the importance of primary health care and its role in achieving universal health coverage. To strengthen primary health care, policymakers need guidance on how to allocate resources in a manner that maximizes its economic benefits. METHODS: We collated and synthesized published systematic reviews of evidence on the economic aspects of different models of delivering primary care services. Building on previous efforts, we adapted existing taxonomies of primary care components to classify our results according to four categories: coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance. FINDINGS: We identified and classified 109 reviews that met our inclusion criteria according to our taxonomy of primary care components: coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance arrangements. A significant body of evidence suggests that several specific primary care arrangements, such as health workers' task shifting and telemedicine, can have positive economic impacts (such as lower overall health care costs). Notably absent were reviews on the impact of increasing primary care funding or the overall supply of primary care services. CONCLUSIONS: There is a great opportunity for further research to systematically examine the broader economic impacts of investing in primary care services. Despite progress over the last decade, significant evidence gaps on the economic implications of different models of primary care services remain, which could help inform the basis of future research efforts.

Primary care-based screening and management of depression amongst heavy drinking patients: Interim secondary outcomes of a three-country quasi-experimental study in Latin America.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of evidence-based care for heavy drinking and depression remains low in global health systems. We tested the impact of providing community support, training, and clinical packages of varied intensity on depression screening and management for heavy drinking patients in Latin American primary healthcare. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Quasi-experimental study involving 58 primary healthcare units in Colombia, Mexico and Peru randomized to receive: (1) usual care (control); (2) training using a brief clinical package; (3) community support plus training using a brief clinical package; (4) community support plus training using a standard clinical package. Outcomes were proportion of: (1) heavy drinking patients screened for depression; (2) screen-positive patients receiving appropriate support; (3) all consulting patients screened for depression, irrespective of drinking status. RESULTS: 550/615 identified heavy drinkers were screened for depression (89.4%). 147/230 patients screening positive for depression received appropriate support (64%). Amongst identified heavy drinkers, adjusting for country, sex, age and provider profession, provision of community support and training had no impact on depression activity rates. Intensity of clinical package also did not affect delivery rates, with comparable performance for brief and standard versions. However, amongst all consulting patients, training providers resulted in significantly higher rates of alcohol measurement and in turn higher depression screening rates; 2.7 times higher compared to those not trained. CONCLUSIONS: Training using a brief clinical package increased depression screening rates in Latin American primary healthcare. It is not possible to determine the effectiveness of community support on depression activity rates due to the impact of COVID-19.

Primary care teams' experiences of delivering mental health care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Integrated primary care teams are ideally positioned to support the mental health care needs arising during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding how COVID-19 has affected mental health care delivery within primary care settings will be critical to inform future policy and practice decisions during the later phases of the pandemic and beyond. The objective of our study was to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care teams' delivery of mental health care. METHODS: A qualitative study using focus groups conducted with primary care teams in Ontario, Canada. Focus group data was analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 11 focus groups with 10 primary care teams and a total of 48 participants. With respect to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health care in primary care teams, we identified three key themes: i) the high demand for mental health care, ii) the rapid transformation to virtual care, and iii) the impact on providers. CONCLUSIONS: From the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care quickly responded to the rising mental health care demands of their patients. Despite the numerous challenges they faced with the rapid transition to virtual care, primary care teams have persevered. It is essential that policy and decision-makers take note of the toll that these demands have placed on providers. There is an immediate need to enhance primary care's capacity for mental health care for the duration of the pandemic and beyond.

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.

Changes in family medicine visits across sociodemographic groups after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic has worsened socioeconomic disparities in access to primary care. Given these concerns, we investigated whether the pandemic affected visits to family physicians differently across sociodemographic groups. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records from family physician practices within the University of Toronto Practice-Based Research Network. We evaluated primary care visits for a fixed cohort of patients who were active within the database as of Jan. 1, 2019, to estimate the number of patients who visited their family physician (visitor rate) and the number of distinct visits (visit volume) between Jan. 1, 2019, to June 30, 2020. We compared trends in visitor rate and visit volume during the pandemic (Mar. 14 to June 30, 2020) with the same period in the previous year (Mar. 14 to June 30, 2019) across sociodemographic factors, including age, sex, neighbourhood income, material deprivation and ethnic concentration. RESULTS: We included 365 family physicians and 372 272 patients. Compared with the previous year, visitor rates during the pandemic period dropped by 34.5%, from 357 visitors per 1000 people to 292 visitors per 1000 people. Declines in visit volume during the pandemic were less pronounced (21.8% fewer visits), as the mean number of visits per patient increased during the pandemic (from 1.64 to 1.96). The declines in visitor rate and visit volume varied based on patient age and sex, but not socioeconomic status. INTERPRETATION: Although the number of visits to family physicians dropped substantially during the first few weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, patients from communities with low socioeconomic status did not appear to be disproportionately affected. In this primary care setting, the pandemic appears not to have worsened socioeconomic disparities in access to care.

The people, process, and technology for population management in community health.

Population health expands the focus of health care from individual, in-person care to the proactive management of cohorts that can occur asynchronously from a clinical encounter. In its most successful form, the approach segments populations by defined characteristics and promotes outreach and engagement to deliver targeted interventions, even among those who have missed recent or routine care. The triple aim, supported by the Institutes for Health Care Improvement, emphasizes improving the health of populations, cost of care, and patient and care team experience and has influenced new approaches in primary care. In primary care settings such as community health centers, the goal of improving outcomes leverages technology to expand focus from point-of-care interventions to population-level approaches to deliver high-quality preventive services and chronic disease management that benefit entire families and communities. Developments in informatics have introduced technology tools for population management and underscored the need to align technology with effective processes and stakeholder engagement for success. Informed by a review of the literature and observations across multiple implementations of population health strategies in community health, in this conceptual paper, we describe the steps (process), domains of team expertise (people), and health information technology components (technology) that contribute to the success of a population health strategy. We also explore future opportunities to expand the reach and impact of population health through patient engagement, analytics, interventions to address social determinants of health, responses to emerging public health priorities, and prioritization-of-use cases by assessing community-specific needs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Family physician perspectives on primary care reform priorities: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The province of British Columbia is facing a family physician shortage despite consistent increases in the number of physicians per capita and ongoing reforms to address the shortage. We identify physicians' priorities for structural reform, describe the alignment of those priorities with BC's suite of reforms and compare responses between established physicians and those new to practice; we also assessed rates of burnout. METHODS: All family physicians credentialed within Vancouver Coastal Health in 2018 were invited to participate in a cross-sectional survey. Respondents were asked about their practice model and characteristics, demographics, level of burnout and reform priorities. We used χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression to investigate associations between personal and practice characteristics, burnout and reform priorities. RESULTS: Of the 1017 family physicians invited to participate, 525 (51.6%) responded. Of these, 399 (76.0%) indicated a need for fundamental change to how primary care is delivered; 244 (46.4%) would prefer to be a clinic employee rather than a small business owner. Other reform priorities included options to practise in a team (stated as very important by 69.6% of respondents), direct funding for team roles (66.7%), direct clinic funding (59.8%), part-time work options (64.7%), and ability to take planned vacations and parental leave (81.1%). The importance of individual reform priorities varied based on the participants' model of practice, location and years in practice. Of respondents, 108 (21.1%) had experienced a high level of burnout. INTERPRETATION: Almost half of family physicians would prefer to be employees rather than small business owners and over 20% reported a high level of burnout. Practice models offering direct employment model have very limited availability and are not included in the current suite of reforms in BC, potentially pulling physicians away from community-based family medicine and into other models or specialties.

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.