Trends and Disparities in the Distribution of Outpatient Physicians' Annual Face Time with Patients, 1979-2018.

BACKGROUND: Physician time is a valuable yet finite resource. Whether such time is apportioned equitably among population subgroups, and how the provision of that time has changed in recent decades, is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To investigate trends and racial/ethnic disparities in the receipt of annual face time with physicians in the USA. DESIGN: Repeated cross-sectional. SETTING: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, 1979-1981, 1985, 1989-2016, 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Office-based physicians. MEASURES: Exposures included race/ethnicity (White, Black, and Hispanic); age (<18, 18-64, and 65+); and survey year. Our main outcome was patients' annual visit face time with a physician; secondary outcomes include annual visit rates and mean visit duration. RESULTS: Our sample included n=1,108,835 patient visits. From 1979 to 2018, annual outpatient physician face time per capita rose from 40.0 to 60.4 min, an increase driven by a rise in mean visit length and not in the number of visits. However, since 2005, mean annual face time with a primary care physician has fallen, a decline offset by rising time with specialists. Face time provided per physician changed little given growth in the physician workforce. A racial/ethnic gap in physician visit time present at the beginning of the study period widened over time. In 2014-2018, White individuals received 70.0 min of physician face time per year, vs. 52.4 among Black and 53.0 among Hispanic individuals. This disparity was driven by differences in visit rates, not mean visit length, and in the provision of specialist but not primary care. LIMITATION: Self-reported visit length. CONCLUSION: Americans' annual face time with office-based physicians rose for three decades after 1979, yet is still allocated inequitably, particularly by specialists; meanwhile, time spent by Americans with primary care physicians is falling. These trends and disparities may adversely affect patient outcomes. Policy change is needed to assure better allocation of this resource.

Specialty Care Utilization Among Adults with Limited English Proficiency.

BACKGROUND: People with limited English proficiency (LEP) face greater barriers to accessing medical care than those who are English proficient (EP). Language-related differences in the use of outpatient care across the full spectrum of physician specialties have not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To compare outpatient visit rates to physicians in 28 specialties by people with LEP vs EP. DESIGN: Multivariable negative binomial regression analysis of nationally representative data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (pooled 2013-2018) with adjustment for age, sex, and self-reported health status. PARTICIPANTS: 149,611 survey respondents aged 18 and older. EXPOSURE: LEP, defined as taking the survey in a language other than English. MAIN MEASURES: Annual per capita adjusted visit rate ratios (ARRs) comparing visit rates by LEP and EP persons to individual specialties, and to three categories of specialties: (1) primary care (internal or family medicine, geriatrics, general practice, or obstetrics/gynecology), (2) medical-subspecialties, or (3) surgical specialties. KEY RESULTS: Patients with LEP were underrepresented in 26 of 28 specialties. Disparities were particularly large for the following: pulmonology (ARR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.35), orthopedics (ARR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.30-0.40), otolaryngology (ARR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.59), and psychiatry (ARR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.58). Among individuals with several specific common chronic conditions, LEP-EP disparities in visits to specialties in those conditions generally persisted. Disparities were larger for medical subspecialties (ARR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.36-0.46) and surgical specialties (ARR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.50) than for primary care (ARR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LEP are underrepresented in most outpatient specialty practices, particularly medical subspecialties and surgical specialties. Our findings highlight the need to remove language barriers to physician services in order to ensure access to the full spectrum of outpatient specialty care for people with LEP.

Projected costs of single-payer healthcare financing in the United States: A systematic review of economic analyses.

BACKGROUND: The United States is the only high-income nation without universal, government-funded or -mandated health insurance employing a unified payment system. The US multi-payer system leaves residents uninsured or underinsured, despite overall healthcare costs far above other nations. Single-payer (often referred to as Medicare for All), a proposed policy solution since 1990, is receiving renewed press attention and popular support. Our review seeks to assess the projected cost impact of a single-payer approach. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted our literature search between June 1 and December 31, 2018, without start date restriction for included studies. We surveyed an expert panel and searched PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and preexisting lists for formal economic studies of the projected costs of single-payer plans for the US or for individual states. Reviewer pairs extracted data on methods and findings using a template. We quantified changes in total costs standardized to percentage of contemporaneous healthcare spending. Additionally, we quantified cost changes by subtype, such as costs due to increased healthcare utilization and savings due to simplified payment administration, lower drug costs, and other factors. We further examined how modeling assumptions affected results. Our search yielded economic analyses of the cost of 22 single-payer plans over the past 30 years. Exclusions were due to inadequate technical data or assuming a substantial ongoing role for private insurers. We found that 19 (86%) of the analyses predicted net savings (median net result was a savings of 3.46% of total costs) in the first year of program operation and 20 (91%) predicted savings over several years; anticipated growth rates would result in long-term net savings for all plans. The largest source of savings was simplified payment administration (median 8.8%), and the best predictors of net savings were the magnitude of utilization increase, and savings on administration and drug costs (R2 of 0.035, 0.43, and 0.62, respectively). Only drug cost savings remained significant in multivariate analysis. Included studies were heterogeneous in methods, which precluded us from conducting a formal meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, we found a high degree of analytic consensus for the fiscal feasibility of a single-payer approach in the US. Actual costs will depend on plan features and implementation. Future research should refine estimates of the effects of coverage expansion on utilization, evaluate provider administrative costs in varied existing single-payer systems, analyze implementation options, and evaluate US-based single-payer programs, as available.

A Policy Framework for the Growing Influence of Private Equity in Health Care Delivery.

This Viewpoint details how and why improved oversight of private equity acquisition of physician practices and hospitals is needed to mitigate the effects on health care costs, clinicians' jobs, and patients' access to care.

Protecting Patients And Society In An Era Of Private Equity Provider Ownership: Challenges And Opportunities For Policy.

Private equity (PE) acquisitions in health care delivery nearly tripled from 2010 to 2020. Despite concerns around clinical and economic implications, policy responses have remained limited. We discuss the US policy landscape around PE ownership, using policies in the European Union for comparison. We present four domains in which policy can be strengthened. First, to improve oversight of acquisitions, policy makers should lower reporting thresholds, review sequential acquisitions that together affect market power, automate reviews with potential denials based on market concentration effects, consider new regulatory mechanisms such as attorney general veto, and increase funding for this work. Second, policy makers should increase the longer-run transparency of PE ownership, including the health care prices garnered by acquired entities. Third, policy makers should protect patients and providers by establishing minimum staffing ratios, spending floors for direct patient care, and limits on layoffs and the sale of real estate after acquisition (forms of "asset stripping"). Finally, policy makers should mitigate risky financial behavior by limiting the amount or proportion of debt used to finance PE acquisitions in health care.

Barriers and Facilitators to Resolving Older Adult Homelessness through Stays with Family: Qualitative findings from the HOPE HOME Study.

Living with family and friends is a common strategy used to prevent or exit homelessness, but little is known about structural barriers that impede family and friends' ability to provide temporary or permanent housing for older homeless adults. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 46 homeless participants from the HOPE HOME study, a cohort of 350 community-recruited homeless adults age 50 or older in Oakland, CA, who reported having stayed with housed family/friends for 1 or more nights in the prior 6 months. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 hosts of homeless participants and 11 stakeholders in housing and homelessness. We found that homeless older adults and hosts perceived staying with family or friends as a form of temporary housing rather than as a permanent exit to homelessness. Structural barriers to family and friends providing housing for temporary stays or permanent exits from homelessness included housing regulations restricting visitors and changing rent obligations; decreased eligibility and priority for shelter and permanent housing; geographic and transportation challenges; and environments inconducive to older adults. We suggest four areas for policy reform: providing subsidies to hosts and homeless individuals, removing disincentives for homeless older adults to stay with family, changing lease regulations, and expanding the supply of affordable housing.

Factors associated with delays in discharge for trauma patients at an urban county hospital.

BACKGROUND: Discharge delays for non-medical reasons put patients at unnecessary risk for hospital-acquired infections, lead to loss of revenue for hospitals and reduce hospital capacity to treat other patients. The objective of this study was to determine prevalence of, and patient characteristics associated with, delays in discharge at an urban county trauma service. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study with data from Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital (ZSFGH), a level-1 trauma center and safety net hospital in San Francisco, California. The study included 1720 patients from the trauma surgery service at ZSFGH. A 'delay in discharge' was defined as days in the hospital, including an initial overnight stay, after all medical needs had been met. We used logistic and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models to test whether the following factors were associated with prolonged, non-medical length of stay: age, gender, race/ethnicity, housing, disposition location, type of insurance, having a primary care provider, primary language and zip code. RESULTS: Of the 1720 patients, 15% experienced a delay in discharge, for a total of 1147 days (median 1.5 days/patient). The following were statistically significant (p<0.05) predictors of delays in discharge in a multivariable logistic regression model: older age, unhoused status or disposition to home health or postacute care (compared with home discharge) were associated with increased likelihood of delays. Having private insurance or Medicare (compared with public insurance) and discharge against medical advice or absent without leave (compared with home discharge) were associated with reduced likelihood of delays in discharge after all medical needs were met. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that policymakers interested in reducing non-medical hospital stays should focus on addressing structural determinants of health, such as lack of housing, bottlenecks at postacute care disposition destinations and lack of adequate insurance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, Level III.

Dental Use and Spending in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare, 2010-2021.

This cross-sectional study examines Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries' use of and spending for dental services.