Evidence of the health-promoting influence of primary care has been accumulating ever since researchers have been able to distinguish primary care from other aspects of the health services delivery system. This evidence shows that primary care helps prevent illness and death, regardless of whether the care is characterized by supply of primary care physicians, a relationship with a source of primary care, or the receipt of important features of primary care. The evidence also shows that primary care (in contrast to specialty care) is associated with a more equitable distribution of health in populations, a finding that holds in both cross-national and within-national studies. The means by which primary care improves health have been identified, thus suggesting ways to improve overall health and reduce differences in health across major population subgroups.

(1) Strong primary care system and practice characteristics such as geographic regulation, longitudinality, coordination, and community orientation were associated with improved population health. (2) Despite health reform efforts, few OECD countries have improved essential features of their primary care systems as assessed by the scale used here. (3) The proposed scale can also be used to monitor health reform efforts intended to improve primary care.

The COVID-19 is disproportionally affecting the poor, minorities and a broad range of vulnerable populations, due to its inequitable spread in areas of dense population and limited mitigation capacity due to high prevalence of chronic conditions or poor access to high quality public health and medical care. Moreover, the collateral effects of the pandemic due to the global economic downturn, and social isolation and movement restriction measures, are unequally affecting those in the lowest power strata of societies. To address the challenges to health equity and describe some of the approaches taken by governments and local organizations, we have compiled 13 country case studies from various regions around the world: China,

Primary care serves as the cornerstone in a strong healthcare system. However, it has long been overlooked in the United States (USA), and an imbalance between specialty and primary care exists. The objective of this focused review paper is to identify research evidence on the value of primary care both in the USA and internationally, focusing on the importance of effective primary care services in delivering quality healthcare, improving health outcomes, and reducing disparities. Literature searches were performed in PubMed as well as “snowballing” based on the bibliographies of the retrieved articles. The areas reviewed included primary care definitions, primary care measurement, primary care practice, primary care and health, primary care and quality, primary care and cost, primary care and equity, primary care and health centers, and primary care and healthcare reform. In both developed and developing countries, primary care has been demonstrated to be associated with enhanced access to healthcare services, better health outcomes, and a decrease in hospitalization and use of emergency department visits. Primary care can also help counteract the negative impact of poor economic conditions on health.

No abstract

No abstract

This analysis addresses the question, Would increasing the number of primary care physicians improve health outcomes in the United States? A search of the PubMed database for articles containing "primary care physician supply" or "primary care supply" in the title, published between 1985 and 2005, identified 17 studies, and 10 met all inclusion criteria. Results were reanalyzed to assess primary care effect size and the predicted effect on health outcomes of a one-unit increase in primary care physicians per 10,000 population. Primary care physician supply was associated with improved health outcomes, including all-cause, cancer, heart disease, stroke, and infant mortality; low birth weight; life expectancy; and self-rated health. This relationship held regardless of the year (1980-1995) or level of analysis (state, county, metropolitan statistical area (MSA), and non-MSA levels). Pooled results for all-cause mortality suggest that an increase of one primary care physician per 10,000 population was associated with an average mortality reduction of 5.3 percent, or 49 per 100,000 per year. Forecasting the need for physicians is generally based on task and time projections (1) and benchmarking with health maintenance organizations rather than on assessments of the likely contributions to improving health (2). In the 1990s, these approaches predicted physician surpluses in the 2000s. However, recent analyses using macroeconomic projections of demand for health services predict physician deficits of as many as 200,000 by 2025 (3). As a consequence, the Council on Graduate Medical Education reversed its position that the United States is producing too many physicians, and it has now endorsed the view that the nation may, in fact, be producing too few (4). The purpose of this article is to summarize existing studies of the likely effect of primary care physician supply on a variety of health outcomes. It addresses the question, Would increasing the number of primary care physicians improve health outcomes in the United States?

Objective. To examine the extent to which good primary-care experience attenuates the adverse association of income inequality with self-reported health.Data Sources. Data for the study were drawn from the Robert Wood Johnson Data Collection/Extraction Methods. Principal component factor analysis was used to explore the structure of the primary-care indicators and examine their construct validity. Income inequality for the state in which the community is located was measured by the Gini coefficient, calculated using income distribution data from the 1996 current population survey. Stratified analyses compared proportion of individuals reporting bad health and feeling depressed with those with good and bad primary-care experiences for each of the four income-inequality strata. A set of logistic regressions were performed to examine the relation between primary-care experience, income inequality, and selfrated health.Principal Findings. Good primary-care experience, in particular enhanced accessibility and continuity, was associated with better self-reported health both generally and mentally. Good primary-care experience was able to reduce the adverse association of income inequality with general health although not with mental health, and was especially beneficial in areas with highest income inequality. Socioeconomic status attenuated, but did not eliminate, the effect of primary-care experience on health. In conclusion, good primary-care experience is associated not only with improved self-rated overall and mental health but also with reductions in disparities between more-and lessdisadvantaged communities in ratings of overall health.