PURPOSE: Despite growing calls for team-based care, the current staff composition of primary care practices is unknown. We describe staffing patterns for primary care practices in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative. METHODS: We undertook a descriptive analysis of CPC initiative practices' baseline staffing using data from initial applications and a practice survey. CMS selected 502 primary care practices (from 987 applicants) in 7 regions based on their health information technology, number of patients covered by participating payers, and other factors; 496 practices were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Consistent with the national distribution, most of the CPC initiative practices included in this study were small: 44% reported 2 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) physicians; 27% reported more than 4. Nearly all reported administrative staff (98%) and medical assistants (89%). Fifty-three percent reported having nurse practitioners or physician assistants; 47%, licensed practical or vocational nurses; 36%, registered nurses; and 24%, care managers/coordinators-all of these positions are more common in larger practices. Other clinical staff were reported infrequently regardless of practice size. Compared with other CPC initiative practices, designated patient-centered medical homes were more likely to have care managers/coordinators but otherwise had similar staff types. Larger practices had fewer FTE staff per physician. CONCLUSIONS: At baseline, most CPC initiative practices used traditional staffing models and did not report having dedicated staff who may be integral to new primary care models, such as care coordinators, health educators, behavioral health specialists, and pharmacists. Without such staff and payment for their services, practices are unlikely to deliver comprehensive, coordinated, and accessible care to patients at a sustainable cost.
PURPOSE: Despite growing calls for team-based care, the current staff composition of primary care practices is unknown. We describe staffing patterns for primary care practices in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Comprehensive Primary Care (CPC) initiative. METHODS: We undertook a descriptive analysis of CPC initiative practices' baseline staffing using data from initial applications and a practice survey. CMS selected 502 primary care practices (from 987 applicants) in 7 regions based on their health information technology, number of patients covered by participating payers, and other factors; 496 practices were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Consistent with the national distribution, most of the CPC initiative practices included in this study were small: 44% reported 2 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) physicians; 27% reported more than 4. Nearly all reported administrative staff (98%) and medical assistants (89%). Fifty-three percent reported having nurse practitioners or physician assistants; 47%, licensed practical or vocational nurses; 36%, registered nurses; and 24%, care managers/coordinators-all of these positions are more common in larger practices. Other clinical staff were reported infrequently regardless of practice size. Compared with other CPC initiative practices, designated patient-centered medical homes were more likely to have care managers/coordinators but otherwise had similar staff types. Larger practices had fewer FTE staff per physician. CONCLUSIONS: At baseline, most CPC initiative practices used traditional staffing models and did not report having dedicated staff who may be integral to new primary care models, such as care coordinators, health educators, behavioral health specialists, and pharmacists. Without such staff and payment for their services, practices are unlikely to deliver comprehensive, coordinated, and accessible care to patients at a sustainable cost.
Entities:
Keywords:
patient-centered medical home; primary care; staffing; team-based care
Authors: Kaveh G Shojania; Sumant R Ranji; Kathryn M McDonald; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Vandana Sundaram; Robert J Rushakoff; Douglas K Owens Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-07-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Judith M E Walsh; Kathryn M McDonald; Kaveh G Shojania; Vandana Sundaram; Smita Nayak; Robyn Lewis; Douglas K Owens; Mary Kane Goldstein Journal: Med Care Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Joanna Case Famadas; Kevin D Frick; Ziad R Haydar; David Nicewander; David Ballard; Chad Boult Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: David Meyers; Lisa LeRoy; Michael Bailit; Judith Schaefer; Edward Wagner; Chunliu Zhan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Alyna T Chien; JoAnna Leyenaar; Marisa Tomaino; Steven Woloshin; Lindsey Leininger; Erin R Barnett; Jennifer L McLaren; Ellen Meara Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2022 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Zhehui Luo; Qiaoling Chen; Ann M Annis; Gretchen Piatt; Lee A Green; Min Tao; Jodi Summers Holtrop Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ashok Reddy; Laura Sessums; Reshma Gupta; Janel Jin; Tim Day; Bruce Finke; Asaf Bitton Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Asia Friedman; Jenna Howard; Eric K Shaw; Deborah J Cohen; Laleh Shahidi; Jeanne M Ferrante Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Parth D Shah; Justin G Trogdon; Shelley D Golden; Carol E Golin; Macary Weck Marciniak; Noel T Brewer Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 4.911