Is more primary care really better?

Proponents of health reform have long claimed that one of the biggest problems with our health care system is an overemphasis on expensive specialists and an underemphasis on primary care physicians — who, much research shows, produce high quality care at a much lower cost.

In essence, the argument is that we’re using (and paying for) rocket scientists to fly kites. If we bolster the primary care workforce, suddenly we’ll start saving buckets of cash and people will not only be just as healthy–but they might actually start becoming healthier, as greater emphasis is placed on things like prevention, continuity of care, and chronic disease management.

To be fair, not every study supports the “more primary care is better” philosophy, but that hasn’t much mattered. It has become a central tenet of reform for most. Tom Ricketts and I actually authored a paper that raises some methodological concerns, which call some of the typical findings into question.

But the most recent kicker comes from the folks at the Dartmouth Atlas who are well known for their work revealing the wide geographic variation in Medicare spending. The group recently released a report that, simply put, says primary care isn’t the panacea many people claim it to be.

What in the world is one to make of this? Nothing really. Primary care practices don’t exist in a vacuum. People’s environments, their lifestyle choices and health behaviors still play a large role in their health outcomes. Furthermore, patients rely on both generalists and specialists, not generalists alone.

The Dartmouth report doesn’t mean that primary care is suddenly more expensive than previously thought, or that it doesn’t provide the high quality of care it was once believed to. Rather, it means that there is no “magic bullet” that will suddenly solve all that ails our country’s health care system.

Let me be as clear as possible about this: Primary care is a good thing — it’s just not the only thing.

Brad Wright is a health policy doctoral student who blogs at Wright on Health.

Submit a guest post and be heard.

email

  • skepticus

    over 75% of all healthcare expenses revolve around three conditions: heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. 2 things to observe here: these diseases are incurable and chronic and are largely behavioral in their etiology.

    “treating” or “controlling” these diseases before things get “critical” (as primary physicians might) doesn’t really help because, in the long run, it would be more cost-effective for these people to sicken and die early. (One bout of serious illness vs. constant treatment).

    “Screenings” and preventative medicine (another primary physician “specialty”) won’t save money. Just look at the USPSTF website–not many screenings are particularly cost effective.

    Let primary medicine be taken over by nurse practitioners. We’ll all save money–and they’ll be no detectable decrease in healthcare outcomes.

    • Jman

      How would nurse practitioners decrease the cost of primary care ? They would refer more due to a decreased knowledge base and would ask for equivalent reimbursement to primary care physicians (both already happening)…all while having less education and a decreased knowledge base.

    • pj

      “Let primary medicine be taken over by nurse practitioners. We’ll all save money–and they’ll be no detectable decrease in healthcare outcomes.”

      That is the most outrageous statement I’ve ever seen on this site. I challenge you to provide any support for your position. Feel free to share your credentials and education if you have any.

  • James Davis

    What would be helpful is more primary care doctors and specialists who actually have time to stay current with developments in their own fields. I’ve been dealing for a year with a diagnosis of a myeloproliferative disorder which required both Hydroxyurea and monthly phlebotomies. A review of the history by the new hemotologist when I moved showed that the first doctor who made the diagnosis failed to account for my size and relatively-greater-than-average muscle mass to account for blood volume and red cell mass excesses. They weren’t exactly excess for my size it turns out, and neither the drug nor the phlebotomy were necessary.

    In addition, the new primary doctor figured out I no longer needed blood pressure meds, either! After two weeks WITHOUT meds, due to me losing them while traveling, my resting BP was 106/68. My previous PCP hadn’t been paying attention to the monitoring that had been going on monthly for a year.

    If either of these worthies had been paying attention, I’d not have been over medicated or phlebotomized!

  • Finn

    Isn’t primary care cheaper simply because PCPs get paid so much less than specialists, whose fees are procedure-based?

  • family practitioner

    Primary care is cheaper because we do not encourage working up every symptom unless it will change our treatment.

    Examples:
    A neurologist ordering MRI’s and EMG’s to work up a 75 year old with neck pain, just to recommend a prn nsaid and physical therapy.

    An endocrinologist or nephrologist doing annual 24 hour urine studies on a diabetic despite a normal creatinine and negative proteinuria.

    A pulmonolgist ordering pfts on a well controlled asthmatic.

    I am sure people can think of other examples.

    • rezmed09

      A local cardiologist with >50% of cath’s having clean coronaries.

      • Primary Care Internist

        that’s nothing compared with all the asymptomatic patients with annual stress/holter/echocardiogram? I call this the “cardiologist trifecta”.

    • pj

      As a PCP, I’ve seen all this done far too often. The big question is, how do we communicate these facts to the public and the rulemakers, without looking self serving?

  • Jackie

    Twenty years after my first major surgery – a 23-hour craniotomy to resect a 4x5x6.5 cm brain tumor, the health care system – especially the function of PCPs – has not changed one bit.

    It took me 7 months – changing to a different PCP, demanding for referrals – and plenty of ‘luck’ to get my life-long brain tumor diagnosed. And then my new PCP would not help me to get the qualified neurosurgeon for my surgery.

    When I underwent breast cancer treatment – twice – it was not diagnosed by my PCP (another young doctor trained at a prestigious medical facility), either. The mammagram had failed miserably – missed my recurrence for four straight years. I ended up having to find the original surgeon to order/read the mammagram and get the mystery solved.

    And the PCPs always send me to a ‘psychiatrist’ to save their own skin while I am desperately trying to save my own life.

    PCPs are way too busy these days to function as the ‘family’ doctor. They have become a manager of physicians assistants who know even less …

  • pcp

    More hooey from the folks at Dartmouth Atlas. The study looks at the relationship between having “at least one” visit (could be just for a sore throat) with a primary care doc during a 12 month period, and the rate of receiving recommended screening tests. Pretty worthless analysis.

  • http://dlmcblog.com meghmala

    my comment is similar like you,Primary care is a good thing — it’s just not the only thing.

  • drjebj

    Primary care isn’t what it used to be either. Far more testing and referrals than before. The reason for this these days is that most primary care residencies rely on specialists to train the residents. It is no wonder that the new physicians test more, treat more and refer more.

  • rezmed09

    If PCP’s are not trained well they will refer to specialists more and order more tests.

    If the patient population has low regard for PCP’s they will demand to see specialists more and order more tests.

    The solution to low cost and good care is well trained PCP’s with limited referrals
    or
    capitate the money spent in every sector of the system. And this often translates into salaried practices and corporate medicine.

  • LynnB

    After doing primary care for many years — the specialists refer to each other constantly for trivial thing s . ex: TSH is 7.12 on meds–a major mystery to the GI doc , who did an endo referral r\for that complex thyroxine dose change . Atrial fib–cardiologist refers to neurologist or vice versa then PING back to the original subspecialist so they can calculate the CHADS2 score .

    I used to assume there was something I was missing. There was , but it had nothing to do with patient care

  • DF

    I learned the value of a family doctor during a pharmacy residency back in 1992. I grew up with a pediatrician (and knowing a visit to the doctor usually meant a shot of some kind, took every effort to avoid them until I was in college and had several health scares.) In college, a kind professor introduced me to an internist whom I liked and took very good care of me. But once I understood the concept of family medicine, I was hooked. So when I got married and moved to a new state, that’s what I looked for as my new PCP.

    I LOVE my PCP. He is our family doc and I take my kids to him also. He listens, respects me as a health care professional and my kids like him too. He worked with me for several years on migraines before they just got too complicated and he referred me to a neuro (now on my 2nd b/c the first seemed to “give up” in less than 6 months). But I noticed that he too, seemed to start referring me alot recently.

    This summer I never even saw him b/c he was so busy. But I went in with abdominal pain that ended up being kidney stones, chronic nausea that never go resolved, and a DVT – yes, a crazy time for a “youngish”, active, on the go woman. In over 3 months, I saw him once (and other docs and NPs several times), got referred several times (appropriately for the kidney stones) and then he said after one visit he’d refer me to a GI doc for the nausea if a PPI didn’t work. hmmmm…..I gave up on the PPI when it didn’t work and just deal with things on my own since I don’t think I can stand another “specialist” in my life.

    I KNOW he is a VERY intelligent man. I wonder if he is just too busy to do more than the simplist of health management now. He still takes care of my my son’s migraines (but referred his allergies out), my other son’s asthma, and my allergies, migraine med refills (except preventatives) and the DVT for 6 months now. I still hear from his nurse for INRs almost weekly so I know I keep them busy with that nonsense. (After working in a “coumadin clinic” in a previous job, this is one instance where I wonder if a referral might not be appropriate….) But I even asked him to try managing my migraines again after the first neuro was a flop but I reluctanly found a headache specialist 2 hours away. But my PCP has helped me arrange some tests the new neuro wanted. Like I said, he is a fabulous doctor (and I have thanked him for that!)

    My whole understanding of the PCP from back in the “horrid” HMO days was the “medical home”. Perhaps with electronic records, that won’t be quite as essential, but I still like knowing that one person KNOWS me. Call me old fashioned, but even with my awesome PPO, no referral insurance (which may not last long), I still make my first appt with my family doc if possible. Even if it takes me a month to see him at this point, at least when I can, he’ll have all that info about me….. Here’s hoping insurance realizes their value and pays appropriately sooner than later.

  • drjebj

    God bless you DF. One of the reasons that traditional Family Medicine is disappearing is that many consumers have never had the experience that you used to have with your Family Doctor and do not seek or expect that level of care. they feel that episodic care from specialists is “better” tan care from non-specialists. Unfortunately, many of our medical students and resident physicians in training have not experienced it either and without role models for this there is little hope to resurrect old fashioned Family Practice.

Trending