Principles of patient-centered care imply that physicians should use electronic communication with patients more extensively, including as a substitute for office visits when clinically appropriate. We interviewed leaders of 21 medical groups that use electronic communication with patients extensively and also interviewed staff in six of these 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 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 used more extensively.

Nearly two-thirds of US office-based physicians work in practices of fewer than seven physicians. It is often assumed that larger practices provide better care, although there is little evidence for or against this assumption. What is the relationship between practice sizeand other practice characteristics, such as ownership or use of medical home processes-and the quality of care? We conducted a national survey of 1,045 primary care-based practices with nineteen or fewer physicians to determine practice characteristics. We used Medicare data to calculate practices' rate of potentially preventable hospital admissions (ambulatory care-sensitive admissions). Compared to practices with 10-19 physicians, practices with 1-2 physicians had 33 percent fewer preventable admissions, and practices with 3-9 physicians had 27 percent fewer. Physician-owned practices had fewer preventable admissions than hospital-owned practices. In an era when health care reform appears to be driving physicians into larger organizations, it is important to measure the comparative performance of practices of all sizes, to learn more about how small practices provide patient care, and to learn more about the types of organizational structures-such as independent practice associations-that may make it possible for small practices to share resources that are useful for improving the quality of care.

Physician networks have a relationship with ACSAs that is independent of the physicians in the network. Physician networks could be an important focus for understanding variations in medical care and for intervening to improve care.

Physician practices are increasingly being purchased by hospitals. This may result in higher total spending on care.

PURPOSEIn the turbulent US health care environment, many primary care physicians seek hospital employment. Large physician-owned primary care groups are an alternative, but few physicians or policy makers realize that such groups exist. We wanted to describe these groups, their advantages, and their challenges. METHODSWe identified 21 groups and studied 5 that varied in size and location. We conducted interviews with group leaders, surveyed randomly selected group physicians, and interviewed external observers-leaders of a health plan, hospital, and specialty medical group that shared patients with the group. We triangulated responses from group leaders, group physicians, and external observers to identify key themes. RESULTSThe groups' physicians work in small practices, with the group providing economies of scale necessary to develop laboratory and imaging services, health information technology, and quality improvement infrastructure. The groups differ in their size and the extent to which they engage in value-based contracting, though all are moving to increase the amount of financial risk they take for their quality and cost performance. Unlike hospital-employed and multispecialty groups, independent primary care groups can aim to reduce health care costs without conflicting incentives to fill hospital beds and keep specialist incomes high. Each group was positively regarded by external observers. The groups are under pressure, however, to sell to organizations that can provide capital for additional infrastructure to engage in value-based contracting, as well as provide substantial income to physicians from the sale.CONCLUSIONS Large, independent primary care groups have the potential to make primary care attractive to physicians and to improve patient care by combining human scale advantages of physician autonomy and the small practice setting with resources that are important to succeed in value-based contracting.

We explore the impact of malpractice caps on non-economic damages that were enacted between 2003 and 2006 on the supply of physician labor, separately for high-malpractice risk and low-malpractice risk physician specialty types, and separately by young and old physicians. We use physician data from the Area Resource File for 2000–2011 and malpractice policy data from the Database of State Tort Law Reforms. We study the impact of these caps using a reverse natural experiment, comparing physician supply in nine states enacting new caps to physician supply in ten states that had malpractice caps in place throughout the full time period. We use an event study to evaluate changes in physician labor compared to the prior year. We find evidence that non-economic damage caps increased the supply of high-risk physicians <35 years of age by 0.93 physicians per 100,000 people in the year after the caps were enacted. Non-economic damage caps were cumulatively associated with an increase of 2.1 high-risk physicians <35 years of age per 100,000 people. Stronger non-economic damage caps generally had a larger impact on physical supply.

Objectives. To determine whether a shared panel management program was effective at improving quality of care for patients with uncontrolled chronic disease. Data Sources. Data were extracted from electronic health records. Study Design. Randomized controlled trial of a panel management program initiated by New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Patients from 20 practices with an uncontrolled chronic disease and a lapse in care were assigned to the intervention (a phone call requesting that the patient schedule a physician appointment) or usual care. Outcomes were visits to physician practices, body mass index measurement, blood pressure measurement and control, use of antithrombotics, and lowdensity lipoprotein measurement and control. Principal Findings. Panel managers were able to successfully speak with 1,676 patients (14.7 percent of the intervention group). There were no significant differences in outcomes between the intervention and usual care groups. Successfully contacted patients were more likely to have an office visit within 1 year of randomization (45.6 percent [95 percent CI: 22.8, 26.9] vs. 38.1 percent [95 percent CI: 36.8, 39.3]) and more likely to be on antithrombotics (24.4 percent [95 percent CI: 17.7, 31.0]) versus those in the usual care group (17.0 percent [95 percent CI: 13.9, 20.0]) but had no other difference in quality. Conclusions. A shared, low-intensity panel management program run by a city health department did not improve quality of care for patients with chronic illnesses and lapses in care.