Medicare beneficiaries with more comprehensive primary care physicians report better primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether primary care physician (PCP) comprehensiveness is associated with Medicare beneficiaries' overall rating of care from their PCP and staff. DATA SOURCES: We linked Medicare claims with survey data from Medicare beneficiaries attributed to Comprehensive Primary Care Plus (CPC+) physicians and practices. STUDY DESIGN: We performed regression analyses of the associations between two claims-based measures of PCP comprehensiveness in 2017 and beneficiaries' rating of care from their PCP and practice staff in 2018. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The analytic sample included 6228 beneficiaries cared for by 3898 PCPs. Regressions controlled for beneficiary, physician, practice, and market characteristics. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Beneficiaries with more comprehensive PCPs rated care from their PCP and practice staff higher than did those with less comprehensive PCPs. For each comprehensiveness measure, beneficiaries whose PCP was in the 75th percentile were more likely than beneficiaries whose PCP was in the 25th percentile to rate their care highly (2 percentage point difference, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with more comprehensive PCPs rate overall care from their PCPs and staff higher than those with less comprehensive PCPs.

Awareness, diagnosis and treatment of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) - Results of a US national survey.

BACKGROUND: HeFH is a common inherited disorder that leads to markedly elevated LDL-cholesterol from birth and premature cardiovascular disease. HeFH is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated. OBJECTIVE: To compare how well primary care physicians and cardiologists recognize and treat HeFH. METHODS: The National Lipid Association surveyed 500 primary care physicians and 500 cardiologists in the US who have patients with baseline LDL-cholesterol ≥ 190 mg/dL. The survey was conducted between August 29 and September 30, 2019. RESULTS: For a hypothetical case of HeFH, 57% of cardiologists versus 43% of primary care physicians made the correct diagnosis (P<0.001). Among respondents, 21% of cardiologists versus 29% of primary care physicians have never made a diagnosis of HeFH in a patient with an LDL-cholesterol ≥ 190 mg/dL (P<0.004). Only 7% of cardiologists versus 5% of primary care physicians would refer to a lipid specialist (P=0.05). For additional LDL-cholesterol lowering after statins, 58% of cardiologists versus 48% of primary care physicians would prescribe a PCSK9 inhibitor (P=0.004); however, 30% of cardiologists versus 53% of primary care physicians have never prescribed a PSCK9 inhibitor in an HeFH patient (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Although cardiologists compared to primary care physicians are somewhat more likely to recognize and treat HeFH patients according to guidelines, both physician specialties do not adequately recognize or treat HeFH. There is a need for more education and training in recognizing and treating HeFH, greater access to lipid specialists, and fewer barriers for PCSK9 inhibitor use.

Using Consistently Low Performance to Identify Low-Quality Physician Groups.

Importance: There has been a growth in the use of performance-based payment models in the past decade, but inherently noisy and stochastic quality measures complicate the assessment of the quality of physician groups. Examining consistently low performance across multiple measures or multiple years could potentially identify a subset of low-quality physician groups. Objective: To identify low-performing physician groups based on consistently low performance after adjusting for patient characteristics across multiple measures or multiple years for 10 commonly used quality measures for diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used medical and pharmacy claims and laboratory data for enrollees ages 18 to 65 years with diabetes or CVD in an Aetna health insurance plan between 2016 and 2019. Each physician group's risk-adjusted performance for a given year was estimated using mixed-effects linear probability regression models. Performance was correlated across measures and time, and the proportion of physician groups that performed in the bottom quartile was examined across multiple measures or multiple years. Data analysis was conducted between September 2020 and May 2021. Exposures: Primary care physician groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: Performance scores of 6 quality measures for diabetes and 4 for CVD, including hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing, low-density lipoprotein testing, statin use, HbA1c control, low-density lipoprotein control, and hospital-based utilization. Results: A total of 786 641 unique enrollees treated by 890 physician groups were included; 414 655 (52.7%) of the enrollees were men and the mean (SD) age was 53 (9.5) years. After adjusting for age, sex, and clinical and social risk variables, correlations among individual measures were weak (eg, performance-adjusted correlation between any statin use and LDL testing for patients with diabetes, r = -0.10) to moderate (correlation between LDL testing for diabetes and LDL testing for CVD, r = .43), but year-to-year correlations for all measures were moderate to strong. One percent or fewer of physician groups performed in the bottom quartile for all 6 diabetes measures or all 4 cardiovascular disease measures in any given year, while 14 (4.0%) to 39 groups (11.1%) were in the bottom quartile in all 4 years for any given measure other than hospital-based utilization for CVD (1.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: A subset of physician groups that was consistently low performing could be identified by considering performance measures across multiple years. Considering the consistency of group performance could contribute a novel method to identify physician groups most likely to benefit from limited resources.

Beliefs and practices among primary care physicians during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Baden-Wuerttemberg (Germany): an observational study.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic various ambulatory health care models (SARS-CoV-2 contact points: Subspecialised Primary Care Practices, Fever Clinics, and Special Places for Corona-Testing) were organised in a short period in Baden-Wuerttemberg, a region in Southern Germany. The aim of these SARS-CoV-2 contact points was to ensure medical treatment for patients with (suspected) and without SARS-CoV-2 infection. The present study aimed to assess the beliefs and practices of primary care physicians who either led a Subspecialised Primary Care Practice or a Primary Care Practice providing care as usual in Baden-Wuerttemberg during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was based on a paper-based questionnaire in primary care physicians during the first wave of the pandemic. Participants were identified via the web page of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Baden-Wuerttemberg. The questionnaire was distributed in June and July 2020. It measured knowledge, practices, self-efficacy and fears towards SARS-CoV-2, using newly developed questions. Data was descriptively analysed. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five participants (92 leads of SARS-CoV-2 contact points/ 63 leads of primary care practices) completed the questionnaire. Out of 92 leads of SARS-CoV-2 contact points 74 stated to lead n Subspecialised Primary Care Practices. About half participants of both groups did not fear an own infection with the novel virus (between 50.8% and 62.2%), however about 75% feared financial loss. Knowledge was gained using various sources; main sources were the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (between 82.5% and 83.8%) and the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology (RKI) (between 88.9% and 95.9%). Leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice felt more confident to perform anamnestic/diagnostic procedures (p < 0.001). The same was found for the confidence level regarding decision-making concerning the further treatment (p < 0.001). Several prevention measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 were adopted. Subspecialised Primary Care Practice had treated on average more patients with (suspected) COVID-19 (mean 408.12) than primary care practices (mean 83.8) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the Subspecialised Primary Care Practice that were implemented during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic contributed containment of the pandemic. Leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice indicated that physical separation of patients with potential SARS-CoV-2 infection was easier compared to those who continued working in their own practice. Additionally, leads of Subspecialised Primary Care Practice felt more confident in dealing with patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been prospectively registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00022224).

Payment Discrepancies and Access to Primary Care Physicians for Dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Physicians often receive lower payments for dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries versus nondual Medicare beneficiaries because of state reimbursement caps. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) primary care fee bump temporarily eliminated this differential in 2013-2014. OBJECTIVE: To examine how dual payment policy impacts primary care physicians' (PCP) acceptance of duals. RESEARCH DESIGN: We assessed differences in the likelihood that PCPs had dual caseloads of ≥10% or 20% in states with lower versus full dual reimbursement using linear probability models adjusted for physician and area-level traits. Using a triple-difference approach, we examined changes in dual caseloads for PCPs versus a control group of specialists in states with fee bumps versus no change during years postbump versus prebump. SUBJECTS: PCPs and specialists (cardiologists, orthopedic surgeons, general surgeons) that billed fee-for-service Medicare. MEASURES: State dual payment policies and physicians' dual caseloads as a percentage of their Medicare patients. RESULTS: In 2012, 81% of PCPs had dual caseloads of ≥10% and this was less likely among PCPs in states with lower versus full dual reimbursement (eg, difference=-4.52 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -6.80 to -2.25). The proportion of PCPs with dual caseloads of ≥10% or 20% decreased significantly between 2012 and 2017 and the fee bump was not consistently associated with increases in dual caseloads. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-ACA, PCPs' participation in the dual program appeared to be lower in states with lower reimbursement for duals. Despite the ACA fee bump, dual caseloads declined over time, raising concerns of worsening access to care.

Characterizing the Epidemiology and Provider Landscape of Male Infertility Care in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the epidemiology of male factor infertility and identify which types of providers are treating infertile men in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey was queried between 2006 and 2016 for all ambulatory care visits. Men with a diagnosis of infertility were identified by international classification of disease coding. Comorbidities, demographic and visit information were abstracted from the patients' medical record by a combination of trained surveyors and physicians. The survey data was weighted to create nationally representative estimates, and a combination of Chi-squared and Student's t-tests were utilized to determine significance. RESULT(S): Among the 8.7 billion patient visits between 2006 and 2016, there were 3,422,000 male encounters with a diagnosis of male factor infertility. The most common provider type for male factor infertility encounters was urology (42.12%) followed by primary care (39.79%), gynecology (7.05%) and all other provider types (11.01%). A significant number of men seen for infertility had comorbidities such as cancer (115,000 men, 3.36%) diabetes (267,000 men, 7.81%), depression (301,000 men, 8.8%), and active tobacco use (857,000 men, 30.3%). CONCLUSION: In a nationally representative sample, more than 50% of ambulatory care visits for male factor infertility were not seen by urologists. These men also had a significant number of comorbidities for a relatively young cohort, emphasizing the importance of multidisciplinary care for men with a diagnosis of infertility.

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.

Payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Changes to the method of payment for healthcare providers, including pay-for-performance schemes, are increasingly being used by governments, health insurers, and employers to help align financial incentives with health system goals. In this review we focused on changes to the method and level of payment for all types of healthcare providers in outpatient healthcare settings. Outpatient healthcare settings, broadly defined as 'out of hospital' care including primary care, are important for health systems in reducing the use of more expensive hospital services. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings on the quantity and quality of health service provision, patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes, cost of service provision, and adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase (searched 5 March 2019), and several other databases. In addition, we searched clinical trials platforms, grey literature, screened reference lists of included studies, did a cited reference search for included studies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We screened records from an updated search in August 2020, with any potentially relevant studies categorised as awaiting classification. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies that compared different payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient care settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We conducted a structured synthesis. We first categorised the payment methods comparisons and outcomes, and then described the effects of different types of payment methods on different outcome categories. Where feasible, we used meta-analysis to synthesise the effects of payment interventions under the same category. Where it was not possible to perform meta-analysis, we have reported means/medians and full ranges of the available point estimates. We have reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the relative difference (as per cent change or mean difference (MD)) for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies in the review: 12 randomised trials, 13 controlled before-and-after studies, one interrupted time series, and one repeated measure study. Most healthcare providers were primary care physicians. Most of the payment methods were implemented by health insurance schemes in high-income countries, with only one study from a low- or middle-income country. The included studies were categorised into four groups based on comparisons of different payment methods. (1) Pay for performance (P4P) plus existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings P4P incentives probably improve child immunisation status (RR 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.36; 3760 patients; moderate-certainty evidence) and may slightly increase the number of patients who are asked more detailed questions on their disease by their pharmacist (MD 1.24, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.54; 454 patients; low-certainty evidence). P4P may slightly improve primary care physicians' prescribing of guideline-recommended antihypertensive medicines compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.12; 362 patients; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effects of extra P4P incentives on mean blood pressure reduction for patients and costs for providing services compared with an existing payment method (very low-certainty evidence). Outcomes related to workload or other health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial found that compared to the control group, the performance of incentivised professionals was not sustained after the P4P intervention had ended. (2) Fee for service (FFS) compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings We are uncertain about the effect of FFS on the quantity of health services delivered (outpatient visits and hospitalisations), patient health outcomes, and total drugs cost compared to an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. The quality of service provision and health professional outcomes were not reported in the included studies. One randomised trial reported that physicians paid via FFS may see more well patients than salaried physicians (low-certainty evidence), possibly implying that more unnecessary services were delivered through FFS. (3) FFS mixed with existing payment methods compared with existing payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings FFS mixed payment method may increase the quantity of health services provided compared with an existing payment method (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.76; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of FFS mixed payment on quality of services provided, patient health outcomes, and health professional outcomes compared with an existing payment method due to very low-certainty evidence. Cost outcomes and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. (4) Enhanced FFS compared with FFS for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings Enhanced FFS (higher FFS payment) probably increases child immunisation rates (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.48; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether higher FFS payment results in more primary care visits and about the effect of enhanced FFS on the net expenditure per year on covered children with regular FFS (very low-certainty evidence). Quality of service provision, patient outcomes, health professional outcomes, and adverse effects were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings, P4P or an increase in FFS payment level probably increases the quantity of health service provision (moderate-certainty evidence), and P4P may slightly improve the quality of service provision for targeted conditions (low-certainty evidence). The effects of changes in payment methods on health outcomes is uncertain due to very low-certainty evidence. Information to explore the influence of specific payment method design features, such as the size of incentives and type of performance measures, was insufficient. Furthermore, due to limited and very low-certainty evidence, it is uncertain if changing payment models without including additional funding for professionals would have similar effects. There is a need for further well-conducted research on payment methods for healthcare providers working in outpatient healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries; more studies comparing the impacts of different designs of the same payment method; and studies that consider the unintended consequences of payment interventions.

COVID-19 telehealth expansion can help solve the health care underutilization challenge.

The telehealth policy changes enacted for short-term control of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic present an opportunity to address the fundamental gap in health care underutilization.

Differences in the use of telephone and video telemedicine visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced health systems to offer video and telephone visits as in-person visit alternatives. Although video visits offer some benefits compared with telephone visits, they require complex setup, which may disadvantage some patients due to the "digital divide." Our objective was to determine patient and neighborhood characteristics associated with visit modality. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study across 1652 primary care and specialty care practices of adult patients at an integrated health system from April 23 to June 1, 2020. METHODS: We used electronic health record and administrative data. Our primary outcome was visit modality (in-person, video, or telephone), which was captured using billing codes. We assessed predictors of using video vs telephone using multivariable logistic regression. We used hierarchical logistic regression to determine the contribution of patient-, physician-, and practice-level components of variance in the choice of video or telephone visits. RESULTS: We analyzed 231,596 visits by 162,102 patients. Sixty-five percent of the visits were virtual (31.7% telephone, 33.5% video). Patients who were older than 65 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.40-0.43), Black (AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.57-0.63), Hispanic (AOR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.80), Spanish-speaking (AOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.52-0.61), and from areas with low broadband access (AOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98) were less likely to use video visits. Practices (38%) and clinicians (26%) drove more of the variation in video visit use than patients (9%). CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine access differences may compound disparities in chronic disease and COVID-19 outcomes. Institutions should monitor video visit use across demographics and equip patients, clinicians, and practices to promote telemedicine equity.

TeleConnect: digitally connecting physicians across the health care system.

OBJECTIVES: Prior to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, introductions between primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists were conducted in person. These important meetings were integral to patient care, facilitated care coordination, and improved the managed care of the patient. During COVID-19 and beyond, these important relationships should be fostered via digital means. We aimed to identify opportunities of digital health integration for the optimization of physician integration. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Prior to COVID-19, we conducted a survey of PCPs at a large multidisciplinary group with more than 1500 physicians that staffs multiple hospitals within a health system. The survey was sent via email with only 1 reminder. RESULTS: Thirty-six PCPs responded to the survey; 25% (9/36) were very satisfied and 19.4% (7/36) were moderately satisfied with the current in-person introductions. The PCPs found introductions to specialists helpful; 83.7% (31/37) wanted to "put a name to the face," and 64.9% (24/37) wanted to "understand the range of service provided by the specialist." Fifty-one percent (19/37) and 54% (20/37) said "I can better manage patient care and know when to refer to a specialist" and "I learn more about a particular specialist," respectively, with specialist introductions. If made easy, 67.6% (25/37) of PCPs would be interested in TeleConnect to facilitate introductions to specialists. CONCLUSIONS: Referrals between PCPs and specialists have been an integral aspect of medical care within managed care organizations. With the advent of technology during COVID-19, and along with this brief survey, the need for digital means to introduce PCPs and specialists is underscored.

Emergency department use following incentives to provide after-hours primary care: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Access to primary care outside of regular working hours is limited in many countries. This study investigates the relation between the after-hours premium, an incentive for primary care physicians to provide services after hours, and less-urgent visits to the emergency department in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of a random sample of Ontario residents from April 2002 to March 2006, and a subcohort of patients followed from April 2005 to March 2016. We linked patient and primary care physician data with emergency department visit data. We used fixed-effects regression models to analyze the association between the introduction of the after-hours premium, as well as subsequent increases in the value of the premium, and the number of monthly emergency department visits. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 586 534 patients between 2002 and 2006, and 201 594 patients from 2005 to 2016. After controlling for patient and physician characteristics, seasonality and time-invariant patient confounding factors, introduction of the after-hours premium was associated with a reduction of 1.26 less-urgent visits to the emergency department per 1000 patients per month (95% confidence interval -1.48 to -1.04). Most of this reduction was observed in after-hours visits. Sensitivity analysis showed that the monthly reduction in less-urgent visits to the emergency department was in the range of -1.24 to -1.16 per 1000 patients. Subsequent increases in the after-hours premium were associated with a small reduction in less-urgent visits to the emergency department. INTERPRETATION: Ontario's experience suggests that incentivizing physicians to improve access to after-hours primary care reduces some less-urgent visits to the emergency department. Other jurisdictions may consider incentives to limit less-urgent visits to the emergency department.

Assessment of Racial Disparities in Primary Care Physician Specialty Referrals.

Importance: Disparities in quality of care according to patient race and socioeconomic status persist in the US. Differential referral patterns to specialist physicians might be associated with observed disparities. Objective: To examine whether differences exist between Black and White Medicare beneficiaries in the observed patterns of patient sharing between primary care physicians (PCPs) and physicians in the 6 specialties to which patients were most frequently referred. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional observational study of Black and White Medicare beneficiaries used claims data from 2009 to 2010 on 100% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries who were seen by PCPs and selected high-volume specialists in 12 health care markets with at least 10% of the population being Black. Statistical analyses were conducted from December 20, 2017, to September 30, 2020. Exposures: Differences in patterns of patient sharing among Black and White patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary care physician and specialist degree (the number of other PCPs or specialists to whom each physician is connected) and strength (the number of shared patients per connection, overall, for Black patients and White patients and after equalizing the numbers of Black and White patients per PCP), as well as distance between PCP and patient and specialist zip code centroids. Results: The 12 selected markets ranged in size from Manhattan, New York (187 054 Black or White beneficiaries seen by at least 2 physicians within an episode of care; 9794 total physicians), to Tallahassee, Florida (44 644 Black or White beneficiaries seen by at least 2 physicians within an episode of care; 847 total physicians). The percentage of Black beneficiaries ranged from 11.5% (Huntsville, Alabama) to 46.8% (Chicago, Illinois). The mean PCP-specialist degree (number of specialists with whom a PCP shares patients) was lower for Black patients than for White patients. For instance, the mean PCP-cardiologist degree across all markets for White patients was 17.5 compared with 8.8 for Black patients. After sampling White patients to equalize the numbers of patients seen, the degree differences narrowed but were still not equivalent in many markets (eg, for all specialties in Baton Rouge, Louisiana: 4.5 for Black patients vs 5.7 for White patients). Specialist networks among White patients were much larger than those constructed based just on Black patients (eg, for cardiology across all markets: 135 for Black patients vs 330 for White patients), even after equalizing the numbers of patients seen per PCP (123 for Black patients vs 211 for White patients). The overall test for differences in referral patterns was statistically significant for all 6 specialties examined in 7 of the 12 markets and in 5 specialties for another 3. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that differences exist in specialist referral patterns by race among Medicare beneficiaries. This is an observational study, and thus some differences might have resulted from patient-initiated visits to specialists.

Hospitalization Trajectories in Home- and Community-Based Services Recipients: The Influence of Physician and Social Care Density.

OBJECTIVES: Repeated hospitalizations among older adults receiving Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) may indicate unmet medical and social needs. This study examined all-cause hospitalization trajectories and the association between area-level resource density for medical and social care and the trajectory group membership. METHODS: The study participants included 11,223 adults aged 60 years or older who were enrolled in public HCBS programs in Michigan between 2008 and 2012. Data sources included the Michigan interRAI-Home Care, Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care Data, the American Community Survey, and the County Business Patterns from the Census Bureau. The group-based trajectory modeling was used to identify trajectories of hospitalization over 15 months. Correlates of the trajectories were examined using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Four distinct hospitalization trajectory groups emerged: "never" (43.1%)-individuals who were rarely hospitalized during the study period, "increasing" (19.9%)-individuals who experienced an increased risk of hospitalization, "decreasing" (21.6%)-individuals with a decreased risk, and "frequent" (15.8%)-individuals with frequent hospitalizations. Older adults living in areas with a higher number of social service organizations for older adults and persons with disability were less likely to be on the "frequent" trajectory relative to the "decreasing" trajectory. The density of primary care physicians was not associated with the trajectory group membership. DISCUSSION: Area-level social care resource density contributes to changes in 15-month hospitalization risks among older adult recipients of HCBS.

Terminology for melanocytic skin lesions and the MPATH-Dx classification schema: A survey of dermatopathologists.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic terms used in histopathology reports of cutaneous melanocytic lesions are not standardized. We describe dermatopathologists' views regarding diverse diagnostic terminology and the utility of the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) for categorizing melanocytic lesions. METHODS: July 2018-2019 survey of board-certified and/or fellowship-trained dermatopathologists with experience interpreting melanocytic lesions. RESULTS: Among 160 participants, 99% reported witnessing different terminology being used for the same melanocytic lesion. Most viewed diverse terminology as confusing to primary care physicians (98%), frustrating to pathologists (83%), requiring more of their time as a consultant (64%), and providing necessary clinical information (52%). Most perceived that adoption of the MPATH-Dx would: improve communication with other pathologists and treating physicians (87%), generally be a change for the better (80%), improve patient care (79%), be acceptable to clinical colleagues (68%), save time in pathology report documentation (53%), and protect from malpractice (51%). CONCLUSIONS: Most dermatopathologists view diverse terminology as contributing to miscommunication with clinicians and patients, adversely impacting patient care. They view the MPATH-Dx as a promising tool to standardize terminology and improve communication. The MPATH-Dx may be a useful supplement to conventional pathology reports. Further revision and refinement are necessary for widespread clinical use.

Assessment of and Interventions for Women at High Risk for Breast or Ovarian Cancer: A Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

As clinical guidelines for cancer prevention refer individuals to primary care physicians (PCP) for risk assessment and clinical management, PCPs may be expected to play an increasing role in cancer prevention. It is crucial that PCPs are adequately supported to assess an individual's cancer risk and make appropriate recommendations. The objective of this study is to assess use, familiarity, attitude, and behaviors of PCPs regarding breast and ovarian cancer risk and prevention, to better understand the factors that influence their prescribing behaviors. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of PCPs in the United States, recruited from an opt-in healthcare provider panel. Invitations were sent in batches until the target sample size of 750 respondents (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) was met. Self-reported use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessments was low (34.7%-59.2%) compared with discussion of cancer family history (96.9%), breast exams (87.1%), and mammograms (92.8%). Although most respondents (48.0%-66.8%) were familiar with cancer prevention interventions, respondents who reported to be less familiar were more likely to report cautious attitudes. When presented with hypothetical cases depicting patients at different breast/ovarian cancer risks, up to 34.0% of respondents did not select any of the clinically recommended course(s) of action. This survey suggests that PCP use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessment tools and ability to translate the perceived risks to clinical actions is variable. Improving implementation of cancer risk assessment and clinical management guidelines within primary care may be necessary to improve the appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions.Prevention Relevance: Primary care physicians are becoming more involved in cancer prevention management, so it is important that cancer risk assessment and medical society guideline recommendations for cancer prevention are better integrated into primary care to improve appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions and help reduce cancer risk.

Health system integration with physician specialties varies across markets and system types.

OBJECTIVE: To examine system integration with physician specialties across markets and the association between local system characteristics and their patterns of physician integration. DATA SOURCES: Data come from the AHRQ Compendium of US Health Systems and IQVIA OneKey database. STUDY DESIGN: We examined the change from 2016 to 2018 in the percentage of physicians in systems, focusing on primary care and the 10 most numerous nonhospital-based specialties across the 382 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the US. We also categorized systems by ownership, mission, and payment program participation and examined how those characteristics were related to their patterns of physician integration in 2018. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We examined local healthcare markets (MSAs) and the hospitals and physicians that are part of integrated systems that operate in these markets. We characterized markets by hospital and insurer concentration and systems by type of ownership and by whether they have an academic medical center (AMC), a 340B hospital, or accountable care organization. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Between 2016 and 2018, system participation increased for primary care and the 10 other physician specialties we examined. In 2018, physicians in specialties associated with lucrative hospital services were the most commonly integrated with systems including hematology-oncology (57%), cardiology (55%), and general surgery (44%); however, rates varied substantially across markets. For most specialties, high market concentration by insurers and hospital-systems was associated with lower rates of physician integration. In addition, systems with AMCs and publicly owned systems more commonly affiliated with specialties unrelated to the physicians' potential contribution to hospital revenue, and investor-owned systems demonstrated more limited physician integration. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in physician integration across markets and system characteristics reflects physician and systems' motivations. These integration strategies are associated with the financial interests of systems and other strategic goals (eg, medical education, and serving low-income populations).

Do primary and specialized care physicians know and use coordination mechanisms?

OBJECTIVES: To analyze if primary and specialized care physicians know and use care coordination mechanisms between healthcare levels. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey study, with the application of the COORDENA-BR instrument to primary and specialized care physicians in a public heathcare network, medium-sized municipality, from June to October 2019. The questionnaire addresses knowledge, frequency of sending and receiving, purpose, characteristics and difficulties in using feedback or mutual adaptation and standardization mechanisms to promote coordination of care service between healthcare levels. RESULTS: Feedback instruments such as referral and reply letters, hospital discharge report and WhatsApp are widely known by professionals of both levels, without significant differences. Clinical sessions and protocols are not well-known, especially in specialized care, which supposes a low usage of standardization mechanisms to a better coordination between the healthcare levels. Despite being well-known and easy, traditional feedback instruments such as referral and reply letters are not widely used. Fewer physicians knew the protocols, mainly in specialized care. They pointed difficulties in their application, such as insufficient exams and unavailable supplies in the healthcare network. Clinical sessions were unknown and registered low participation frequency. Care overload, low institutionalization and time constraints were barriers identified for the incorporation of care coordination mechanisms in the work process in primary and specialized care, in addition to those related to the provision of health services in the network. CONCLUSION: We conclude the fragmentation of the system and care can be faced in the complementarity of measures that make it possible to know the mechanisms, develop professional skills, institutionalize and promote organizational conditions for the effective use of coordination mechanisms throughout the healthcare network.

Community Health Centers Primary Care Physicians' Asthma Management Perception of Uninsured Patients.

PURPOSE OF STUDY: Explore the perceptions of primary care physicians (PCPs) from community health care centers (CHCs) in Franklin County, Ohio, regarding factors that contribute to their inability to consistently provide sustainable asthma management services to their uninsured patient population. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTING: Asthmatic patients are not consistently receiving sustainable asthma management in CHCs in Ohio. Primary care physicians in CHCs play a pivotal role in closing health care gaps for asthmatic patients. To minimize the barriers that impede the efforts of PCPs to control asthma for their uninsured patients, asthma disease management programs that include case management services in CHCs in Franklin County, Ohio, are needed. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE: A convenience sample of 4 PCPs from 2 CHCs in Franklin County, Ohio, was interviewed face-to-face. Interviews, direct observation, and previously published research were the sources of data utilized for this study. RESULTS: Results indicated that 75% of participants did not use standard guidelines while treating their patients. Physician time constraints and access to affordable medication were identified as some of the barriers to providing sustainable asthma management services. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT: Asthma is a complex chronic disease. Disease case managers not only are capable of coordinating health care services for a variety of patient populations but are also effective in managing complex diseases such as asthma for disadvantaged populations. Evidence-based case management models are needed to support PCPs in CHCs. Without the inclusion of asthma-specific case managers as part of the care delivery structure, CHCs may continue to provide subpar disease management services for uninsured asthmatic patients.

Coordination of Care Could Improve: Canadian Results from the Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

Care coordination is a critical component of a strong primary care system. The Commonwealth Fund (CMWF) 2019 International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians polled physicians in 11 countries, allowing international and pan-Canadian comparisons of physicians' perspectives in this area. Canadian physicians indicated that there was room for improvement in coordinating care with those outside their practice, particularly specialists, home-based care providers and social services. Opportunities may arise in learning from higher-performing CMWF countries and in adopting new information technologies that are growing methods of facilitating communication across care settings.