BACKGROUND: One-quarter of U.S. patients do not have a primary care provider or do not have complete access to one. Work and personal responsibilities also compete with finding convenient, accessible care. Telehealth services facilitate patients' access to care, but whether patients are satisfied with telehealth is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We assessed patients' satisfaction with and preference for telehealth visits in a telehealth program at CVS MinuteClinics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional patient satisfaction survey. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were aged ≥18 years, presented at a MinuteClinic offering telehealth in January-September 2014, had symptoms suitable for telehealth consultation, and agreed to a telehealth visit when the on-site practitioner was busy. MAIN MEASURES: Patients reported their age, gender, and whether they had health insurance and/or a primary care provider. Patients rated their satisfaction with seeing diagnostic images, hearing and seeing the remote practitioner, the assisting on-site nurse's capability, quality of care, convenience, and overall understanding. Patients ranked telehealth visits compared to traditional ones: better (defined as preferring telehealth), just as good (defined as liking telehealth), or worse. Predictors of preferring or liking telehealth were assessed via multivariate logistic regression. KEY RESULTS: In total, 1734 (54 %) of 3303 patients completed the survey: 70 % were women, and 41 % had no usual place of care. Between 94 and 99 % reported being Bvery satisfied^with all telehealth attributes. Onethird preferred a telehealth visit to a traditional in-person visit. An additional 57 % liked telehealth. Lack of medical insurance increased the odds of preferring telehealth (OR=0.83, 95 % CI,

To achieve care integration required for efficient high-quality care, physicians are increasingly organized into large multispecialty groups. The success of these groups depends in large part on the ability of leadership to successfully navigate the shifting reimbursement, regulatory, and quality and safety terrain, while simultaneously providing their physicians with a rewarding practice environment. The knowledge and management tools required for such leadership are not taught in medical school or residency and are rarely acquired as a product of day-to-day physician activities. In an effort to meet these challenges, the Massachusetts General Physicians Organization created a leadership development program. This article details the development, implementation, and experience of the program.

CONTEXT: Although few data are available, many believe that part-time primary care physicians (PCPs) are less productive and provide lower quality care than full-time PCPs. Some insurers exclude part-time PCPs from their provider networks.OBJECTIVE: To compare productivity, quality of preventive care, patient satisfaction, and risk-adjusted resource utilization of part-time and full-time PCPs.DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Boston.PARTICIPANTS: PCPs affiliated with 2 academic outpatient primary care networks.MEASUREMENTS: PCP productivity, patient satisfaction, resource utilization, and compliance with screening guidelines.RESULTS: Part-time PCP productivity was greater than that of full-time PCPs (2.1 work relative value units (RVUs)/bookable clinical hour versus 1.3 work RVUs/bookable clinical hour, P < .01). A similar proportion of part-time PCPs (80%) and fulltime PCPs (75%) met targets for mammography, Pap smears, and cholesterol screening (P = .67). After adjusting for clinical case mix, practice location, gender, board certification status, and years in practice, resource utilization of part-time PCPs ($138 [95% confidence interval (CI), $108 to $167]) was similar to that of full-time PCPs ($139 [95% CI, $108 to $170], P = .92). Patient satisfaction was similar for part-time and full-time PCPs.CONCLUSIONS: In these academic primary care practices, rates of patient satisfaction, compliance with screening guidelines, and resource utilization were similar for part-time PCPs compared to full-time PCPs. Productivity per clinical hour was markedly higher for part-time PCPs. Despite study limitations, these data suggest that academic part-time PCPs are at least as efficient as full-time PCPs and that the quality of their work is similar. KEY WORDS: productivity; quality of care; patient satisfaction; part-time physicians; women in medicine. J GEN INTERN MED 2001;16:663±667.

Following passage of the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, most clinicians caring for Medicare Part B patients were required to participate in a new value-based reimbursement system known as the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) beginning in 2017. The MIPS adjusts payment rates to providers based on a composite score of performance across 4 categories: quality, advancing care information, clinical practice improvement activities, and resource use. However, factors such as practice size, setting, informational capabilities, and patient population may pose challenges as otolaryngologists endeavor to adapt to this broad-reaching payment reform. Given potential barriers to adoption, otolaryngologists should be aware of several important initiatives to help optimize their performance, including advocacy efforts by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, the development of otolaryngology-specific MIPS quality measures, and the launch of a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-qualified otolaryngology clinical data registry to facilitate reporting.