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.

Primary Care Access in Areas of the United States With Aging Populations.

The percentage of U.S. residents 65 years and older was 17% in 2020, and this number is expected to rise due to the aging of the baby boomer generation.1Although life expectancy fell between 2020 and 2021, the proportion of U.S. residents older than 65 years continues to increase.2This age group often has more medical comorbidities and prescription medications, increasing the demand for primary care access. Domestic migration (U.S. residents moving within the country) of this retirement-aged population further strains the primary care workforce in underserved areas.

Considering the Environmental Impact of Practice-Based Research.

INTRODUCTION: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) improve primary care by addressing issues that matter to clinicians. Building trust between researchers and care teams is essential to this process, which often requires visiting practices to cultivate relationships and perform research activities. However, in a recent study using practice facilitation to improve the delivery of a preventive service, the COVID-19 pandemic prompted us to convert all planned facilitation from an in-person to virtual format. This eliminated the need to commute by automobile to and from practices across the state, greatly reducing the carbon footprint of the study. METHODS: From practice facilitator field notes that detailed practice locations and number of sessions, we calculated the total number of driving miles averted by virtual facilitation. We then determined metric tons of carbon dioxide we avoided producing using the Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator. During post-intervention interviews, we assessed practices' perspectives and experiences with the virtual format. RESULTS: Three practice facilitators provided an average of 3.4 sessions for 64 practices. Virtual facilitation averted 32,574.8 drive miles and prevented the release of 12.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide, an offset equivalent to growing 210 trees for 10 years. Practices reported that virtual facilitation fostered greater engagement and allowed more clinicians and staff to attend sessions. DISCUSSION: Climate change poses a significant threat to the health of people and communities. Given their commitment to improving population health, it may be time for PBRNs to routinely assess their environmental impact and minimize preventable environmental costs.

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.

Osteopathic Medical Schools Produce an Increasing Proportion of Family Medicine Residents.

The Association of American Medical Colleges reported a shortage of 45,000 primary care physicians in 2020 and projects shortages of 65,000 by 2025 and 104,900 by 2030.1 The shortage has been exacerbated by physician retirement due to the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The increasing deficit is partially because of the decline in medical students entering primary care specialties. Interest in family medicine has been flat for the past 10 years, and only 13% of U.S. allopathic and osteopathic graduates enter Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited family medicine programs.3 Most recent residency matches report that only 9% of allopathic medical students choose family medicine.4 There has been more interest in primary care in osteopathic schools, with 23% of these students expressing an interest in primary care.5.

Increased Organizational Stress in Primary Care: Understanding the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic, Medicaid Expansion, and Practice Ownership.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is the foundation of health care, resulting in longer lives and improved equity. Primary care was the frontline of the COVID-19 pandemic public response and essential for access to care. Yet primary care faces substantial structural and systemic challenges. As part of a longitudinal analysis to track the capacity and health of primary care, we surveyed every primary care practice in Virginia in 2018 and again in 2022. METHODS: Surveys were emailed or mailed up to 6 times and nonresponders received a phone call. Questions assessed organizational characteristics, scope of care, capacity, and organizational stress in the prior year. From respondents, 39 clinicians, nurses, staff, administrators, and practice managers were interviewed. RESULTS: 526 out of 2296 primary care practices (23% response rate) completed the survey, with broad representation across geography, ownership, and payer mix. Compared with 2018, in 2022 there were increases in practices owned by health systems (25% vs 43%, P < .0001) and average percent of patients with Medicaid per practice (12% vs 22%, P < .0001). The percent of practices reporting any major stressor increased from 34% to 53% (P < .0001). The main increased stress was losing a clinician, with 13% of practices in 2018 versus 42% in 2022 reporting losing a clinician (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practices are resilient and continue to serve their communities, including a broad scope of services and care for underserved people. However, the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant stress. With an increase in clinicians leaving clinical practice, we anticipate worsening access to primary care.

Female Family Physicians May Earn $1.8 Million Less Than Male Peers Over a Lifetime.

The average salaries of female physicians are lower than those of their male peers. Previous studies demonstrate that female family physicians earn approximately 16% less than their male counterparts.1 However, multiple studies have demonstrated benefits of having a female physician, including quality of care and relationships.2,3 After controlling for multiple variables, the wage gap persists, making gender biases the most likely explanation.

Concordance of Primary Human Papillomavirus Testing Among Clinicians and Patients: A Systematic Review.

Objective: Primary high risk human papilloma virus (hrHPV) testing is recommended as first-line screening for cervical cancer. Testing involves either a clinician-collected or a self-collected cervicovaginal swab. This study examines concordance between methods of collection of primary HPV testing. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Cochrane were searched for relevant studies on self-collected and clinician-collected primary HPV testing published before December 31, 2022. English-language studies for primary HPV testing of average-risk patients were included. Studies conducted in screening settings rather than colposcopy clinics, that used standard devices for HPV collection, and that directly compared methods of collection were included. Outcomes were concordance and kappa between paired samples, and rate of HPV detection in self-collected and clinician-collected samples. Results: A total of 2381 studies were screened, of which 228 were included for full-text evaluation. Thirty-six studies, including 23,328 individuals screened, met the inclusion criteria. The rate of HPV detection ranged from 4.7% to 63% for self-collection and from 3.7% to 62% for clinician-collection. The concordance ranged from 78.2% to 96.9%, and kappa had substantial agreement for 26 of the 36 studies and moderate agreement for 7 of the 36 studies. Conclusions: This study directly compares clinician-collected and self-collected primary HPV screening rates. Studies were conducted in methods which are widely reproducible in the primary care setting. Primary HPV self-collection is a reliable and accurate method for cervical cancer screening.

Use of population health data to promote equitable recruitment for a primary care practice implementation trial addressing unhealthy alcohol use.

Background: Recruiting underrepresented people and communities in research is essential for generalizable findings. Ensuring representative participants can be particularly challenging for practice-level dissemination and implementation trials. Novel use of real-world data about practices and the communities they serve could promote more equitable and inclusive recruitment. Methods: We used a comprehensive primary care clinician and practice database, the Virginia All-Payers Claims Database, and the HealthLandscape Virginia mapping tool with community-level socio-ecological information to prospectively inform practice recruitment for a study to help primary care better screen and counsel for unhealthy alcohol use. Throughout recruitment, we measured how similar study practices were to primary care on average, mapped where practices' patients lived, and iteratively adapted our recruitment strategies. Results: In response to practice and community data, we adapted our recruitment strategy three times; first leveraging relationships with residency graduates, then a health system and professional organization approach, followed by a community-targeted approach, and a concluding approach using all three approaches. We enrolled 76 practices whose patients live in 97.3% (1844 of 1907) of Virginia's census tracts. Our overall patient sample had similar demographics to the state for race (21.7% vs 20.0% Black), ethnicity (9.5% vs 10.2% Hispanic), insurance status (6.4% vs 8.0% uninsured), and education (26.0% vs 32.5% high school graduate or less). Each practice recruitment approach uniquely included different communities and patients. Discussion: Data about primary care practices and the communities they serve can prospectively inform research recruitment of practices to yield more representative and inclusive patient cohorts for participation.

An Estimate of Severe Harms Due to Screening Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to comprehensively assess the direct, severe harms of screening colonoscopy in the United States. Whereas other investigators have completed systematic reviews estimating the harms of all types of colonoscopy, this analysis focuses on screening colonoscopies that had adequate follow up to avoid undercounting delayed harms. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase were queried for relevant studies on screening colonoscopy harms published between January 1, 2002, and April 1, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies of screening colonoscopy for average risk patients were included. Studies must have followed patients for adequate time post procedure, defined as 30 days after colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the number of severe bleeding events and gastrointestinal (GI) perforations within 30 days of screening colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 1951 studies were reviewed for inclusion; 94 were reviewed in full text. Of those reviewed in full, 6 studies, including a total of 467,139 colonoscopies, met our inclusion criteria and were included in our analysis of harms related to screening colonoscopies. The rate of severe bleeding ranged credibly from 16.4 to 36.18 per 10,000 colonoscopies; the rate of perforation ranged credibly from 7.62 to 8.50 per 10,000 colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to estimate direct harms from screening colonoscopy, including harms that occur up to 30 days after the procedure. The risk of harm subsequent to screening colonoscopy is higher than previously reported and should be discussed with patients when engaging in shared decision making.

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.

Reallocating Cervical Cancer Preventive Service Spending from Low- to High-Value Clinical Scenarios.

Timely follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test result is critical to the prevention and early diagnosis of cervical cancer. The current inadequate and inequitable delivery of these potentially life-saving services is attributed to several factors, including patient out-of-pocket costs. Waiving of consumer cost-sharing for follow-up testing (e.g., colposcopy and related cervical services) is likely to improve access and uptake, especially among underserved populations. One approach to defray the incremental costs of providing more generous coverage for follow-up testing is reducing expenditures on "low-value" cervical cancer screening services. To explore the potential fiscal implications of a policy that redirects cervical cancer screening resources from potentially low- to high-value clinical scenarios, we analyzed 2019 claims from the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database to quantify (i) total spending on low-value cervical cancer screening and (ii) out-of-pocket costs associated with colposcopy and related cervical services among commercially insured Virginians. In a cohort of 1,806,921 female patients (ages 48.1 ± 24.8 years), 295,193 claims for cervical cancer screening were reported, 100,567 (34.0%) of which were determined to be low-value ($4,394,361 total; $4,172,777 for payers and $221,584 out-of-pocket [$2/patient]). Claims for 52,369 colposcopy and related cervical services were reported ($40,994,016 total; $33,457,518 for payers and $7,536,498 out-of-pocket [$144/patient]). These findings suggest that reallocating savings incurred from unnecessary spending to fund more generous coverage of necessary follow-up care is a feasible approach to enhancing cervical cancer prevention equity and outcomes. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Out-of-pocket fees are a barrier to follow-up care after an abnormal cervical cancer screening test. Among commercially insured Virginians, out-of-pocket costs for follow-up services averaged $144/patient; 34% of cervical cancer screenings were classified as low value. Reallocating low-value cervical cancer screening expenditures to enhance coverage for follow-up care can improve screening outcomes. See related Spotlight, p. 363.

The Current State of Alcohol Screening and Management in Virginia Primary Care Practices: An Evaluation of Preventive Service Use.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends screening and behavioral counseling for adults over 18 years for unhealthy alcohol use. Recommended screening instruments include the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Concise and or Single Alcohol Screening Question. Behavioral counseling is feasible in primary care, taking on average 30 minutes. Baseline data for a practice facilitation trial demonstrated clinicians appropriately screened only 10.8% of patients and only identified 9.6% as having risky drinking. Yet, 24% of patients reported risky drinking on a survey, demonstrating the implementation gap of the USPSTF recommendation and opportunity to improve health.

Family Medicine Research Is Not a Federal Priority.

Research in family medicine produces clinical information and improves care delivery, but it has yet to receive equitable federal investment. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary funder of medical research in the United States. In 2021, the NIH received $45 billion.1 Between 2017 and 2021, the NIH spent only 0.2% of its budget on family medicine research (Figure 1). Although other funding organizations exist, the NIH is the largest funder of biomedical research, and because it continues to undervalue family medicine research, its underinvestment impacts clinical care.

Primary Care: A Critical Stopgap of Mental Health Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a worsening mental health crisis, while also dramatically reducing access to in-person primary care services. Primary care, an essential provider of mental health services, rapidly adopted telemedicine to address behavioral health needs. Here we examine the provision of mental health services by primary care during the pandemic, including the essential use of telemedicine. METHODS: Data were collected via a series of national, cross-sectional surveys of primary care clinicians in November 2020 by the Larry A. Green Center. The survey was distributed through a network of partner organizations and subscribers. Descriptive and chi squared analysis were utilized. RESULTS: Among 1,472 respondents, 88% reported increased mental health needs and 37% reported higher rates of substance use among patients. Most (65%) clinicians became more involved in providing mental health support, and 64% reported using telemedicine to provide behavioral health services. Phone-based care was more common for care delivery among patients who were uninsured (60% vs 42%, P < .01), Medicare beneficiaries (45% vs 36%, P < .05), non-English speaking (67% vs 40%, P < .001), and racial and ethnic minorities (58% vs 34%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care is a leading provider of mental health services and has played a critical role during the pandemic. Primary care clinicians have strong relationships with their patients as well as outreach within communities that may otherwise struggle to access mental health services. The use of telemedicine in primary care, and specifically phone-based services, has been an essential tool to providing equitable access to mental health services.