The Disproportionate Impact of Primary Care Disruption and Telehealth Utilization During COVID-19.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic not only exacerbated existing disparities in health care in general but likely worsened disparities in access to primary care. Our objective was to quantify the nationwide decrease in primary care visits and increase in telehealth utilization during the pandemic and explore whether certain groups of patients were disproportionately affected. METHODS: We used a geographically diverse primary care electronic health record data set to examine the following 3 outcomes: (1) change in total visit volume, (2) change in in-person visit volume, and (3) the telehealth conversion ratio defined as the number of pandemic telehealth visits divided by the total number of prepandemic visits. We assessed whether these outcomes were associated with patient characteristics including age, gender, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, rurality, and area-level social deprivation. RESULTS: Our primary sample included 1,652,871 patients from 408 practices. During the pandemic we observed decreases of 7% and 17% in total and in-person visit volume and a 10% telehealth conversion ratio. The greatest decreases in visit volume were observed among pediatric patients (-24%), Asian patients (-11%), and those with more comorbidities (-9%). Telehealth usage was greatest among Hispanic or Latino patients (17%) and those living in urban areas (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Decreases in primary care visit volume were partially offset by increasing telehealth use for all patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the magnitude of these changes varied significantly across all patient characteristics. These variations have implications not only for the long-term consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, but also for planners seeking to ready the primary care delivery system for any future systematic disruptions.

Post-COVID Conditions in US Primary Care: A PRIME Registry Comparison of Patients With COVID-19, Influenza-Like Illness, and Wellness Visits.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 is a condition that can lead to other chronic conditions. These conditions are frequently diagnosed in the primary care setting. We used a novel primary care registry to quantify the burden of post-COVID conditions among adult patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis across the United States. METHODS: We used the American Family Cohort, a national primary care registry, to identify study patients. After propensity score matching, we assessed the prevalence of 17 condition categories individually and cumulatively, comparing patients having COVID-19 in 2020-2021 with (1) historical control patients having influenza-like illness in 2018 and (2) contemporaneous control patients seen for wellness or preventive visits in 2020-2021. RESULTS: We identified 28,215 patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis and 235,953 historical control patients with influenza-like illness. The COVID-19 group had higher prevalences of breathing difficulties (4.2% vs 1.9%), type 2 diabetes (12.0% vs 10.2%), fatigue (3.9% vs 2.2%), and sleep disturbances (3.5% vs 2.4%). There were no differences, however, in the postdiagnosis monthly trend in cumulative morbidity between the COVID-19 patients (trend = 0.026; 95% CI, 0.025-0.027) and the patients with influenza-like illness (trend = 0.026; 95% CI, 0.023-0.027). Relative to contemporaneous wellness control patients, COVID-19 patients had higher prevalences of breathing difficulties and type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show a moderate burden of post-COVID conditions in primary care, including breathing difficulties, fatigue, and sleep disturbances. Based on clinical registry data, the prevalence of post-COVID conditions in primary care practices is lower than that reported in subspecialty and hospital settings.

Setting the Target: Comparing Family Medicine Among US Allopathic Target Schools.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the persistent primary care physician shortage over 2 decades of allopathic medical school expansion, some medical schools are absent a department of family medicine; these schools are designated as "target" schools. These absences are important because evidence has demonstrated the association between structured exposure to family medicine during medical school and the proportion of students who ultimately select a career in family medicine. In this study, we aimed to address part of this gap by defining and characterizing the current landscape of US allopathic target schools. METHODS: We identified allopathic target schools by reviewing all Liaison Committee of Medical Education (LCME) accredited institutions for the presence of a family medicine department. To compare these schools in terms of family medicine representation and outcomes, we curated descriptive data from publicly available websites, previously published family medicine match results, and school rankings for primary care. RESULTS: We identified 12 target schools (8.7% of all US allopathic accredited medical schools) with considerable heterogeneity in opportunities for family medicine engagement, leadership, and training. Target schools with greater family medicine representation had increased outcomes for family medicine workforce and primary care opportunities. CONCLUSION: With growing primary care workforce gaps, target schools have a responsibility to enhance family medicine presence and representation at their institutions. We provide recommendations at the institutional, specialty, and national level to increase family medicine representation at target schools, with the goal that all schools eventually establish a department of family medicine.

Physician-Level Continuity of Care and Patient Outcomes in All-Payer Claims Database.

INTRODUCTION: Being one of the few existing measures of primary care functions, physician-level continuity of care (Phy-CoC) is measured by the weighted average of patient continuity scores. Compared with the well-researched patient-level continuity, Phy-CoC is a new instrument with limited evidence from Medicare beneficiaries. This study aimed to expand the patient sample to include patients of all ages and all types of insurance and reassess the associations between full panel-based Phy-CoC scores and patient outcomes. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis at patient-level using Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD). Phy-CoC scores were calculated by averaging patient's Bice-Boxerman Index scores and weighted by the total number of visits. Patient outcomes included total cost and preventable hospitalization. RESULTS: In a sample of 1.6 million Virginians, patients who lived in rural areas or had Medicare as primary insurance were more likely to be attributed to physicians with the highest Phy-CoC scores. Across all adult patient populations, we found that being attributed to physicians with higher Phy-CoC was associated with 7%-11.8% higher total costs, but was not associated with the odds of preventable hospitalization. Results from models with interactions revealed nuanced associations between Phy-CoC and total cost with patient's age and comorbidity, insurance payer, and the specialty of their physician. CONCLUSIONS: In this comprehensive examination of Phy-CoC using all populations from the VA-APCD, we found an overall positive association of higher full panel-based Phy-CoC with total cost, but a non-significant association with the risk of preventable hospitalization. Achieving higher full panel-based Phy-CoC may have unintended cost implications.

Prevalence and Predictors of Burnout Among Resident Family Physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Resident burnout may affect career choices and empathy. We examined predictors of burnout among family medicine residents. METHODS: We used data from the 2019-2021 American Board of Family Medicine Initial Certification Questionnaire, which is required of graduating residents. Burnout was a binary variable defined as reporting callousness or emotional exhaustion once a week or more. We evaluated associations using bivariate and multilevel multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: Among 11,570 residents, 36.4% (n=4,211) reported burnout. This prevalence did not significantly vary from 2019 to 2021 and was not significantly attributable to the residency program (ICC=0.07). Residents identifying as female reported higher rates of burnout (39.0% vs 33.4%, AOR=1.29 [95% CI 1.19-1.40]). Residents reporting Asian race (30.5%, AOR=0.78 [95% CI 0.70-0.86]) and Black race (32.3%, AOR=0.71 [95% CI 0.60-0.86]) reported lower odds of burnout than residents reporting White race (39.2%). We observed lower rates among international medical graduates (26.7% vs 40.3%, AOR=0.54 [95% CI 0.48-0.60]), those planning to provide outpatient continuity care (36.0% vs 38.7%, AOR=0.77 [95% CI 0.68-0.86]), and those at smaller programs (31.7% for <6 residents per class vs 36.3% for 6-10 per class vs 40.2% for >10 per class). Educational debt greater than $250,000 was associated with higher odds of burnout than no debt (AOR=1.29 [95% CI 1.15-1.45]). CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of recent family medicine residents reported burnout. Odds of burnout varied significantly with resident and program characteristics.