Analysis & commentary. A Martian's prescription for primary care: overhaul the physician's workday.

Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, NY, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 05/2010; 29(5):785-90. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0133
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT What would a Martian arriving on earth think about how U.S. primary care physicians spend their time? She or he would probably reach the same conclusions as this essay: that a new model for primary care should not be based on physicians' seeing a high volume of patients. On the contrary, physicians should see a relatively small number of patients, perhaps eight to ten daily. Thus liberated, they could spend more time with patients who need it; could have adequate time to communicate via phone and e-mail with patients, physicians, home health nurses, and other providers; and could actively coordinate the care of the practice's population of patients. Although articles about new care models such as the patient-centered medical home imply that physicians should work differently, they rarely mention this fundamental transformation of the workday. I suggest reasons for this omission and ways to overcome barriers to redesigning physicians' workday.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Because electronic communication is quick, convenient, and inexpensive for most patients, care that is truly patient centered should promote the use of such communication between patients and providers, even using it as a substitute for office visits when clinically appropriate. Despite the potential benefits of electronic communication, fewer than 7 percent of providers used it in 2008. To learn from the experiences of providers that have widely incorporated electronic communication into patient care, we interviewed leaders of twenty-one medical groups that use it extensively with patients. We also interviewed staff in six of those groups. Electronic communication was widely perceived to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of communication that improves patient satisfaction and saves patients time but that increases the volume of physician work unless office visits are reduced. Practice redesign and new payment methods are likely necessary for electronic communication to be more widely used in patient care.
    Health Affairs 08/2013; 32(8):1361-7. · 4.64 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article reviews the recent research, policy and conceptual literature on the effects of payment policy reforms on evidence-based clinical decision-making by physicians at the point-of-care. Payment reforms include recalibration of existing fee structures in fee-for-service, pay-for-quality, episode-based bundled payment and global payments. The advantages and disadvantages of these reforms are considered in terms of their effects on the use of evidence in clinical decisions made by physicians and their patients related to the diagnosis, testing, treatment and management of disease. The article concludes with a recommended pathway forward for improving current payment incentives to better support evidence-based decision-making.
    Journal of comparative effectiveness research. 05/2013; 2(3):249-59.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Efforts to close the primary care workforce gap typically employ one of three basic strategies: train more primary care physicians; boost the supply of nurse practitioners or physician assistants, or both; or use community health workers to extend the reach of primary care physicians. In this article we briefly review each strategy and the barriers to its success. We then propose a new approach adapted from the widely accepted model of emergency medical services. Translating this model to primary care and leveraging the capabilities of modern health information technology, it should be possible to create primary care technicians who can dramatically expand the impact and reach of patient-centered medical homes by providing basic preventive, minor illness, and stable chronic disease care in rural and resource-deprived communities.
    Health Affairs 11/2013; 32(11):1893-8. · 4.64 Impact Factor