Health Care Contact Days Among Older Adults in Traditional Medicare : A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Days spent obtaining health care outside the home can represent not only access to needed care but also substantial time, effort, and cost, especially for older adults and their care partners. Yet, these "health care contact days" have not been characterized. OBJECTIVE: To assess composition of, variation and patterns in, and factors associated with contact days among older adults. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Nationally representative 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey data linked to claims. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older in traditional Medicare. MEASUREMENTS: Ambulatory contact days (days with a primary care or specialty care office visit, test, imaging, procedure, or treatment) and total contact days (ambulatory days plus institutional days in a hospital, emergency department, skilled-nursing facility, or hospice facility); multivariable mixed-effects Poisson regression to identify patient factors associated with contact days. RESULTS: In weighted results, 6619 older adults (weighted: 29 694 084) had means of 17.3 ambulatory contact days (SD, 22.1) and 20.7 total contact days (SD, 27.5) in the year; 11.1% had 50 or more total contact days. Older adults spent most contact days on ambulatory care, including primary care visits (mean [SD], 3.5 [5.0]), specialty care visits (5.7 [9.6]), tests (5.3 [7.2]), imaging (2.6 [3.9]), procedures (2.5 [6.4]), and treatments (5.7 [13.3]). Half of the test and imaging days were not on the same days as office visits (48.6% and 50.1%, respectively). Factors associated with more ambulatory contact days included younger age, female sex, White race, non-Hispanic ethnicity, higher income, higher educational attainment, urban residence, more chronic conditions, and care-seeking behaviors (for example, "go to the doctor…as soon as (I)…feel bad"). LIMITATION: Study population limited to those in traditional Medicare. CONCLUSION: On average, older adults spent 3 weeks in the year getting care outside the home. These contact days were mostly ambulatory and varied widely not only by number of chronic conditions but also by sociodemographic factors, geography, and care-seeking behaviors. These results show factors beyond clinical need that may drive overuse and underuse of contact days and opportunities to optimize this person-centered measure to reduce patient burdens, for example, via care coordination. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Consuming Patients' Days: Time Spent on Ambulatory Appointments by People With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In qualitative work, patients report that seemingly short trips to clinic (eg, a supposed 10-minute blood draw) often turn into "all-day affairs." We sought to quantify the time patients with cancer spend attending ambulatory appointments. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients scheduled for oncology-related ambulatory care (eg, labs, imaging, procedures, infusions, and clinician visits) at an academic cancer center over 1 week. The primary exposure was the ambulatory service type(s) (eg, clinician visit only, labs and infusion, etc.). We used Real-Time Location System badge data to calculate clinic times and estimated round-trip travel times and parking times. We calculated and summarized clinic and total (clinic + travel + parking) times for ambulatory service types. RESULTS: We included 435 patients. Across all service day type(s), the median (IQR) clinic time was 119 (78-202) minutes. The estimated median (IQR) round-trip driving distance and travel time was 34 (17-49) miles and 50 (36-68) minutes. The median (IQR) parking time was 14 (12-15) minutes. Overall, the median (IQR) total time was 197 (143-287) minutes. The median total times for specific service type(s) included: 99 minutes for lab-only, 144 minutes for clinician visit only, and 278 minutes for labs, clinician visit, and infusion. CONCLUSION: Patients often spent several hours pursuing ambulatory cancer care on a given day. Accounting for opportunity time costs and the coordination of activities around ambulatory care, these results highlight the substantial time burdens of cancer care, and support the notion that many days with ambulatory health care contact may represent "lost days."

Physician Work Hours and the Gender Pay Gap - Evidence from Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: The gender gap in physician pay is often attributed in part to women working fewer hours than men, but evidence to date is limited by self-report and a lack of detail regarding clinical revenue and gender differences in practice style. METHODS: Using national all-payer claims and data from electronic health records, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 24.4 million primary care office visits in 2017 and performed comparisons between female and male physicians in the same practices. Our primary independent variable was physician gender; outcomes included visit revenue, visit counts, days worked, and observed visit time (interval between the initiation and the termination of a visit). We created multivariable regression models at the year, day, and visit level after adjustment for characteristics of the primary care physicians (PCPs), patients, and types of visit and for practice fixed effects. RESULTS: In 2017, female PCPs generated 10.9% less revenue from office visits than their male counterparts (-$39,143.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], -53,523.0 to -24,763.4) and conducted 10.8% fewer visits (-330.5 visits; 95% CI, -406.6 to -254.3) over 2.6% fewer clinical days (-5.3 days; 95% CI, -7.7 to -3.0), after adjustment for age, academic degree, specialty, and number of sessions worked per week, yet spent 2.6% more observed time in visits that year than their male counterparts (1201.3 minutes; 95% CI, 184.7 to 2218.0). Per visit, after adjustment for PCP, patient, and visit characteristics, female PCPs generated equal revenue but spent 15.7% more time with a patient (2.4 minutes; 95% CI, 2.1 to 2.6). These results were consistent in subgroup analyses according to the gender and health status of the patients and the type and complexity of the visits. CONCLUSIONS: Female PCPs generated less visit revenue than male colleagues in the same practices owing to a lower volume of visits, yet spent more time in direct patient care per visit, per day, and per year. (Funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.).

Frequency, compliance, and yield of cardiac testing after high-sensitivity troponin accelerated diagnostic protocol implementation.

BACKGROUND: Among persons presenting to the emergency department with suspected acute myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac troponin (cTn) testing is commonly used to detect acute myocardial injury. Accelerated diagnostic protocols (ADPs) guide clinicians to integrate cTn results with other clinical information to decide whether to order further diagnostic testing. OBJECTIVE: To determine the change in the rate and yield of stress test or coronary CT angiogram following cTn measurement in patients with chest pain presenting to the emergency department pre- and post-transition to a high-sensitivity (hs-cTn) assay in an updated ADP. METHODS: Using electronic health records, we examined visits for chest pain at five emergency departments affiliated with an integrated academic health system 1-year pre- and post-hs-cTn assay transition. Outcomes included stress test or coronary imaging frequency, ADP compliance among those with additional testing, and diagnostic yield (ratio of positive tests to total tests). RESULTS: There were 7564 patient-visits for chest pain, including 3665 in the pre- and 3899 in the post-period. Following the updated ADP using hs-cTn, 862 (23.5 per 100 patient visits) visits led to subsequent testing versus 1085 (27.8 per 100 patient visits) in the pre-hs-cTn period, (P < 0.001). Among those who were tested, the protocol-compliant rate fell from 80.9% to 46.5% (P < 0.001), but the yield of those tests rose from 24.5% to 29.2% (P = 0.07). Among tests that were noncompliant with ADP guidance, yield was similar pre- and post-updated hs-cTn ADP implementation (pre 13.0%, post 15.4% (P = 0.43). CONCLUSION: Implementation of hs-cTn supported by an updated ADP was associated with a lower rate of stress testing and coronary CT angiogram.

How the Gender Wage Gap for Primary Care Physicians Differs by Compensation Approach : A Microsimulation Study.

BACKGROUND: The physician gender wage gap may be due, in part, to productivity-based compensation models that undervalue female practice patterns. OBJECTIVE: To determine how primary care physician (PCP) compensation by gender differs when applying existing productivity-based and alternative compensation models. DESIGN: Microsimulation. SETTING: 2016 to 2019 national clinical registry of 1222 primary care practices. PARTICIPANTS: Male and female PCPs matched on specialty, years since medical school graduation, practice site, and sessions worked. MEASUREMENTS: Net annual, full-time-equivalent compensation for male versus female PCPs, under productivity-based fee-for-service, panel size-based capitation without or with risk adjustment, and hybrid payment models. Microsimulation inputs included patient and visit characteristics and overhead expenses. RESULTS: Among 1435 matched male (n = 881) and female (n = 554) PCPs, female PCP panels included patients who were, on average, younger, had lower diagnosis-based risk scores, were more often female, and were more often uninsured or insured by Medicaid rather than by Medicare. Under productivity-based payment, female PCPs earned a median of $58 829 (interquartile range [IQR], $39 553 to $120 353; 21%) less than male PCPs. This gap was similar under capitation ($58 723 [IQR, $42 141 to $140 192]). It was larger under capitation risk-adjusted for age alone ($74 695 [IQR, $42 884 to $152 423]), for diagnosis-based scores alone ($114 792 [IQR, $49 080 to $215 326] and $89 974 [IQR, $26 175 to $173 760]), and for age-, sex-, and diagnosis-based scores ($83 438 [IQR, $28 927 to $129 414] and $66 195 [IQR, $11 899 to $96 566]). The gap was smaller and nonsignificant under capitation risk-adjusted for age and sex ($36 631 [IQR, $12 743 to $73 898]). LIMITATION: Panel attribution based on office visits. CONCLUSION: The gender wage gap varied by compensation model, with capitation risk-adjusted for patient age and sex resulting in a smaller gap. Future models might better align with primary care effort and outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Association of Evaluation and Management Payment Policy Changes With Medicare Payment to Physicians by Specialty.

Importance: US primary care physicians (PCPs) have lower mean incomes than specialists, likely contributing to workforce shortages. In 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services increased payment for evaluation and management (E/M) services and relaxed documentation requirements. These changes may have reduced the gap between primary care and specialist payment. Objectives: To simulate the effect of the E/M payment policy change on total Medicare physician payments while holding volume constant and to compare these simulated changes with observed changes in total Medicare payments and E/M coding intensity, before (July-December 2020) and after (July-December 2021) the E/M payment policy change. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective observational study of US office-based physicians who were in specialties with 5000 or more physicians billing Medicare and who had 50 or more fee-for-service Medicare visits before and after the E/M payment policy change. Exposures: E/M payment policy changes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included physician-level simulated volume-constant payment change, total observed Medicare payment change, and share of high-intensity (ie, level 4 or 5) E/M visits before and after the E/M payment policy change. For each specialty, the median change in each outcome was reported. The payment gap between primary care and specialty physicians was calculated as the difference between total Medicare payments to the median primary care and median specialty physician. Results: The study population included 180 624 physicians. Repricing 2020 services yielded a simulated volume-constant payment change ranging from a 3.3% (-$4557.0) decrease for the median radiologist to an 11.0% ($3683.1) increase for the median family practice physician. After the E/M payment change, the median high-intensity share of E/M visits increased for physicians of nearly all specialties, ranging from a -4.4 percentage point increase (dermatology) to a 17.8 percentage point increase (psychiatry). The median change in total Medicare payments by specialty ranged from -4.2% (-$1782.9) for general surgery to 12.1% ($3746.9) for family practice. From July-December 2020 to July-December 2021, the payment gap between the median primary care physician and the median specialist shrank by $825.1, from $40 259.8 to $39 434.7 (primary care, $41 193.3 in July-December 2020 and $45 962.4 in July-December 2021; specialist, $81 453.1 in July-December 2020 and $85 397.1 in July-December 2021)-a relative decrease of 2.0%. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US office-based physicians receiving Medicare payments in 2020 and 2021, E/M payment policy changes were associated with changes in Medicare payment by specialty, although the payment gap between primary care physicians and specialists decreased only modestly. The findings may have been influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, and further research in subsequent years is needed.

Practice Billing for Medicare Advance Care Planning Across the USA.

BACKGROUND: Medicare introduced billing codes in 2016 to encourage clinicians to engage in advance care planning (ACP) and promote goal-concordantend-of-life care, but uptake has been modest. While prior research examined individual-level factors in ACP billing, organization-level factors associated with physician practices billing for ACP remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: Examine the role of practices in ACP billing. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study analyzing 2016-2018 national Medicare data. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 53,926 practices with at least 10 attributed Medicare beneficiaries. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes were practice-level ACP billing (any use by the practice) and ACP use rate by practice-attributed beneficiaries. Practice characteristics were number of beneficiaries attributed to the practice; percentage of beneficiaries by race, Medicare-Medicaid dual enrollment, sex, and age; practice size; and specialty mix. KEY RESULTS: Fifteen percent of practices billed for ACP. In adjusted models, we found higher odds of ACP billing and higher ACP use rates among practices with more primary care physicians (billing AOR: 10.01, 95%CI: 8.81-11.38 for practices with 75-100% (vs 0) primary care physicians), and those serving more Medicare beneficiaries (billing AOR: 4.55, 95%CI 4.08-5.08 for practices with highest (vs lowest) quintile of beneficiaries), and larger shares of female beneficiaries (billing AOR: 3.06, 95% CI 2.01-4.67 for 75-100% (vs <25%) female ). CONCLUSIONS: Several years after Medicare introduced ACP reimbursements for physicians, relatively few practices bill for ACP. ACP billing was more likely in large practices with a greater percentage of primary care physicians. To increase ACP billing uptake, policymakers and health system leaders might target interventions to larger practices where a small number of physicians already bill for ACP and to specialty practices that serve as the primary source of care for seriously ill patients.

Primary Care Access During the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Simulated Patient Study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care practices have experienced major strains during the COVID-19 pandemic, such that patients newly seeking care may face potential barriers to timely visits. OBJECTIVE: To quantify availability and wait times for new patient appointments in primary care and to describe how primary care practices are guiding patients with suspected COVID-19. DESIGN: Trained callers conducted simulated patient calls to 800 randomly sampled primary care practices between September 14, 2020, and September 28, 2020. PARTICIPANTS: We extracted complete primary care physician listings from large commercial insurance networks in four geographically dispersed states between September 10 and 14, 2020 (n=11,521). After excluding non-physician providers and removing duplicate phone numbers, we identified 2705 unique primary care physician practices from which we randomly sampled 200 practices in each region. MAIN MEASURES: Primary care appointment availability, median wait time in days, and practice guidance to patients suspecting COVID-19 infection. KEY RESULTS: Among 56% of listed practices that had accurate contact information listed in the directory, 84% offered a new patient in-person or virtual appointment. Median wait time was 10 days (IQR 3-26 days). The most common guidance in case of suspected COVID-19 was clinician consultation, which was offered in 41% of completed calls. Callers were otherwise directed to on-site testing (14%), off-site testing (24%), a COVID-19 hotline (8%), or an urgent care/emergency department (12%), while 2% of practices had no guidance to offer. CONCLUSIONS: Despite resource constraints, most reachable primary care practices offered timely new patient appointments as well as direct COVID-19 care. Pandemic mitigation strategies should account for and support the central role of primary care practices in the community-based pandemic response.

Declining Use of Primary Care Among Commercially Insured Adults in the United States, 2008-2016.

Background: Primary care is known to improve outcomes and lower health care costs, prompting recent U.S. policy efforts to expand its role. Nonetheless, there is early evidence of a decline in per capita primary care visit rates, and little is understood about what is contributing to the decline. Objective: To describe primary care provider (PCP) visit trends among adults enrolled with a large, national, commercial insurer and assess factors underlying a potential decline in PCP visits. Design: Descriptive repeated cross-sectional study using 100% deidentified claims data from the insurer, 2008-2016. A 5% claims sample was used for Poisson regression models to quantify visit trends. Setting: National, population-based. Participants: Adult health plan members aged 18 to 64 years. Measurements: PCP visit rates per 100 member-years. Results: In total, 142 million primary care visits among 94 million member-years were examined. Visits to PCPs declined by 24.2%, from 169.5 to 134.3 visits per 100 member-years, while the proportion of adults with no PCP visits in a given year rose from 38.1% to 46.4%. Rates of visits addressing low-acuity conditions decreased by 47.7% (95% CI, -48.1% to -47.3%). The decline was largest among the youngest adults (-27.6% [CI, -28.2% to -27.1%]), those without chronic conditions (-26.4% [CI, -26.7% to -26.1%]), and those living in the lowest-income areas (-31.4% [CI, -31.8% to -30.9%]). Out-of-pocket cost per problem-based visit rose by $9.4 (31.5%). Visit rates to specialists remained stable (-0.08% [CI, -0.56% to 0.40%]), and visits to alternative venues, such as urgent care clinics, increased by 46.9% (CI, 45.8% to 48.1%). Limitation: Data were limited to a single commercial insurer and did not capture nonbilled clinician-patient interactions. Conclusion: Commercially insured adults have been visiting PCPs less often, and nearly one half had no PCP visits in a given year by 2016. Our results suggest that this decline may be explained by decreased real or perceived visit needs, financial deterrents, and use of alternative sources of care. Primary Funding Source: None.

Evidence and Implications Behind a National Decline in Primary Care Visits.

Primary care is the foundation of the health care system and the basis for new payment and delivery reforms in the USA. Yet since 2008, primary care visit rates dropped by 6-25% across a range of populations in five sources of national survey and administrative data. We hypothesize three likely mechanisms behind the decline: decreases in patients' ability, need, or desire to seek primary care; changes in primary care practice such as greater use of teams and non-face-to-face care; and replacement of in-person primary care visits with alternatives such as specialist, retail clinic, and commercial telemedicine visits. These mechanisms require further investigation. In the meantime, the trend prompts us to optimize the primary care visit and embrace the growth of alternatives while preserving the fundamental benefits of primary care.

National Trends in Primary Care Visit Use and Practice Capabilities, 2008-2015.

PURPOSE: Recent evidence shows a national decline in primary care visit rates over the last decade. It is unclear how changes in practice-including the use and content of primary care visits-may have contributed. METHODS: We analyzed nationally representative data of adult visits to primary care physicians (PCPs) and physician practice characteristics from 2007-2016 (National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey). United States census estimates were used to calculate visits per capita. Measures included visit rates per person year; visit duration; number of medications, diagnoses, and preventive services per visit; percentage of visits with scheduled follow-up; and percentage of physicians with practice capabilities including an electronic medical record (EMR). RESULTS: Our weighted sample represented 3.2 billion visits (83,368 visits, unweighted). Visits per capita declined by 20% (-0.25 visits per person, 95% CI, -0.32 to -0.19) during this time, while visit duration increased by 2.4 minutes per visit (95% CI, 1.1-3.8). Per visit, PCPs addressed 0.30 more diagnoses (95% CI, 0.16-0.43) and 0.82 more medications (95% CI, 0.59-1.1), and provided 0.24 more preventive services (95% CI, 0.12-0.36). Visits with scheduled PCP followup declined by 6.0% (95% CI, -12.4 to 0.46), while PCPs reporting use of EMR increased by 44.3% (95% CI, 39.1-49.5) and those reporting use of secure messaging increased by 60.9% (95% CI, 27.5-94.3). CONCLUSION: From 2008 to 2015, primary care visits were longer, addressed more issues per visit, and were less likely to have scheduled follow-up for certain patients and conditions. Meanwhile, more PCPs offered non-face-to-face care. The decline in primary care visit rates may be explained in part by PCPs offering more comprehensive in-person visits and using more non-face-to-face care.

What Do High-Risk Patients Value? Perspectives on a Care Management Program.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in coordinating care for high-risk patients through care management programs despite inconsistent results on cost reduction. Early evidence suggests patient-centered benefits, but we know little about how participants engage with the programs and what aspects they value. OBJECTIVE: To explore care management program participants' awareness and perceived utility of program offerings. DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone survey administered December 2015-January 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled in a Boston-area primary care-based care management program. MAIN MEASURES: Our main outcome was the number of topics in which patients reported having "very helpful" interactions with their care team in the past year. We analyzed awareness of one's care manager as an intermediate outcome, and then as a primary predictor of the main outcome, along with patient demographics, years in the program, attitudes, and worries as secondary predictors. KEY RESULTS: The survey response rate was 45.8% (n = 1220); non-respondents were similar to respondents. More respondents reported worrying about family (72.8%) or financial issues (52.5%) than about their own health (41.6%). Seventy-four percent reported care manager awareness, particularly women (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.01-1.77) and those with more years in the program (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.30). While interaction rates ranged from 19.8% to 72.4% across topics, 81.3% rated at least one interaction as very helpful. Those who were aware of their care manager reported very helpful interactions on more topics (OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.15-3.56), as did women (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00-1.55), younger respondents (OR 0.98 for older age, 95% CI 0.97-0.99), and those with higher risk scores (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06), preference for deferring treatment decisions to doctors (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.60-2.50), and reported control over their health (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.33-2.10). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk patients reported helpful interactions with their care team around medical and social determinants of health, particularly those who knew their care manager. Promoting care manager awareness may help participants make better use of the program.

A Scalable Program for Customized Patient Education Videos.

PROBLEM DEFINITION: Patients must make sense of increasingly complex information to navigate their health and the health care system, with limited opportunity to do so in clinical settings. Patient education videos may help to communicate key information, but they are often impersonal and cumbersome to produce or update with new evidence. To address these limitations, a program was developed to facilitate local video creation to deliver targeted information to patients. APPROACH: The Patient Education Video Program was created at a large urban academic medical center. The medical director and two project managers worked with clinicians and patients to create and disseminate short, single-topic videos organized by segments. The videos educated patients on clinical and service topics such as self-care for low back pain and postoperative protocols. Videos were filmed and modified on a user-friendly mobile device application, then prescribed by sharing a link to the online video platform. Video creators were engaged through a learning collaborative, a physician incentive program, and a residency elective in which trainees designed video-based care redesign projects. OUTCOMES: The program was introduced to practice sites across 26 departments. Some 269 videos received 19,713 unique views in a two-year period. In an operational survey, 1,034 (86.0%) of 1,203 viewer responses stated that a video helped them understand their health, medical condition, or treatment plan. KEY INSIGHTS: A program to facilitate video creation and dissemination is feasible. Clinicians were most receptive to creating and using videos that addressed direct clinical or operational needs.