Quality and Experience of Outpatient Care in the United States for Adults With or Without Primary Care.
Journal
JAMA internal medicine
ISSN: 2168-6114
Titre abrégé: JAMA Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589534
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2019
01 03 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
29
1
2019
medline:
11
2
2020
entrez:
29
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The US health care system is typically organized around hospitals and specialty care. The value of primary care remains unclear and debated. To determine whether an association exists between receipt of primary care and high-value services, low-value services, and patient experience. This is a nationally representative analysis of noninstitutionalized US adults 18 years or older who participated in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Propensity score-weighted quality and experience of care were compared between 49 286 US adults with and 21 133 adults without primary care from 2012 to 2014. Temporal trends were also analyzed from 2002 to 2014. Patient-reported receipt of primary care, determined by the 4 "Cs" of primary care: first-contact care that is comprehensive, continuous, and coordinated. Thirty-nine clinical quality measures and 7 patient experience measures aggregated into 10 clinical quality composites (6 high-value and 4 low-value services), an overall patient experience rating, and 2 experience composites. From 2002 to 2014, the mean annual survey response rate was 58% (range, 49%-65%). Between 2012 and 2014, compared with respondents without primary care (before adjustment), those with primary care were older (50 [95% CI, 50-51] vs 38 [95% CI, 38-39] years old), more often female (55% [95% CI, 54%-55%] vs 42% [95% CI, 41%-43%]), and predominately white individuals (50% [95% CI, 49%-52%] vs 43% [95% CI, 41%-45%]). After propensity score weighting, US adults with or without primary care had the same mean numbers of outpatient (6.7 vs 5.9; difference, 0.8 [95% CI, -0.2 to 1.8]; P = .11), emergency department (0.2 for both; difference, 0.0 [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.0]; P = .17), and inpatient (0.1 for both; difference, 0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-0.0]; P = .92) encounters annually, but those with primary care filled more prescriptions (mean, 14.1 vs 10.7; difference, 3.4 [95% CI, 2.0-4.7]; P < .001) and were more likely to have a routine preventive visit in the past year (mean, 72.2% vs 57.5%; difference, 14.7% [95% CI, 12.3%-17.1%]; P < .001). From 2012 to 2014, Americans with primary care received more high-value care in 4 of 5 composites. For example, 78% of those with primary care received high-value cancer screening compared with 67% without primary care (difference, 10.8% [95% CI, 8.5%-13.0%]; P < .001). Americans with or without primary care received low-value care with similar frequencies on 3 of 4 composites, although Americans with primary care received more low-value antibiotics (59% vs 48%; difference, 11.0% [95% CI, 2.8%-19.3%] P < .001). Respondents with primary care also reported significantly better health care access and experience. For example, physician communication was highly rated for a greater proportion of those with (64%) vs without (54%) primary care (difference, 10.2%; 95% CI, 7.2%-13.1%; P < .001). Differences in quality and experience between Americans with or without primary care were essentially stable between 2002 and 2014. Receipt of primary care was associated with significantly more high-value care, slightly more low-value care, and better health care experience. Policymakers and health system leaders seeking to improve value should consider increasing investments in primary care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30688977
pii: 2721037
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6716
pmc: PMC6439688
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
363-372Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Type : ErratumIn
Références
J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Aug;30 Suppl 3:S568-75
pubmed: 26105670
Biometrics. 2015 Sep;71(3):832-40
pubmed: 25762089
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Dec 1;176(12):1778-1790
pubmed: 27749962
Health Serv Res. 2013 Apr;48(2 Pt 1):539-59
pubmed: 22816561
J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Sep;23(9):1354-60
pubmed: 18506542
Inquiry. 2017 Jan 1;54:46958017724003
pubmed: 28814174
N Engl J Med. 2013 May 2;368(18):1713-22
pubmed: 23635051
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Jun;29(6):947-55
pubmed: 24567201
Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 Jan-Jun;Suppl Web Exclusives:W4-184-97
pubmed: 15451981
Prev Chronic Dis. 2013 Apr 25;10:E66
pubmed: 23618546
Ann Fam Med. 2007 Nov-Dec;5(6):492-502
pubmed: 18025486
J Gen Intern Med. 1996 May;11(5):269-76
pubmed: 8725975
N Engl J Med. 2003 Jun 26;348(26):2635-45
pubmed: 12826639
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Mar;31(3):260-2
pubmed: 26631099
Epidemiology. 2009 May;20(3):382-90
pubmed: 19289959
CMAJ. 2013 Apr 2;185(6):E263-9
pubmed: 23439620
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013 Sep 1;6(5):604-11
pubmed: 24021692
J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Jun;19(6):708-9
pubmed: 15209611
JAMA. 2017 May 16;317(19):1947-1948
pubmed: 28319233
Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457-502
pubmed: 16202000
GP. 1966 Dec;34(6):173-88 contd
pubmed: 6012673
Am J Public Health. 2003 May;93(5):786-91
pubmed: 12721145
J Gen Intern Med. 2017 May;32(5):566-571
pubmed: 27943038
J Am Board Fam Med. 2015 Nov-Dec;28(6):733-41
pubmed: 26546648
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Feb;50(2):161-70
pubmed: 26497264
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 May;29(5):766-72
pubmed: 20439859
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 May 1;176(5):643-4
pubmed: 27043797
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 15;373(16):1485-7
pubmed: 26465981
J Am Board Fam Med. 2008 Sep-Oct;21(5):441-50
pubmed: 18772298
J Am Board Fam Med. 2011 Jul-Aug;24(4):351-9
pubmed: 21737759
J Am Board Fam Med. 2012 Mar;25 Suppl 1:S6-11
pubmed: 22403251
Arch Intern Med. 1997 Jul 14;157(13):1462-70
pubmed: 9224225
N Engl J Med. 1983 Dec 8;309(23):1426-34
pubmed: 6355851
Diabetes Care. 2009 Jun;32(6):983-9
pubmed: 19252167
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Nov;175(11):1815-25
pubmed: 26390323
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Mar 3;150(5):325-35
pubmed: 19258560
Health Soc Serv J. 1980 May 16;90(4693):638-40
pubmed: 10247170