Massachussetts Shortage of Primary Care Physicians

Massachusetts passed state-wide guaranteed health care last year, and it now has an insufficient number of primary care physicians. From the Wall Street Journal story:
On the day Ms. [Tamar] Lewis signed up, she said she called more than two dozen primary-care doctors approved by her insurer looking for a checkup. All of them turned her away.This is the same pattern we see in Canada. But I don't think that the shortage can be blamed primarily on state-wide care--although it might be a contributing factor--but on the general managed care system in which HMOs, government funders, and others control costs through capitation. Unfortunately, the key to make the managed care system work is the specialized generalist (internists, family care docs, etc.) and they are the least paid. Again from the story:Her experience stands to be common among the 550,000 people whom Massachusetts hopes to rescue from the ranks of the uninsured. They will be seeking care in a state with a "critical shortage" of primary-care physicians, according to a study by the Massachusetts Medical Society released yesterday, which found that 49% of internists aren't accepting new patients. Boston's top three teaching hospitals say that 95% of their 270 doctors in general practice have halted enrollment.
For those residents who can get an appointment with their primary-care doctor, the average wait is more than seven weeks, according to the medical society, a 57% leap from last year's survey.
The dearth of primary-care providers threatens to undermine the Massachusetts health-care initiative, which passed amid much fanfare last year. Newly insured patients are expected to avail themselves of primary care because the insurance covers it. And with the primary-care system already straining, some providers say they have no idea how they will accommodate an additional half-million patients seeking checkups and other routine care.
I seem to recall that the Clinton Administration wanted to pay medical schools not to train doctors based on an alleged oversupply. I don't know if the plan was ever adopted. Be that as it may, whatever form of expanded health care we decide upon as a nation, we need to graduate more PCPs and we need to pay them better if we want them to serve as gate keepers to specialized care. Enough is enough.As it happens, primary-care doctors, including internists, family physicians, and pediatricians, are in short supply across the country.
A principal reason: too little money for too much work. Median income for primary-care doctors was $162,000 in 2004, the lowest of any physician type, according to a study by the Medical Group Management Association in Englewood, Colo.Their numbers dropped 6% relative to the general population from 2001 to 2005, according to the Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington. The proportion of third-year internal medicine residents choosing to practice primary care fell to 20% in 2005, from 54% in 1998.
Labels: Doctor Shortage.



4 Comments:
It's true - PCPs are paid less, and it's just not as glamourous as some of the specialties. But more wellness care is key to a healthier nation and a less expensive health care model.I don't know what the answer is - but it would be worth looking around and asking whether there are any countries where there isn't a shortage of family physicians, and how do those systems differ in how they educate, train, and pay their doctors?
I'm willing to say that the whole "wellness care" initiative is part of the problem. I realize this will sound outrageous to some, but it really isn't such a bad thing to go to the doctor when you're sick and if not, not. We're deliberately encouraging overuse of the system with all this preventative stuff, and I think we may even be training doctors to worry more about the "maybe" stuff than about concrete symptoms, to the point that I have had a doctor virtually ignore an actual warning sign that concerned _me_ in the course of a routine examination while, at the same time, earnestly urging me to consent to a mammogram when there were _no_ warning signs in that direction.
Moreover, and in relation to the post above, we are now pressing people who previously did go to the doctor only when ill--the poor--to begin overusing the system as well. We are doing so by insuring them at a level that allows and encourages them to begin all of these "go when you're healthy" checkups for the sake of checkups. Then we wonder why we don't have enough doctors, we have wait times, and so forth.
And I agree that capitation of costs is a part of the problem as well.
Interesting point, Lydia. Wellness programs are useful, but I don't think they need to be run by doctors. Other medical professionals should be, and I believe are, trained in these areas.
I agree that we can and should free doctors to primarily treat the truly sick. Routine physicals could perhaps become the domain of physicians' assistants or certified nurse practitioners--under the supervision of a physician, of course. Routine follow up care, too.
Over utilization needs to be addressed in other ways as well, such as co-payments and higher deductibles.
All in all, much work to do.
Another thought on the economic models: Could it be that the models that predict that a wellness approach is less expensive were operating on the economically naive assumption that doctors would not be in greatly increased demand, thus driving up costs? Perhaps it's true that if you hold constant medical costs (e.g., the cost of a visit) and treat little problems while they are little, do a lot of screening, etc., you'll save money in the long run. I'd have to know what the data were on the cost of the screenings, etc. But this will definitely not be true if the very act of encouraging wellness checkups and all the rest drives up the demand and hence the cost. Perhaps the economic models were faulty in the first place. Then, when doctors (and even other medical staff) came to be more in demand as a result of the greater utilization caused by the "wellness" approach of the HMO's, the HMO's and government payers tried to hold the costs down artificially as you describe in order to make things work out economically as they had originally predicted.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home