Family physicians provide maternity care in and around the maternity care shortage areas, particularly rural.

PURPOSE: This study examined demographic, practice, and area-level characteristics associated with family physicians' (FP) provision of maternity care. METHODS: Using the American Board of Family Medicine Certification examination application survey data, we investigated the relationship between FPs' maternity care service provision and (1) demographic (gender, years in practice, race/ethnicity), (2) practice characteristics (size, ownership, rurality), and (3) county-level factors (percentage of reproductive-age women, the number of obstetrician-gynecologists (OBGYNs) and certified nurse midwives (CNMs) per 100,000 reproductive-age women). We performed summary statistics and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 59,903 FPs in the sample, 7.5% provided maternity care. FPs practicing in rural were 2.5 times more likely to provide maternity care than those practicing in urban areas. FPs in academic (odds ratio [OR] 4.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-5.1) and safety-net settings (OR 1.9, 1.7-2.1) had greater odds of providing maternity care. FPs in the bottom quintile with no or fewer OBGYNs and CNMs had a higher likelihood of maternity care provision (OR 2.1, 1.8-2.3) than those in the top quintile, with more OBGYNs and CNMs. CONCLUSIONS: FPs in high-needs areas, such as rural and safety net settings, and areas with fewer CNMs or OBGYNs are more likely to provide maternity care, demonstrating the importance of FPs in meeting the needs of women with limited maternity care access. Our study findings highlight the importance of considering the contributions of FPs to maternity care as the organizations prioritize resource allocation to areas of highest need.

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

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

Duration of Residence and Hypertension in Black Foreign-Born Residents: NHIS, 2004-2017.

BACKGROUND: Black Americans have the highest prevalence of hypertension in the USA. Black immigrants, who, by definition, have time-limited exposure to the USA, may provide insight into the relationship between exposure to the US environment, Black race, and hypertension. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of pooled National Health Interview Survey (2004-2017) data of foreign-born White European and Black adults (N = 11,516). Multivariable robust Poisson regressions assessed the relationship between self-reported hypertension and duration of the residency (< 5, 5-9, 10-14, ≥ 15 years) among Black, Black African, Black Caribbean, and White European foreign-born residents. RESULTS: In multivariable analyses-controlling for age, sex, education, poverty-to-income ratio, insurance status, recent encounter with a clinician, and BMI-Black foreign-born residents (PR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.03, 1.90) and Black Africans (10-14 years.: PR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.13, 2.56; ≥ 15 years.: PR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.04, 2.34) with a duration of residency of at least 15 and 10 years, respectively, had a greater prevalence of hypertension than those with duration less than 5 years. A nonsignificant positive association between a duration of residency of at least 15 years (compared to less than 5 years) and self-reported hypertension was observed for White Europeans (PR 1.49, 95% CI = 0.88, 2.51) and Black Caribbeans (PR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.69, 1.72). CONCLUSION: Duration of residency is particularly associated with hypertension among Black Africans after migration to the USA. This discrepancy may be explained by differences in primary care utilization and awareness of hypertension diagnoses among recent African immigrants, along with greater stress associated with living in the USA.

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

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

Relationships Matter: Primary Care Physicians and Usual Sources of Care.

There are benefits to having a primary care physician or a usual source of care. Adults with a primary care physician have higher rates of preventive care, have improved communication with their care team, and receive more attention to social needs.1-3 Yet, not all individuals have equitable access to a primary care physician. The overall percentage of U.S. patients who reported having a usual source of care declined from 84% in 2000 to 74% in 2019, with wide variations across states, patient race, and insurance status.

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

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

The Association of Practice Type and the Scope of Care of Family Physicians.

INTRODUCTION: Comprehensiveness is a defining principle of primary care and Family Medicine but is declining in some settings. This study explores the relationship between practice setting and comprehensiveness among family physicians (FPs). METHODS: Using 2014 to 2016 American Board of Family Medicine survey data to generate scope of practice (SOP) scores (0 to 30) for FPs. We ran univariate and bivariate analyses for services by practice organization type. Our principal independent variable was practice organization type and dependent variable, the SOP score. RESULTS: Among 25,117 total respondents, FPs at rural health centers (RHC) had the widest scope of practice (SOP score of 17.7) whereas FPs in federal, urgent care and other safety net clinics had the narrowest with mean SOP score of 14.0 or less. Higher rates of FPs practicing in Federally Qualified Health Centers and academic health centers were providing a women's health service, except for deliveries, whereas FPs in rural health centers were providing obstetric services (24%). The proportion of FPs providing newborn care was highest in RHCs and lowest in the urgent care setting (85%, vs 26%). A higher proportion of FPs in RHCs provided joint injections and skin procedures than FPs in other practice organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation in FP comprehensiveness exists across different practice types. FPs in practice types commonly associated with large health systems had narrower breadth of practice, concerning amid increasing practice consolidation. Given associations between comprehensiveness and desirable health care outcomes, policy makers should encourage payment/accountability models that incentivize broader SOP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proportion of Family Physicians in Solo and Small Practices is on the Decline.

Although solo and small practices are a vital part of primary care, the proportion of family physicians reporting working in practices with 5 or fewer providers declined from 15% to 11% for solo and 37% to 34% for small (2 to 5 providers) practices from 2014 to 2018. These decreasing trends are concerning, mainly when a low proportion of family physicians have solo practices in rural locations given the access to care challenges in these underserved populations.

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.

Site of Care for COVID-19-Like Respiratory Illnesses.

COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory illness. Historically, upper and lower respiratory illness has been cared for at home or in the ambulatory primary care setting. It is likely that patients experiencing COVID-19-like symptoms may first contact their primary care provider. The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) is a representative sample of patients from the United States that regularly assesses their use of medical care services. We analyzed 2017 MEPS data to determine the number and proportion of patients who were seen in primary care or family medicine ambulatory settings or hospitalized for upper or lower respiratory illness or pneumonia. In a given year, 19.5 million patients are seen by primary care for an upper respiratory illness, 10.7 million patients for bronchitis, and 9 million for pneumonia. In contrast, 890,000 patients are hospitalized with pneumonia. Given that a primary etiology for respiratory illness in early 2020 was SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19), primary care practices likely were the site of first contact for most patients with COVID-19 illness. Unfortunately, there has been inadequate support for in-person and telehealth visits. Primary care clinicians reported serious shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing capacity. Inadequate reimbursement for telehealth visits coupled with decreased in-person visits put primary care practices at risk of layoffs and closure. Policies related to primary care payment, federal relief efforts, PPE access, testing and follow-up capacity, and telehealth technical support are essential so primary care can provide first contact and continuity for their patients and communities throughout the COVID-19 pandemic response and recovery.

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.

Not Telehealth: Which Primary Care Visits Need In-Person Care?

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19) pandemic has resulted in a rapid shift to telehealth and many services that need in-person care have been avoided. Yet, as practices and payment policies return to a new normal, there will be many questions about what proportion of visits should be done in-person vs telehealth. Using the 2016 National Ambulatory Medical Survey (NAMCS), we estimated what proportion of visits were amenable to telehealth before COVID-19 as a guide. We divided services into those that needed in-person care and those that could be done via telehealth. Any visit that included at least 1 service where in-person care was needed was counted as an in-person only visit. We then calculated what proportion of reported visits and services in 2016 could have been provided via telehealth, as well as what proportion of in-person only services were done by primary care. We found that 66% of all primary care visits reported in NAMCS in 2016 required an in-person service. 90% of all wellness visits and immunizations were done in primary care offices, as were a quarter of all Papanicolaou smears. As practices reopen, patients will need to catch up on many of the in-person only visits that were postponed such as Papanicolaou smears and wellness visits. At the same time, patients and clinicians now accustomed to telehealth may have reservations about returning to in-person only visits. Our estimates may provide a guide to practices as they navigate how to deliver care in a post-COVID-19 environment.

A Cross-Sectional Study of Factors Associated With Pediatric Scope of Care in Family Medicine.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify demographic and practice characteristics associated with family physicians' provision of care to children including a subgroup analysis of those who see pediatric patients younger or older than 5 years of age. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used data from US family physicians taking the American Board of Family Medicine continuous certification examination registration questionnaire in 2017 and 2018. The outcome of interest was self-reported care of pediatric patients in practice. We performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression examining the association between various demographic and practice characteristics with the outcome of interest. We performed subgroup analyses for physicians seeing patients under 5 years old and from 5 to 18 years old. RESULTS: Among the 11,674 family physicians included in the final analysis, 9744 (83.8%) saw pediatric patients. Physician- and practice-level factors associated with seeing pediatric patients included rural practice, younger age, non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity, independent practice ownership, nonsolo practice, lower pediatrician density, and higher income geographic area. More family physicians saw 5-to-18-year-olds than < 5-year-olds (83.6% vs 68.2%; P < .001), and the factors associated with pediatric care were similar among these age subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of continuous certification US family physicians see pediatric patients in practice; however, rates of pediatric care vary widely based on various demographic and practice characteristics. Efforts to maintain a broad scope of practice for US family physicians will require exploration of the underlying mechanisms driving these practice patterns.