The effect of physician panel size on health care outcomes

Health Services Management Research

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 96-105

  Stefos, Theodore ^a,c   Burgess Jr , James F ^b,c   Mayo Smith, Michael F ^a   Frisbee, Kathleen L ^a   Harvey, Henry B ^a   Lehner, Laura ^a   Lo, Sophie ^a   Moran, Eileen ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS   (United States)

^b VA BOSTON HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^c BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VETERAN;

APPOINTMENTS AND SCHEDULES; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PHYSICIANS; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; WAITING LISTS;

EID: 79955092513     PISSN: 09514848     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/hsmr.2011.011001     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Colwill JM, Cultice JM, Kruse RL. Will generalist physician supply meet demands of an increasing and aging population? Health Affairs 2008;27:w232-w241
2. American College of Physicians. How is a Shortage of Primary Care PhysIcians Affecting the Quality and Cost of Medical Care? 2008, White Paper. (Available from American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, PA 19106)
3. Harris JP, President, American College of Physicians. Letter to Honorable Tom Daschle, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services. December 17, 2008
4. Starfield B, Fryer GE. The primary care physician workforce: ethical and policy implications. Ann Fam Med 2007;5:486-492
5. Conrad D, Fishman P, Grembowski D, et al. Access intervention in an integrated prepaid group practice: effects on primary care physician productivity. Health Serv Res 2008;43(Part II):1888-1905
6. Dummit LA. Primary Care Physician Supply, Physician Compensation, and Medicare Fees: What is the Connection? National Health Policy Forum, November 3, 2008, Issue Brief No. 827, George Washington University
7. Steinwald AB. Primary Care Professionals: Recent Supply Trends, Projections, and Valuation of Services. GAO (US Government Accountability Office) Testimony before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, US Senate, February 12, 2008, GAO-08-472T
8. VHA Directive. Guidance on Primary Care Panel size. Department of Veterans Affairs VHA Directive 2004-031, 6 July 2004
9. EPRP. 2009. See http://vaww.oqp.med.va.gov/programs/pm/pmPolicyTechManual.aspx (last accessed 14 February 2011)
10. SHEP, 2009. See http://vaww.oqp.med.va.gov/programs/shep/shepReferences.aspx (last accessed 14 February 2011)
11. Dixon S, Sampson FC, O'Cathain A, Pickin M. Advanced access: more than just GP waiting times? Fam Pract 2006;23:233-239
12. Jones W, Elwyn G, Edwards P, Edwards A, Emmerson M, Hibbs R. Measuring Access to Primary Care Appointments: A Review of Methods. BMC Family Practice, 2003. See www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/4/8 (last accessed 10 February 2011)
13. Murray M, Berwick DM. Advanced access: reduced waiting and delays in primary care. JAMA 2003;289:1035-1040
14. Bennett KJ, Baxley EG. The effect of a carve-out advanced access scheduling system on no-show rates. Fam Med 2009;41:51-56
15. Management Science Group. Modifying the VA Budget Allocation System to Incorporate Risk using Diagnostic Cost Groups. US Department of Veterans Affairs Research Report, June 2002
16. Ellis RP. Diagnostic Cost Group (DCG) and Hierarchical Coexisting Condition (HCC) Models for Medicare Risk Adjustment. Final Report to the Health Care Financing Administration, Contract no. 500-92-0020, Waltham, MA: Health Economic Research Inc., April 1996
17. Ash A, Ellis RP, Yu W. Risk Adjustment for the Non-Elderly. Final Report submitted to the Health Care Financing Administration under cooperative agreement No.18-C-90462/1-02, Boston, MA: Boston University, June 1998
18. Pope G, Ellis RP, Liu C. Revised Diagnostic Cost Group (DCG)/ Hierarchical Coexisting Conditions (HCC) Models for Medicare Risk Adjustment. Final Report to the Health Care Financing Administration under Contract No. 500-95-048, Waltham, MA: Health Economics Research, Inc., February 1998
19. Hedeen AN, Heagerty PJ, Fortney JC, Borowsky SJ, Walder DJ, Chapko MK. VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinics: Quality of Care Performance Measures. Medical Care 2002;40:570-577
20. Roblin DW, Becker ER, Adams EK, Howard DH, Roberts MH. Patient satisfaction with primary care. Does type of practitioner matter? Med Care 2004;42:579-590
21. Blough DK, Madden CW, Hornbrook MC. Modeling risk using generalized linear models. J Health Econ 1999;18:153-171
22. Manning WG, Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? J Health Econs 2001;20:461-494
23. Park R. Estimation with heteroscedastic error terms. Econometrica 1966;34:888
24. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Goodness of fit tests for the multiple logistic regression model. Commun Statist - Theory Methods 1980; 9:1043-1069
25. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd edn. New York: Wiley, 2000
26. Stefos T, Manning WG, Burgess JF, Christiansen CL, Morris CN. Practical risk adjustment for paying health care providers - is the cream that is skimmed credible or must we shrink from normal deviations? unpublished manuscript, VA OPES, 2009
27. Institute of Medicine, The Committee on the Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC, National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine, 2004
28. Prentice JC, Pizer SD. Delayed access to health care and mortality. Health Serv Res 2007;42:644-62
29. Hayes P. Evolution of Women's Health Care in the Veterans Administration. See www.amus.org/presentations/Jun09-B.ppt, June 2009, accessed 6/2009
30. Wright SM, Craig T, Campbell S, Schaefer J, Humble C. Patient satisfaction of female and male users of veterans health administration services. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:S26-S32
31. Mazor KM, Clauser BE, Field T, Yood RA, Gurwitz JH. A demonstration of the impact of response bias on the results of patient satisfaction surveys. Health Serv Res 2002;37:1403-1417