Is primary care ready for a potential new public health emergency in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, now subsided?

INTRODUCTION: The lingering burden of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care clinicians and practices poses a public health emergency for the United States. This study uses clinician-reported data to examine changes in primary care demand and capacity. METHODS: From March 2020 to March 2022, 36 electronic surveys were fielded among primary care clinicians responding to survey invitations as posted on listservs and identified through social media and crowd sourcing. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on both closed- and open-ended survey questions. RESULTS: An average of 937 respondents per survey represented family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine, geriatrics, and other specialties. Responses reported increases in patient health burden, including worsening chronic care management and increasing volume and complexity. A higher frequency of dental- and eyesight-related issues was noted by respondents, as was a substantial increase in mental or emotional health needs. Respondents also noted increased demand, "record high" wait times, and struggles to keep up with patient needs and the higher volume of patient questions. Frequent qualitative statements highlighted the mismatch of patient needs with practice capacity. Staffing shortages and the inability to fill open clinical positions impaired clinicians' ability to meet patient needs and a substantial proportion of respondents indicated an intention to leave the profession or knew someone who had. CONCLUSION: These data signal an urgent need to take action to support the ability of primary care to meet ongoing patient and population health care needs.

Health facility management and primary health care performance in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care is a critical foundation of high-quality health systems. Health facility management has been studied in high-income countries, but there are significant measurement gaps about facility management and primary health care performance in low and middle-income countries. A primary health care facility management evaluation tool (PRIME-Tool) was initially piloted in Ghana where better facility management was associated with higher performance on select primary health care outcomes such as essential drug availability, trust in providers, ease of following a provider's advice, and overall patient-reported quality rating. In this study, we sought to understand health facility management within Uganda's decentralized primary health care system. METHODS: We administered and analyzed a cross-sectional household and health facility survey conducted in Uganda in 2019, assessing facility management using the PRIME-Tool. RESULTS: Better facility management was associated with better essential drug availability but not better performance on measures of stocking equipment. Facilities with better PRIME-Tool management scores trended towards better performance on a number of experiential quality measures. We found significant disparities in the management performance of primary health care facilities. In particular, patients with greater wealth and education and those living in urban areas sought care at facilities that performed better on management. Private facilities and hospitals performed better on the management index than public facilities and health centers and clinics. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that investments in stronger facility management in Uganda may strengthen key aspects of facility readiness such as essential drug availability and potentially could affect experiential quality of care. Nevertheless, the stark disparities demonstrate that Uganda policymakers need to target investments strategically in order to improve primary health care equitably across socioeconomic status and geography. Moreover, other low and middle-income countries may benefit from the use of the PRIME-Tool to rapidly assess facility management with the goal of understanding and improving primary health care performance.

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.

Estimated Effect on Life Expectancy of Alleviating Primary Care Shortages in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have reported that greater numbers of primary care physicians (PCPs) per population are associated with reduced population mortality, but the effect of increasing PCP density in areas of low density is poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To estimate how alleviating PCP shortages might change life expectancy and mortality. DESIGN: Generalized additive models, mixed-effects models, and generalized estimating equations. SETTING: 3104 U.S. counties from 2010 to 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Children and adults. MEASUREMENTS: Age-adjusted life expectancy; all-cause mortality; and mortality due to cardiovascular disease, cancer, infectious disease, respiratory disease, and substance use or injury. RESULTS: Persons living in counties with less than 1 physician per 3500 persons in 2017 had a mean life expectancy that was 310.9 days shorter than for persons living in counties above that threshold. In the low-density counties (n = 1218), increasing the density of PCPs above the 1:3500 threshold would be expected to increase mean life expectancy by 22.4 days (median, 19.4 days [95% CI, 0.9 to 45.6 days]), and all such counties would require 17 651 more physicians, or about 14.5 more physicians per shortage county. If counties with less than 1 physician per 1500 persons (n = 2636) were to reach the 1:1500 threshold, life expectancy would be expected to increase by 56.3 days (median, 55.6 days [CI, 4.2 to 105.6 days]), and all such counties would require 95 754 more physicians, or about 36.3 more physicians per shortage county. LIMITATION: Some projections are based on extrapolations of the actual data. CONCLUSION: In counties with fewer PCPs per population, increases in PCP density would be expected to substantially improve life expectancy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Predictors of patient-reported quality of care in low- and middle-income countries: a four-country survey of person-centered care.

BACKGROUND: Person-centeredness is a foundation of high-quality health systems but is poorly measured in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We piloted an online survey of four LMICs to identify the prevalence and correlates of excellent patient-reported quality of care (QOC). OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to investigate the examine people's overall ratings of care quality in relation to their experiences seeking care in their respective health systems as well as individual-, provider- and facility-level predictors. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional online survey using Random Domain Intercept Technology to collect a sample of random internet users across India, Kenya, Mexico and Nigeria in November 2016. The primary outcome was patient-reported QOC. Covariates included age, gender, level of education, urban/rural residence, person for whom care was sought, type of provider seen, public or private sector status of the health facility and type of facility. The exposure was an index of health system responsiveness based on a framework from the World Health Organization. We used descriptive statistics to determine the prevalence of excellent patient-reported QOC and multivariable Poisson regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for predictors of excellent patient-reported quality. RESULTS: Fourteen thousand and eight people completed the survey (22.6% completion rate). Survey respondents tended to be young, male, well-educated and urban-dwelling, reflective of the demographic of the internet-using population. Four thousand one and ninety-one (29.9%) respondents sought care in the prior 6 months. Of those, 21.8% rated their QOC as excellent. The highest proportion of respondents gave the top rating for wait time (44.6%), while the lowest proportion gave the top rating for facility cleanliness (21.7%). In an adjusted analysis, people who experienced the highest level of health system responsiveness were significantly more likely to report excellent QOC compared to those who did not (aPR 8.61, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 7.50, 9.89). In the adjusted model, urban-dwelling individuals were less likely to report excellent quality compared to rural-dwelling individuals (aPR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.99). People who saw community health workers (aPR 1.37, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.67) and specialists (aPR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.50) were more likely to report excellent quality than those who saw primary care providers. High perceived respect from the provider or staff was most highly associated with excellent ratings of quality, while ratings of wait time corresponded the least. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported QOC is low in four LMICs, even among a well-educated, young population of internet users. Better health system responsiveness may be associated with better ratings of care quality. Improving person-centered care will be an important component of building high-quality health systems in these LMICs.

Preliminary validation of the PRImary care facility Management Evaluation tool (PRIME-Tool), a national facility management survey implemented in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: The management quality of healthcare facilities has consistently been linked to facility performance, but available tools to measure management are costly to implement, often hospital-specific, not designed for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), nor widely deployed. We addressed this gap by developing the PRImary care facility Management Evaluation Tool (PRIME-Tool), a primary health care facility management survey for integration into routine national surveys in LMICs. We present an analysis of the tool's psychometric properties and suggest directions for future improvements. METHODS: The PRIME-Tool assesses performance in five core management domains: Target setting, Operations, Human resources, Monitoring, and Community engagement. We evaluated two versions of the PRIME-Tool. We surveyed 142 primary health care (PHC) facilities in Ghana in 2016 using the first version (27 items) and 148 facilities in 2017 using the second version (34 items). We calculated floor and ceiling effects for each item and conducted exploratory factor analyses to examine the factor structure for each year and version of the tool. We developed a revised management framework and PRIME-tool as informed by these exploratory results, further review of management theory literature, and co-author consensus. RESULTS: The majority (17 items in 2016, 23 items in 2017) of PRIME-Tool items exhibited ceiling effects, but only three (2 items in 2016, 3 items in 2017) showed floor effects. Solutions suggested by factor analyses did not fully fit our initial hypothesized management domains. We found five groupings of items that consistently loaded together across each analysis and named these revised domains as Supportive supervision and target setting, Active monitoring and review, Community engagement, Client feedback for improvement, and Operations and financing. CONCLUSION: The revised version of the PRIME-Tool captures a range of important and actionable information on the management of PHC facilities in LMIC contexts. We recommend its use by other investigators and practitioners to further validate its utility in PHC settings. We will continue to refine the PRIME-Tool to arrive at a parsimonious tool for tracking PHC facility management quality. Better understanding the functional components of PHC facility management can help policymakers and frontline managers drive evidence-based improvements in performance.

Barriers to treatment adjustment within a treat to target strategy in rheumatoid arthritis: a secondary analysis of the TRACTION trial.

Objectives: Adherence to a treat to target (TTT) strategy is a recommended paradigm for RA; however, research shows there are many barriers to implementation. We conducted a trial to improve TTT implementation, and herein examine barriers to treatment adjustment within TTT among patient visits not in agreement with the TTT paradigm. Methods: Chart review assessed TTT implementation based on documentation of four items: designation of a treatment target, recording a disease activity measure, shared-decision making when applicable and adjusting treatment when disease activity was not at target. A treatment decision not in agreement with the TTT paradigm was defined as lack of treatment adjustment when disease activity was not at the pre-determined treatment target. Providers were encouraged to report the barriers to treatment change; these were categorized and analysed by study staff. Multiple barriers were possible for one visit. Results: Eighty-three visits not in agreement with the TTT strategy were observed in 74 patients, during which 90 reported barriers to treatment adjustment were noted. Common barriers to adjusting treatment included patient preference in 37.1% of visits and elevated disease activity measure despite no objective evidence of active RA in 38.6% of visits. Conclusion: An elevated disease activity measure not reflective of RA disease activity and patient preference are the two leading barriers to treatment adjustment to TTT in RA. Understanding barriers to adherence should guide interventions aimed at using better markers of disease activity and improving alignment with patient preference, with the overarching goal of enhancing TTT adherence.

Finance and Time Use Implications of Team Documentation for Primary Care: A Microsimulation.

PURPOSE: To estimate the conditions under which team documentation-having a staff member enter history, place orders, and guide patients-would be financially viable at primary care practices, accounting for implementation costs. METHODS: We applied a validated microsimulation model of practice costs, revenues, and time use to data from 643 US primary care practices. We estimated critical threshold values for time saved from routine visits that would need to be redirected to new visits to avoid net revenue losses under: (1) a clerical documentation assistant (CDA) strategy where a scribe assists with recordkeeping; and (2) an advanced team-based care (ATBC) strategy where medical assistants perform history, documentation, counseling, and order entry. RESULTS: Using a fee-for-service model, we estimated that physicians would need to save 3.5 (95% CI, 3.3-3.7) minutes/encounter under a CDA strategy and 7.4 (95% CI, 4.3-10.5) minutes/encounter under an ATBC strategy to prevent net revenue losses. The redirected time would be expected to add 317 visit slots per year under CDA strategy, and 720 under ATBC strategy. Using a capitated payment model, physicians would need to empanel at least 127 (95% CI, 70-187) more patients under CDA and 227 (95% CI, 153-267) under ATBC to prevent revenue losses. Additional patient visits expected would be 279 (95% CI, 140-449) additional visit slots per year under CDA and 499 (95% CI, 454-641) under ATBC. CONCLUSIONS: Financial viability of team documentation under fee-for-service payment may require more physician time to be reallocated to patient encounters than under a capitated payment model.

Does quality influence utilization of primary health care? Evidence from Haiti.

BACKGROUND: Expanding coverage of primary healthcare services such as antenatal care and vaccinations is a global health priority; however, many Haitians do not utilize these services. One reason may be that the population avoids low quality health facilities. We examined how facility infrastructure and the quality of primary health care service delivery were associated with community utilization of primary health care services in Haiti. METHODS: We constructed two composite measures of quality for all Haitian facilities using the 2013 Service Provision Assessment survey. We geographically linked population clusters from the Demographic and Health Surveys to nearby facilities offering primary health care services. We assessed the cross-sectional association between quality and utilization of four primary care services: antenatal care, postnatal care, vaccinations and sick child care, as well as one more complex service: facility delivery. RESULTS: Facilities performed poorly on both measures of quality, scoring 0.55 and 0.58 out of 1 on infrastructure and service delivery quality respectively. In rural areas, utilization of several primary cares services (antenatal care, postnatal care, and vaccination) was associated with both infrastructure and quality of service delivery, with stronger associations for service delivery. Facility delivery was associated with infrastructure quality, and there was no association for sick child care. In urban areas, care utilization was not associated with either quality measure. CONCLUSIONS: Poor quality of care may deter utilization of beneficial primary health care services in rural areas of Haiti. Improving health service quality may offer an opportunity not only to improve health outcomes for patients, but also to expand coverage of key primary health care services.

Association Between Patient-Centered Medical Homes and Adherence to Chronic Disease Medications: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread adoption of patient-centered medical homes into primary care practice, the evidence supporting their effect on health care outcomes has come primarily from geographically localized and well-integrated health systems. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between medication adherence and medical homes in a national patient and provider population, given the strong ties between adherence to chronic disease medications and health care quality and spending. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Claims from a large national health insurer. PATIENTS: Patients initiating therapy with common medications for chronic diseases (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia) between 2011 and 2013. MEASUREMENTS: Medication adherence in the 12 months after treatment initiation was compared among patients cared for by providers practicing in National Committee for Quality Assurance-recognized patient-centered medical homes and propensity score-matched control practices in the same Primary Care Service Areas. Linear mixed models were used to examine the association between medical homes and adherence. RESULTS: Of 313 765 patients meeting study criteria, 18 611 (5.9%) received care in patient-centered medical homes. Mean rates of adherence were 64% among medical home patients and 59% among control patients. Among 4660 matched control and medical home practices, medication adherence was significantly higher in medical homes (2.2% [95% CI, 1.5% to 2.9%]). The association between medical homes and better adherence did not differ significantly by disease state (diabetes, 3.0% [CI, 1.5% to 4.6%]; hypertension, 3.2% [CI, 2.2% to 4.2%]; hyperlipidemia, 1.5% [CI, 0.6% to 2.5%]). LIMITATION: Clinical outcomes related to medication adherence were not assessed. CONCLUSION: Receipt of care in a patient-centered medical home is associated with better adherence, a vital measure of health care quality, among patients initiating treatment with medications for common high-cost chronic diseases. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: CVS Health.

The Impact of Alternative Payment in Chronically Ill and Older Patients in the Patient-centered Medical Home.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered medical home (PCMH) has gained prominence as a promising model to encourage improved primary care delivery. There is a paucity of studies that evaluate the impact of payment models in the PCMH. OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine whether coupling coordinated, team-based care transformation plan with a novel reimbursement model affects outcomes related to expenditures and utilization. RESEARCH DESIGN: Interrupted time-series model with a difference-in-differences approach to assess differences between intervention and control groups, across time periods attributable to PCMH transformation and/or payment change. RESULTS: Although results were modest and mixed overall, PCMH with payment reform is associated with a reduction of $1.04 (P=0.0347) per member per month (PMPM) in pharmacy expenditures. Patients with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and coronary atherosclerosis enrolled in PCMH without payment reform experienced reductions in emergency department visits of 2.16 (P<0.0001), 2.42 (P<0.0001), 3.98 (P<0.0001), and 3.61 (P<0.0001) per 1000 per month. Modest increases in inpatient admission were seen among these patients in PCMH either with or without payment reform. Patients 65 and older enrolled in PMCH without payment reform experienced reductions in pharmacy expenditures $2.35 (P=0.0077) PMPM with a parallel reduction in pharmacy standardized cost of $2.81 (P=0.0174) PMPM indicative of a reduction in the intensity of drug utilization. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that PCMH implementation coupled with an innovative payment arrangement generated mixed results with modest improvements with respect to pharmacy expenditures, but no overall financial improvement. However, we did see improvement within specific groups, especially older patients and those with chronic conditions.

Assessing the quality of primary care in Haiti.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a composite measure of primary care quality and apply it to Haiti's primary care system. METHODS: Using the Primary Health Care Performance Initiative's framework, we defined four domains of primary care service delivery: (i) accessible care; (ii) effective service delivery; (iii) management and organization; and (iv) primary care functions. We gave each primary care facility in Haiti a quality score for each domain and overall, with poor, fair and good quality indicated by scores of 0.00-0.49, 0.50-0.74 and 0.75-1.00, respectively. We quantified access and effective access to primary care as the proportions of the population within 5 km of any primary care facility and a good facility, respectively. FINDINGS: Of the 786 primary care facilities in Haiti in 2013, only 332 (43%) facilities were classified as good for accessible care. Fewer facilities were classified as good in the domains of effective service delivery (30; 4%), management and organization (91; 12%) and primary care functions (43; 5%). Although about 91% of the population lived within 5 km of a primary care facility, only an estimated 23% of the entire population - including just 5% of the rural population - had access to primary care of good quality. CONCLUSION: Despite an extensive network of health facilities, a minority of Haitians had access to a primary care facility of good quality. Such facilities were especially scarce in rural areas. Similar systematic analyses of the quality of primary care could inform national efforts to strengthen health systems.

Behavioral Health Integration into Primary Care: a Microsimulation of Financial Implications for Practices.

BACKGROUND: New payments from Medicare encourage behavioral health services to be integrated into primary care practice activities. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the financial impact for primary care practices of integrating behavioral health services. DESIGN: Microsimulation model. PARTICIPANTS: We simulated patients and providers at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), non-FQHCs in urban and rural high-poverty areas, and practices outside of high-poverty areas surveyed by the National Association of Community Health Centers, National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and National Health Interview Survey. INTERVENTIONS: A collaborative care model (CoCM), involving telephone-based follow-up from a behaviorist care manager, or a primary care behaviorist model (PCBM), involving an in-clinic behaviorist. MAIN MEASURES: Net revenue change per full-time physician. KEY RESULTS: When behavioral health integration services were offered only to Medicare patients, net revenue was higher under CoCM (averaging $25,026 per MD in year 1 and $28,548/year in subsequent years) than PCBM (-$7052 in year 1 and -$3706/year in subsequent years). When behavioral health integration services were offered to all patients and were reimbursed by Medicare and private payers, only practices adopting the CoCM approach consistently gained net revenues. The outcomes of the model were sensitive to rates of patient referral acceptance, presentation, and therapy completion, but the CoCM approach remained consistently financially viable whereas PCBM would not be in the long-run across practice types. CONCLUSIONS: New Medicare payments may offer financial viability for primary care practices to integrate behavioral health services, but this viability depends on the approach toward care integration.

Insurance Transitions and Changes in Physician and Emergency Department Utilization: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Shopping for health insurance is encouraged as a way to find the most affordable coverage that best meets an enrollee's needs. However, the extent to which individuals switch insurance and subsequent changes in health care utilization that might arise, particularly new physician visits, are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between insurance switching and new physician and emergency department visits around the time of a switch. DESIGN: Observational study using a difference-in-differences design to compare those switching insurance carriers with propensity score-matched controls who did not switch, stratified based on whether individuals initially had private or Medicaid insurance coverage. All analyses adjusted for individual and insurance characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: Continuously insured, non-elderly individuals with private or Medicaid insurance coverage in Massachusetts from 2010 to 2013. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of new primary care and specialist physician visits, as well as rates of emergency department visits. KEY RESULTS: Before matching, among 1,628,057 continuously insured individuals, 418,231 (26%) switched insurance carriers during a 2-year period. Characteristics of switchers and non-switchers were similar after matching (n = 316,343 in each group). After matching, switching plans was associated with a 203% and 47.5% increase in the rate of new primary care physician visits following switching for those initially with Medicaid or private coverage, respectively (both p < 0.001), with a large short-term increase, diminishing over time. Among those with Medicaid coverage, switching was associated with a 14.9% higher rate of ED visits during the month of switching (p < 0.001), but otherwise decreased modestly after switching. CONCLUSIONS: Insurance switching is common, and is associated with increased new physician visits and temporarily increased ED use among the publicly insured. As insurance markets become more volatile in the current policy environment, understanding changes in utilization after insurance switching may become increasingly important.

Primary Health Care as a Foundation for Strengthening Health Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Primary health care (PHC) has been recognized as a core component of effective health systems since the early part of the twentieth century. However, despite notable progress, there remains a large gap between what individuals and communities need, and the quality and effectiveness of care delivered. The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) was established by an international consortium to catalyze improvements in PHC delivery and outcomes in low- and middle-income countries through better measurement and sharing of effective models and practices. PHCPI has developed a framework to illustrate the relationship between key financing, workforce, and supply inputs, and core primary health care functions of first-contact accessibility, comprehensiveness, coordination, continuity, and person-centeredness. The framework provides guidance for more effective assessment of current strengths and gaps in PHC delivery through a core set of 25 key indicators ("Vital Signs"). Emerging best practices that foster high-performing PHC system development are being codified and shared around low- and high-income countries. These measurement and improvement approaches provide countries and implementers with tools to assess the current state of their PHC delivery system and to identify where cross-country learning can accelerate improvements in PHC quality and effectiveness.

Primary Care Providers' Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients.

BACKGROUND: Revised breast cancer screening guidelines have fueled debate about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography, encouraging discussion between women and their providers. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether primary care providers' (PCPs') beliefs about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography are associated with utilization by their patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey data from PCPs (2014) from three primary care networks affiliated with the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium, linked with data about their patients' mammography use (2011-2014). PARTICIPANTS: PCPs (n = 209) and their female patients age 40-89 years without breast cancer (n = 30,233). MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included whether (1) women received a screening mammogram during a 2-year period; and (2) screened women had >1 mammogram during that period, reflecting annual screening. Principal independent variables were PCP beliefs about the effectiveness of mammography and their recommendations for screening frequency. KEY RESULTS: Overall 65.2% of women received >1 screening mammogram. For women 40-48 years, mammography use was modestly lower for those cared for by PCPs who believed that screening was ineffective compared with those who believed it was somewhat or very effective (59.1%, 62.3%, and 64.7%; p = 0.019 after controlling for patient characteristics). Of women with PCPs who reported they did not recommend screening before age 50, 48.1% were nonetheless screened. For women age 49-74 years, the vast majority were cared for by providers who believed that screening was effective. Provider recommendations were not associated with screening frequency. For women ≥75 years, those cared for by providers who were uncertain about effectiveness had higher screening use (50.7%) than those cared for by providers who believed it was somewhat effective (42.8%). Patients of providers who did not recommend screening were less likely to be screened than were those whose providers recommended annual screening, yet 37.1% of patients whose providers recommended against screening still received screening. CONCLUSIONS: PCP beliefs about mammography effectiveness and screening recommendations are only modestly associated with use, suggesting other likely influences on patient participation in mammography.

Better Measurement for Performance Improvement in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) Experience of Conceptual Framework Development and Indicator Selection.

Policy Points: Strengthening accountability through better measurement and reporting is vital to ensure progress in improving quality primary health care (PHC) systems and achieving universal health coverage (UHC). The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI) provides national decision makers and global stakeholders with opportunities to benchmark and accelerate performance improvement through better performance measurement. Results from the initial PHC performance assessments in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are helping guide PHC reforms and investments and improve the PHCPI's instruments and indicators. Findings from future assessment activities will further amplify cross-country comparisons and peer learning to improve PHC. New indicators and sources of data are needed to better understand PHC system performance in LMICs. CONTEXT: The Primary Health Care Performance Initiative (PHCPI), a collaboration between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The World Bank, and the World Health Organization, in partnership with Ariadne Labs and Results for Development, was launched in 2015 with the aim of catalyzing improvements in primary health care (PHC) systems in 135 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), in order to accelerate progress toward universal health coverage. Through more comprehensive and actionable measurement of quality PHC, the PHCPI stimulates peer learning among LMICs and informs decision makers to guide PHC investments and reforms. Instruments for performance assessment and improvement are in development; to date, a conceptual framework and 2 sets of performance indicators have been released. METHODS: The PHCPI team developed the conceptual framework through literature reviews and consultations with an advisory committee of international experts. We generated 2 sets of performance indicators selected from a literature review of relevant indicators, cross-referenced against indicators available from international sources, and evaluated through 2 separate modified Delphi processes, consisting of online surveys and in-person facilitated discussions with experts. FINDINGS: The PHCPI conceptual framework builds on the current understanding of PHC system performance through an expanded emphasis on the role of service delivery. The first set of performance indicators, 36 Vital Signs, facilitates comparisons across countries and over time. The second set, 56 Diagnostic Indicators, elucidates underlying drivers of performance. Key challenges include a lack of available data for several indicators and a lack of validated indicators for important dimensions of quality PHC. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of data is critical to assessing PHC performance, particularly patient experience and quality of care. The PHCPI will continue to develop and test additional performance assessment instruments, including composite indices and national performance dashboards. Through country engagement, the PHCPI will further refine its instruments and engage with governments to better design and finance primary health care reforms.

Risk Stratification Methods and Provision of Care Management Services in Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative Practices.

PURPOSE: Risk-stratified care management is essential to improving population health in primary care settings, but evidence is limited on the type of risk stratification method and its association with care management services. METHODS: We describe risk stratification patterns and association with care management services for primary care practices in the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative. We undertook a qualitative approach to categorize risk stratification methods being used by CPC practices and tested whether these stratification methods were associated with delivery of care management services. RESULTS: CPC practices reported using 4 primary methods to stratify risk for their patient populations: a practice-developed algorithm (n = 215), the American Academy of Family Physicians' clinical algorithm (n = 155), payer claims and electronic health records (n = 62), and clinical intuition (n = 52). CPC practices using practice-developed algorithm identified the most number of high-risk patients per primary care physician (282 patients, P = .006). CPC practices using clinical intuition had the most high-risk patients in care management and a greater proportion of high-risk patients receiving care management per primary care physician (91 patients and 48%, P =.036 and P =.128, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: CPC practices used 4 primary methods to identify high-risk patients. Although practices that developed their own algorithm identified the greatest number of high-risk patients, practices that used clinical intuition connected the greatest proportion of patients to care management services.

A systematic tale of two differing reviews: evaluating the evidence on public and private sector quality of primary care in low and middle income countries.

Systematic reviews are powerful tools for summarizing vast amounts of data in controversial areas; but their utility is limited by methodological choices and assumptions. Two systematic reviews of literature on the quality of private sector primary care in low and middle income countries (LMIC), published in the same journal within a year, reached conflicting conclusions. The difference in findings reflects different review methodologies, but more importantly, a weak underlying body of literature. A detailed examination of the literature cited in both reviews shows that only one of the underlying studies met the gold standard for methodological robustness. Given the current policy momentum on universal health coverage and primary health care reform across the globe, there is an urgent need for high quality empirical evidence on the quality of private versus public sector primary health care in LMIC.

Behavioral Health and the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) Initiative: findings from the 2014 CPC behavioral health survey.

BACKGROUND: Incorporating behavioral health care into patient centered medical homes is critical for improving patient health and care quality while reducing costs. Despite documented effectiveness of behavioral health integration (BHI) in primary care settings, implementation is limited outside of large health systems. We conducted a survey of BHI in primary care practices participating in the Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative, a four-year multi-payer initiative of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). We sought to explore associations between practice characteristics and the extent of BHI to illuminate possible factors influencing successful implementation. METHOD: We fielded a survey that addressed six substantive domains (integrated space, training, access, communication and coordination, treatment planning, and available resources) and five behavioral health conditions (depression, anxiety, pain, alcohol use disorder, and cognitive function). Descriptive statistics compared BHI survey respondents to all CPC practices, documented the availability of behavioral health providers, and primary care and behavioral health provider communication. Bivariate relationships compared provider and practice characteristics and domain scores. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-one of 188 eligible primary care practices completed the survey (86% response rate). Scores indicated basic to good baseline implementation of BHI in all domains, with lowest scores on communication and coordination and highest scores for depression. Higher scores were associated with: having any behavioral health provider, multispecialty practice, patient-centered medical home designation, and having any communication between behavioral health and primary care providers. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides useful data on opportunities and challenges of scaling BHI integration linked to primary care transformation. Payment reform models such as CPC can assist in BHI promotion and development.