Hypertension, coronary heart disease (CHD), and anxiety disorders all cause substantial morbidity to patients and costs to the healthcare system. Associations between these diseases have been hypothesized and studied for decades. In particular, psychosocial stressors associated with anxiety disorders raise autonomic arousal via the hypothalamic-pituitary axis which increases circulating catecholamines. This heightened arousal is associated with an increased risk of hypertension and a pro-inflammatory state and, consequently, development of coronary heart disease. This association holds across the spectrum of anxiety disorders (generalized anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder) and also when controlling for comorbid conditions such as depression and physical ailments. Multiple cross sectional studies reveal a positive association between anxiety and hypertension. These associations are bidirectional, with those with hypertension being more likely to have anxiety and those with anxiety being more likely to have hypertension. However, a few studies have shown no association. Longitudinal studies point to an increased risk of development of hypertension in patients who suffer from anxiety. More convincing studies show links between anxiety symptoms and disorders, including panic disorder and PTSD, and cardiovascular outcomes. Drawing broad conclusions from these studies is challenging, however, given the multiplicity of scales used to measure anxiety disorders. Anxiety, hypertension, and CHD are common conditions seen in primary care, and anxiety may be an important predictor of future CHD outcomes. Better recognition of the association of these conditions and the possible roles of each in development of the other should alert primary care providers to be vigilant in monitoring and treating anxiety, hypertension, and CHD.

PURPOSE Continuity of care is a defining characteristic of primary care associated with lower costs and improved health equity and care quality. However, we lack provider-level measures of primary care continuity amenable to value-based payment, including the Medicare Quality Payment Program (QPP). We created 4 physician-level, claims-based continuity measures and tested their associations with health care expenditures and hospitalizations. METHODSWe used Medicare claims data for 1,448,952 beneficiaries obtaining care from a nationally representative sample of 6,551 primary care physicians to calculate continuity scores by 4 established methods. Patient-level continuity scores attributed to a single physician were averaged to create physician-level scores. We used beneficiary multilevel models, including beneficiary controls, physician characteristics, and practice rurality to estimate associations with total Medicare Part A & B expenditures (allowed charges, logged), and any hospitalization. RESULTSOur continuity measures were highly correlated (correlation coefficients ranged from 0.86 to 0.99), with greater continuity associated with similar outcomes for each. Adjusted expenditures for beneficiaries cared for by physicians in the highest Bice-Boxerman continuity score quintile were 14.1% lower than for those in the lowest quintile ($8,092 vs $6,958; β = -0.151; 95% CI, -0.186 to -0.116), and the odds of hospitalization were 16.1% lower between the highest and lowest continuity quintiles (OR = 0.839; 95% CI, 0.787 to 0.893).CONCLUSIONS All 4 continuity scores tested were significantly associated with lower total expenditures and hospitalization rates. Such indices are potentially useful as QPP measures, and may also serve as proxy resource-use measures, given the strength of association with lower costs and utilization.

PURPOSE Comprehensiveness is lauded as 1 of the 5 core virtues of primary care, but its relationship with outcomes is unclear. We measured associations between variations in comprehensiveness of practice among family physicians and healthcare utilization and costs for their Medicare beneficiaries. METHODSWe merged data from 2011 Medicare Part A and B claims files for a complex random sample of family physicians engaged in direct patient care, including 100% of their claimed care of Medicare beneficiaries, with data reported by the same physicians during their participation in Maintenance of Certification for Family Physicians (MC-FP) between the years 2007 and 2011. We created a measure of comprehensiveness from mandatory self-reported survey items as part of MC-FP examination registration. We compared this measure to another derived from Medicare's Berenson-Eggers Type of Service (BETOS) codes. We then examined the association between the 2 measures of comprehensiveness and hospitalizations, Part B payments, and combined Part A and B payments. RESULTSOur full family physician sample consists of 3,652 physicians providing the plurality of care to 555,165 Medicare beneficiaries. Of these, 1,133 recertified between 2007 and 2011 and cared for 185,044 beneficiaries. There was a modest correlation (0.30) between the BETOS and self-reported comprehensiveness measures. After adjusting for beneficiary and physician characteristics, increasing comprehensiveness was associated with lower total Medicare Part A and B costs and Part B costs alone, but not with hospitalizations; the association with spending was stronger for the BETOS measure than for the self-reported measure; higher BETOS scores significantly reduced the likelihood of a hospitalization.CONCLUSIONS Increasing family physician comprehensiveness of care, especially as measured by claims measures, is associated with decreasing Medicare costs and hospitalizations. Payment and practice policies that enhance primary care comprehensiveness may help "bend the cost curve."

No abstract

In this study of family physicians taking ABFM examinations, graduating family medicine residents reported an intention to provide a broader scope of practice than that reported by current practitioners. This pattern suggests that these differences are not generational, but whether they are due to limited practice support, employer constraints, or other causes remains to be determined.

Early career family physicians who provide a broader scope of practice, specifically, inpatient medicine, obstetrics, or home visits, reported significantly lower rates of burnout. Our findings suggest that comprehensiveness is associated with less burnout, which is critical in the context of improving access to good quality, affordable care while maintaining physician wellness.

As a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, virtually all in-person outpatient visits were canceled in many parts of the country between March and May 2020. We sought to estimate the potential impact of COVID-19 on the operating expenses and revenues of primary care practices. Using a microsimulation model incorporating national data on primary care use, staffing, expenditures, and reimbursements, including telemedicine visits, we estimated that over the course of calendar year 2020, primary care practices would be expected to lose 67,774 in gross revenue per full-time-equivalent physician (the difference between 2020 gross revenue with COVID-19 and the anticipated gross revenue if COVID-19 had not occurred). We further estimated that the cost at a national level to neutralize the revenue losses caused by COVID-19 among primary care practices would be $15.1 billion. This could more than double if COVID-19 telemedicine payment policies are not sustained.

PURPOSE Solo and small practices are facing growing pressure to consolidate. Our objectives were to determine (1) the percentage of family physicians in solo and small practices, and (2) the characteristics of and services provided by these practices.METHODS A total of 10,888 family physicians seeking certification through the American Board of Family Medicine in 2013 completed a demographic survey. Their practices were split into categories by size: solo, small (2 to 5 providers), medium (6 to 20 providers), and large (more than 20 providers). We also determined the rurality of the county where the physicians practiced. We developed 2 logistic regression models: one assessed predictors of practicing in a solo or small practice, while the other was restricted to solo and small practices and assessed predictors of practicing in a solo practice. RESULTSMore than one-half of respondents worked in solo or small practices. Small practices were the largest group (36%) and were the most likely to be located in a rural setting (20%). The likelihood of having a care coordinator and medical home certification increased with practice size. Physicians were more likely to be practicing in small or solo practices (vs medium-sized or large ones) if they were African American or Hispanic, had been working for more than 30 years, and worked in rural areas. Physicians were more likely to be practicing in small practices (vs solo ones) if they worked in highly rural areas.CONCLUSIONS Family physicians in solo and small practices comprised the majority among all family physicians seeking board certification and were more likely to work in rural geographies. Extension programs and community health teams have the potential to support transformation within these practices.