1. Association of physician payment model and team-based care with timely access in primary care: a population-based cross-sectional study
- Author
-
Alexander Kopp, Naira Yeritsyan, Shahriar Khan, Haj Ali Wissam, Tara Kiran, Yvonne DeWit, Michael E. Green, Sue Schultz, and Richard H. Glazier
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Adolescent ,Cross-sectional study ,MEDLINE ,Logistic regression ,Young Adult ,Rurality ,Physicians ,Health care ,medicine ,Humans ,Aged ,Aged, 80 and over ,Ontario ,Capitation ,Primary Health Care ,business.industry ,Research ,Fee-for-Service Plans ,General Medicine ,Odds ratio ,Middle Aged ,Confidence interval ,Cross-Sectional Studies ,Population Surveillance ,Family medicine ,Female ,business - Abstract
Background It is unclear how patient-reported access to primary care differs by physician payment model and participation in team-based care. We examined the association between timely and after-hours access to primary care and physician payment model and participation in team-based care, and sought to assess how access varied by patient characteristics. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adult (age ≥ 16 yr) Ontarians who responded to the Ontario Health Care Experience Survey between January 2013 and September 2015, reported having a primary care provider and agreed to have their responses linked to health administrative data. Access measures included the proportion of respondents who reported same-day or next-day access when sick, satisfaction with time to appointment when sick, telephone access and knowledge of an after-hours clinic. We tested the association between practice model and measures of access using logistic regression after stratifying for rurality. Results A total of 33 665 respondents met our inclusion criteria. In big cities, respondents in team and nonteam capitation models were less likely to report same-day or next-day access when sick than respondents in enhanced fee-for-service models (team capitation 43%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.98; nonteam capitation 39%, adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70-0.87; enhanced fee-for-service 46% [reference]). Respondents in team and nonteam capitation models were more likely than those in enhanced fee-for-service models to report that their provider had an after-hours clinic (team capitation 59%, adjusted OR 2.59, 95% CI 2.39-2.81; nonteam capitation 51%, adjusted OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.76-2.04; enhanced fee-for service 34% [reference]). Patterns were similar for respondents in small towns. There was minimal to no difference by model for satisfaction with time to appointment or telephone access. Interpretation In our setting, there was an association between some types of access to primary care and physician payment model and team-based care, but the direction was not consistent. Different measures of timely access are needed to understand health care system performance.
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF