Showing posts with label primary care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label primary care. Show all posts

Number One Two Three in Health Access

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Solutions for health access primary care workforce
  • Enter primary care practices at highest proportions after training
  • Stay in primary care practice at highest proportions in the years after graduation
  • Have the longest health professional career lengths
  • Remain active in practice during a career at the highest percentages
  • Deliver the highest volume of primary care when active in primary care delivery.
  • Are most likely to be found in 30,000 zip codes with 200 million Americans and only 25% of total workforce (Practice Locations Outside of Concentrations) and
  • Are least likely to be found in 1000 zip codes with only 11% of the population and 50% of the workforce (Super Center Concentrations).
Only family medicine residency graduates meet all of these criteria for graduates past, present, and future. Only family medicine residents have not been increased beyond the 3000 annual graduates first reached in 1980. The US primary care design has also not changed for primary care numbers since 1980 while the non-primary care design has doubled each 15 years since 1965.
Only a broadest generalist primary care source can best meet the needs of over 65% of elderly, poor, near poor, rural, underserved, lower income, middle income, disadvantaged, children in need of health care workforce, and shortage area populations.
Number 1 is United States Origin Family Medicine from a US Medical School

25 Standard Primary Care Years
Estimated Range of 23 – 30 Standard Primary Care Years depending upon age at workforce entry, gender, retention in primary care
Number 2 is United States Origin Family Medicine from a non-US Medical School
22 - 25 Standard Primary Care Years
A slight delay in entry to practice is likely to result in the potential for lesser workforce, but there may be no difference
Number 3 is non-US Origin Family Medicine from a non-US Medical School

20 – 22 Standard Primary Care Years (but broad range)
Medical education in other nations commonly results in younger age but those working toward US training and practice face delays that result in older age entry to US workforce

Standard Primary Care Years Estimates for 2012 
First career and practice location choices are simply insufficient to assess primary care sources. The Standard Primary Care Year is an important estimate of future primary care delivery assigned to the class year of graduation. 

Pediatric and Medicine Pediatrics
10 – 14 SPCYrs
Less than half and likely less than 40% will remain in primary care.
Physician Assistant Beginning Family Practice
12 SPCYrs
Steady departures over the years after graduation limit outcomes.
Nurse Practitioners Trained as Family Nurse Practitioners
6 – 8 SPCYrs
Half will be active as direct care clinicians in family practice employ. Fewest years and lowest volume result in substantially fewer SPCYrs.
Internal Medicine
3 – 5 SPCYrs
Few enter primary care and departures continue after graduation.
Physician Assistant not Starting in Family Practice
1 - 3 SPCYrs
Family practice is the predominant PA primary care vehicle
Nurse Practitioners not FNP trained
1 – 2 SPCYrs
Family nurse practitioners are the predominant NP primary care vehicle



Nurse practitioner and physician assistant contributions to rural or underserved locations in need of workforce are multiple times greater when employed in family practice as compared to NP and PA not family practice employed. NP and PA graduates not employed in family practice remain below average in needed practice locations. About 25% of NP and PA workforce are found active as family practice clinicians although declines could result in fewer.
Comments by any number of “workforce experts” about family medicine from any US origin or non-citizen source should be supportive about expansion, about selection specific to family practice, and about training specific to family practice. This entire blog was posted because non-citizen family medicine has received comments and even testimony to Congress that has not been flattering. What matters is health access delivery where needed. Even if only 7% of non-citizens average family medicine choice, this choice is an important one for 200 million Americans left behind and about to have even more difficulty.
Generic expansions of health professional training not specific to permanent family practice (MD, DO, NP, and PA) should be understood as solutions for non-primary care and practice locations that already have top concentrations. Flexible designs fail for primary care and for 200 million Americans. Flexible designs are represented by NP, PA, and IM training that can result in any number of non-primary care careers. For nurse practitioner or physician assistant training to be SMART Basic Health Access Solutions, they would have to find a way to permanent family practice by a permanent design change. Generic and flexible is failed health access.
Specific family practice is the SMART solution for health access for 200 million Americans left behind and falling further behind by design.
Physician Distribution By Concentration Zip Code Practice Locations Inside and Outside of Concentrations
More about the Standard Primary Care Year
Three Dimensions of Non-Primary Care Expansion and Zero Growth in Primary Care Design

Thanks to all 12,000 
Dr. Bowman is the North American Co-Editor of Rural and Remote Health and a Professor in Family Medicine at A T Still University School of Osteopathic Medicine. He was the founding chair of the Rural Medical Educators Group of the National Rural Health Association, he was the long term chair of the STFM Group on Rural Health, he is the founding director of Priority Infrastructure a

Piddle Twiddle and Resolve Not One Damn Thing Do They Solve

Friday, December 23, 2011

In the play 1776 there are any number of wonderful allusions to Congress then and now. Former President Nixon thought so too. He requested and received an edited version regarding Cool Cool Considerate Men as he felt they too closely resembled conservatives of the time. Cool Considerate (calm, calculating, conservative?) Men are still very evident, but do they still lead well or wisely or with sufficient understanding of the daily lives of most Americans?

Congress today is a divisive Congress just as presented in 1776. Is Congress today working together affirmatively for the nation. The most basic areas important to most Americans appear to be low priority. The current physician fee crisis is a great example of Piddle Twiddle and Resolve without a solution.

It has taken years for the Medicare Physician Payment Advisory Commission, stacked with landed gentry benefiting from the designs they set, to recognize its past errors and to recommend some protection of primary care fees as compared to non-primary care. Major protests were required to get just this small change. Reasonable increases in revenue that might keep up with the costs of delivering primary care are not even on the drawing board. Primary care workforce has followed the primary care spending design as noted in Accelerating Cycles of Decline.

Primary care workforce designs have doubled primary care numbers only from 1965 to 1985. Each 15 years since 1965 the non-primary care workforce has doubled and this will continue until 2025. The US is attempting to function from 2010 to 2025 on a design that was set in place in 1980.  Despite twice as many graduates and 3 times as many primary care sources, the primary care numbers of clinicians and the primary care delivery capacity continues to decline. Policy Failure Plagues Primary Care and Permanent Primary Care Choice through Five Policy Periods
indicate designs that work or fail.

Ever more resources are spent on non-primary care while primary care faces across the board cuts on top of inadequate reimbursement. The entire mess results in distrust of government and health insurance companies by those who provide care as well as the patients who receive care.

Even physicians realize that primary care reimbursement is too little (Leigh). More practices stream to types of payment (rural health clinic and FQHC) that have the ability to cover rising costs of care rather than fee for service under SGR that has been mired in the basement. Fixes in the 1960s to that restored some basic health care infrastructure failed as costs rose faster than revenue and as redesigns sent the spending to fewer locations with greater workforce concentrations. Fixes in the 1990s failed in just a few years. But Congress has little memory for failure and has little awareness as well.

Piddle Twiddle and Resolve

Delays are common responses when more spending is involved. There is no time for most Americans in need of care and the elderly are the major example. For 50 years the US has known about the need for more care beginning in 2010 and there has been no preparation for the workforce to deliver the care. In fact the workforce most needed is declining the most.

It is already too late for the elderly of today as they double from 2010 to 2030. During this period internal medicine will collapse from 90,000 to 40,000 in primary care as this is all that 1400 entering primary care a year can provide. Family medicine can no longer increase as it has been held hostage for 30 years at 3000 annual graduates - zero growth. Sadly government reports indicate increases when increases are not possible.  Journals also fail to present the truth or the consequences of failed policy. NP and PA workforce proportions have declined steadily in the needed primary care and in the locations where 65% of the elderly are found. This is mainly about fewer remaining in family practice - the predominant midlevel primary care, rural, and underserved response as well as service to those outside of concentrations.  Geriatric workforce is also concentrated 75 - 80% where only 30% of the elderly are found.

Health care most important for the elderly is held hostage by designs that defeat primary care as well as workforce in the zip codes outside of concentrations where 68% of the elderly are found. The elderly need two to three times more primary care and this workforce must match up to zip codes where the elderly are found - particularly as they lose mobility and transportability as they age. The damage of the last few months and the next months is specific to those remaining who care for the elderly. This is compounded by the past 15 years of decline. ew years of damage.

Piddle Twiddle and Resolve

The record is solid for health policy impact and primary care. Primary care numbers doubled from 1965 – 1980 with the initial health access plan before cost increases and cost cutting designs took over. The 1990s reforms boosted primary care and family medicine to peak levels with increased primary care revenue and decreased or stagnant non-primary care. The 2010 reforms that might have helped primary care have been compromised by cuts in Medicaid and those who care for patients most in need of care, in addition to innovation focus, and reorganization focus. As commented in 1776 - “Sweet Jesus” 

Momma Look Sharp To See If You Can Find the Remaining Front Line Workforce

The basic health services needed by nearly all Americans nearly all of the years of their lives are being compromised by insufficient primary care spending (widely recognized) and insufficient workforce retained in primary care due to insufficient primary care spending. To Follow the Workforce Follow the Spending. Matters are worse with substantially more paid to non-primary care, allowing experienced primary care personnel and professionals to be hired away from primary care employment.

Is Anybody There, Does Anybody Care?

As noted by 180 days of neglect after 30 years of neglect


Piddle Twiddle and Resolve 

There is of course only one response as indicated in the play

“Sit down Bob, Sit Down Bob, For God’s Sake Bob, Sit Down”

The reply is of course  "Never, Never"

May 2012 Be a Time When Congress and leaders across our nation, Despite Divisions, Will Resolve to Work Affirmatively for Most of Our Nation

Thanks to all 12,000 who have visited Basic Health Access in 2011.

Robert C. Bowman, M.D.        Basic Health Access Web    Basic Health Access Blog

Dr. Bowman is the North American Co-Editor of Rural and Remote Health and a Professor in Family Medicine at A T Still University School of Osteopathic Medicine. He was the founding chair of the Rural Medical Educators Group of the National Rural Health Association, he was the long term chair of the STFM Group on Rural Health, he is the founding director of Priority Infrastructure at http://www.infrastructureamerica.org/ and he is the author of the World of Rural Medical Education, and Physician Workforce Studies



Pounding Poverty Providers with Pay for Performance

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

United States designs for health spending consistently result in less for those who already have the lowest health spending. This is accomplished by designs that send less to those that attempt the responsibility of their care. Design changes and even reforms that are supposed to send more spending to those who care for most Americans left behind can also fail.
Because more Americans are joining those at or below poverty, particularly children, the nation should spend far more time understanding the inequities of the current and future designs.
Now Kaiser indicates much the same for Hospitals that care for those left behind. Readmission rates are much higher for lower income Americans. This is of course a function of any number of social determinant and similar demographic characteristics that add up to difficulties that lead to hospitalization and difficulties that are far more likely after hospitalization.
It is hardly possible to keep up with all the ways that funding is diverted to care of those with easier care and naturally better outcomes.
Not much comment is needed other than indicating that until designers understand most Americans and their basic needs, the designs will continue to favor few. Design changes also may insure even greater divisions.
Potential Impact of Pay-for-Performance on the Financial Health of Critical Access Hospitals (Policy Brief)    Author(s): Robert Town, Ira Moscovice  Sponsoring organization: Flex Monitoring Team
Pay-for-performance (P4P) incentives likely reduce the financial status of CAHs already in financial stress. However, P4P incentives are likely to have only a modest impact on the financial stability of CAHs.  Date: 02 / 2010

Providing Underserved Patients with Medical Homes: Assessing the Readiness of Safety-Net Health Centers  Author(s): Katie Coleman, Kathryn Phillips
Sponsoring organization: Commonwealth Fund
Surveys safety-net health centers (public hospitals and clinics, federally qualified health centers, rural health centers, and free clinics for the medically underserved) to determine their potential to become patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs). Date: 05 / 2010    A summary would be that those caring for Americans left behind have an uphill battle to qualify as medical homes. They have a major battle just trying to keep up with increasing demand.

Basically even to become eligible for increased pay, there is substantially more investment required to get where needed. Also the outcomes will be less not due to lack of effort, but due to care of underserved patients. Government designers and reformers do not understand the people most in need of care or the type of care they need or the funding required to meet their needs.

A true approach to build quality requires far more understanding and awareness and substantial time and effort to process a real design. Cost cutting focus results in rapid implementation and designers are most familiar with what works for a few rather than what would work for most.

Arizona has delayed six months beyond the required July 1 2011 federal deadline to set up their electronic verification site so that Medicaid providers can recoup their tens of thousands invested in patient management software and hardware and consultants in the past 2 years. There are only 10 days left in the year. It appears likely in at least one state that investments required to gain incentives will not even be paid as indicated. Other states short on funds and Medicaid funds may also play the delay game. This is a catastrophic event signaling to those who care for patients in need that they need to stop caring for Medicaid patients or leave the state. This is another way to Pound Poverty Providers.

One thing is certain. Taking the "safety-net" for granted is guaranteed to result in greater divisions between Americans in income, health, employment, productivity, and other measures.


Thanks to all 12,000 who have visited Basic Health Access in 2011.

Robert C. Bowman, M.D.        Basic Health Access Web    Basic Health Access Blog

Dr. Bowman is the North American Co-Editor of Rural and Remote Health and a Professor in Family Medicine at A T Still University School of Osteopathic Medicine. He was the founding chair of the Rural Medical Educators Group of the National Rural Health Association, he was the long term chair of the STFM Group on Rural Health, he is the founding director of Priority Infrastructure at http://www.infrastructureamerica.org/ and he is the author of the World of Rural Medical Education, and Physician Workforce Studies

What Do Medical Home Studies Indicate?

Monday, December 19, 2011

Another publication, this time from Pediatrics, indicates the value of a medical home. But is this value about the term “medical home” or is this value about the concepts that are associated with “medical home”- concepts that any number of providers and clinics can address.

In addition, this is a poorly conceived study with a major failure to consider the real reasons for differences - social determinants that shape access, continuity, and better outcomes.
What Do Medical Home Studies Indicate?
  • Associations and researchers are willing to use data sources that are not from “official medical homes” to indicate medical home value.
  • Concepts are considered more important than the primary care people who deliver the care. Of course those who cut primary care funding fail to understand they are cutting the experienced people needed to deliver primary care. Primary care is about people – repeat often, especially when examining studies about primary care. 
  • Methods that select patients with better social determinants will have better outcomes. Methods tha select patients with higher levels of continuity will have better social determinants and better outcomes as well as better access to care. Substantially more is also invested in health care for those who have greater access and higher social determinant levels. One would also have to ask how many criteria were needed by researchers to demonstrate a difference. 
  • In the study, those of advantage were more likely to have continuity home experiences. In almost every instance of lower probability of preventive visits (age less than 1, single mom, lower income, lack of health insurance, less educated parents), those that preserved continuity had greater proportional improvement (close to 2 to 1). In other words those that somehow bucked social determinants had better care. The continuity home definition did little for those with social determinant advantages and did the most for those that managed to have a continuity home despite odds against. 
  • In the study the differences are significant, but the differences are so small as not to be relevant.
  • Children with a medical home were more likely to receive higher health ratings (excellent or very good) as compared to those without that were lower rated (good, fair or poor). Many would consider the noted outcomes as a matter of differences in health status.
  • As with other pediatric studies, the experts consider near universal access to pediatric care. They have of course overlooked the problem of maldistribution and limited access for over half of children due to workforce limitations in 30,000 zip codes with low or lower health workforce concentrations.
  • Then the study considers a 30% decreased ER utilization discussed in association with a continuity home.
At this point I just have to stop looking. This is a poor study by any number of measures. These are good people that are well intentioned. Some if not most have delivered care where needed. Sadly there is a loss of perspective.

There are significant investments of time and effort by associations and this is a likely reason why such studies are published. What is obvious from this and other studies is that changes in social determinants are required as a top priority with reorganizations of care way down the list.

The current pediatric study does not prove the value of the Medical Home as headlines indicate in Medscape – proof is almost impossible to prove in medical studies. What the Medscape headlines do indicate is poor understanding of medical studies by the medical media (or at least dramatization that is deceptive).

The investment in medical home terminology is so high that family medicine leaders have protested when studies fail to show the expected benefit. After devoting substantial funding to this area, perhaps objectivity is lost. Does Family Medicine Need New Leaders?

I am certainly for the concepts of team care, continuity of care, integration of information, and other aspects that are considered medical home concepts. These are obvious to those who have experienced the great pleasure of delivering challenging care with a supportive team. Who would be against such a design?

The problem remains that continuity home interventions are not going to solve primary care woes or the associated social determinant maldistributions.

Diverting a Nation from Real Solutions

The continuity home has been touted as a solution for the primary care woes of the nation. In fact, the Continuity Home will not improve the major health access problems of the nation. When providers present “cures” that do not work and distract patients from treatments that do work, this is considered a serious offense.

Offensive Literature and Offensive to Dedicated Primary Care Practices

It is hard not to find much of the literature developing around the medical home concept to be “offensive.”

I will continue to assert first that social determinants are far more important and that any primary care practice that has dedicated health professionals that function together as a team to provide health care, that stay together as a team, that keep the same patients, that keep the same location for care, and that have sufficient funding to accomplish the above – will have the optimal care with or without medical home designation.

If the cost of a medical home designation impedes care, medical home designation will not improve the care and may damage care.

If the medical home designation comes with more funding, the care may improve but this is likely the result of the additional funding rather than a medical home focus (beware government promises of more funding as this may not materialize).

If sites receive continuity home grants, then they will have better care because the additional funding is likely to give them an advantage in recruiting and retaining the best primary care personnel. Continuity care is clearly more likely with those that are easiest to care for, as demonstrated in the study.
Of course a real design for the care of all Americans provides sufficient primary care spending across the nation, not just for those who have grants or cost-based reimbursement.

Quality Arises from People and Relationships from the Ground Up, Not from Concepts Thrust on People from Above

Quality is the result of reflective process by dedicated team members with objective consideration of all relevant aspects of care – especially very basic awarenesses and understandings of the patients served. This process does not require certain terms such as continuity home, stroke center, chest pain centers, etc. Continuity home focus can improve care and can raise awareness of methods that can improve care, but a continuity home itself will not be the reason for change.
But if you desire a nice name or certification there are numerous places to contact, meetings to attend, and others willing to take money away from delivery of primary care. Your choice of the following or dozens of others.
On-Site Certification. The Mark of Quality that Sets Your Medical Home Above the Rest. The Joint Commission: Primary Care Medical Home 2011 StandardsAccess and Continuity in the Medical Home SettingBlueprints for Building a Medical Home

The Problem Facing Primary Care
The problem facing primary care remains the same. The problem is that revenue derived from primary care services is insufficient to keep up with rapidly rising costs. When the cost of delivering care is insufficient, the result is cuts in personnel, less experienced personnel, fewer personnel, and decrease in the ability to deliver more care and better care.
When the costs of delivering care are increased due to various innovations and reorganizations without increasing the revenue, it is possible to also result in less primary care delivery.
If a national focus on higher quality (by less volume, more costly technology, fewer personnel) results in less primary care delivered per primary care provider, the nation will have much greater problems with cost, quality, and access because the missing link is primary care personnel of all types.

The Problem of Social Determinants Ignored

If primary care experts ignore social determinants, then they do not understand the most important variables regarding cost, quality, and access. If Pay for Performance pays more for “quality,” relatively less will be paid to practices that have lower and middle income patients. This is because practices that are more likely to care for those in need of care will have lower quality ratings because of the patients that they care for. Higher quality ratings and greater pay will go to those who have better quality because of who they are.

The authors of this Pediatrics article have built another very good case for social determinants yet they have claimed that the reason is the continuity home. This is a quite serious problem for Pediatrics, for primary care, and for most Americans in need of real solutions for health access.


Better Ratings with Better Pay, or Care Delivered Where Needed?

To get lower quality ratings and less pay, continue to care for underserved, poor, near poor, rural, disadvantaged, and lower income patients.
To get better quality ratings and better pay, be sure you care for less complex people. The nation will overall have lower health care quality, higher costs, and declining access to care – but you and your practice will do better.
Thanks to all 12,000 who have visited Basic Health Access in 2011.

Robert C. Bowman, M.D.        Basic Health Access Web    Basic Health Access Blog

Dr. Bowman is the North American Co-Editor of Rural and Remote Health and a Professor in Family Medicine at A T Still University School of Osteopathic Medicine. He was the founding chair of the Rural Medical Educators Group of the National Rural Health Association, he was the long term chair of the STFM Group on Rural Health, he is the founding director of Priority Infrastructure at http://www.infrastructureamerica.org/ and he is the author of the World of Rural Medical Education, and Physician Workforce Studies

Basic Health Access Blogspot 2011

Tuesday, December 13, 2011


My desire for you for 2012 is for you to progress toward becoming a true leader, for you to benefit from the leadership of a true leader, and for you to select true leaders to lead our nation.  

A leader will find it difficult to articulate a coherent vision unless it expresses his core values, his basic identity…. one must first embark on the formidable journey of self-discovery in order to create a vision with authentic soul.
May the new year of 2012 be a continued journey of self-discovery for you and for our nation. I have been blessed with opportunities at East Tennessee, Nebraska, and A T Still to continue the self-discovery begun in rural family practice in Nowata OK.

Fifty Blogs in Order of Viewing Popularity

Thanks to all 12,000 who have visited Basic Health Access in 2011.

Robert C. Bowman, M.D.        Basic Health Access Web    Basic Health Access Blog

Dr. Bowman is the North American Co-Editor of Rural and Remote Health and a Professor in Family Medicine at A T Still University School of Osteopathic Medicine. He was the founding chair of the Rural Medical Educators Group of the National Rural Health Association, he was the long term chair of the STFM Group on Rural Health, he is the founding director of Priority Infrastructure at http://www.infrastructureamerica.org/ and he is the author of the World of Rural Medical Education, and Physician Workforce Studies

It has not been a good year for primary care or health access after 15 years of rapid decline and after 30 years of decline with only a few 1990s years of interruption.
Blogs indicate that primary care can be recovered and should be recovered, but it will take 30 consistent years of improvement for actual recovery. We have to have at least one to begin.