Comparing Family Practice Sources

The nation’s MD, DO, NP, and PA graduates that remain in family practice are by far the most important solution for health access. Only family practice can be demonstrated to distribute according to the population and not according to concentrations of workforce or health spending. It is important to understand that not all sources remain in family practice in the years after graduation.

Family Practice Retention Using Different Measures


Advance for PA and NP surveys have more detailed information that goes beyond just training program. AANP data indicates training or main specialty, but is limited in actual work components. Workforce cannot be defined without important components that define the actual work - such as positions and employment – especially for the most flexible primary care training sources (NP, PA, IM) where over 65% of graduates are found outside of primary care delivery.
Family medicine remains over 90% in family practice employment throughout a career. The distortions of US health policy have driven away all sources from primary care except those most permanent - family physicians. Few other options are a good thing for health access for most Americans. In studies of 1997 – 2003 family medicine residency graduates only 2% had entered additional training by 2005. About 1 percentage point was found in either geriatrics or sports medicine and 1% entered obstetric, surgical, psychiatric, or other training including primary care training. There was no deterioration across the six graduating classes (about 2% across each class) – another indication that family practice is an enduring choice for family physicians. Family medicine residents have consistently been the marker to compare retention in career choice.
Retention within family practice insures a consistent rural level of 22% or more for all graduating classes found in rural locations (3 times other physicians), over 14% found in high poverty underserved locations (2 times other physicians), and over 50% (2 times other physicians) found in 30,000 zip codes outside of concentrations of physicians with 65% of Americans.  Family physicians are found at 30 per 100,000 across the wide range of populations and locations in need.
Nurse practitioner training can claim 50% of graduates trained family practice, but only 25% of NP workforce remains in family practice employment. Also since NP workforce is the most recently graduated workforce due to recent rapid expansions, further departures to even lower FP proportions should be expected with additional years after graduation. Unlike family physicians that are relatively fixed in family practice, nurse practitioners have many other opportunities and locations and specialty choices at greater rates of pay. These also generate more revenue for employers than primary care. These strong forces work year after year to divert nurse practitioners away from primary care, rural, and underserved locations – even when they train in family practice.
Physician assistants have followed the physician design shaped by the health policy construct. This has resulted in declines from over 40% to less than 20% entering family practice in the past 25 years. The newest PA graduates should follow the pattern of the last few decades by continuing to depart primary care and family practice in the years after graduation. This was noted across the primary care friendly 1990s by Larson and Hart.
Physician assistants dedicated to family practice have what may be the top rural proportion at 30%. Other PA types that are all below the 15% in rural practice PA average. Family practice PAs are 30 times more likely to be found in a federally qualified rural health clinic, 6 times more likely to be found in Community Health Centers, and 2 – 4 times more likely to be found where needed when compared to other PA types (AAPA). Departure from family practice moves physician assistants away from all locations and populations in need of health access.
The secret of health access is retention in family practice. When comparing SMART solutions, those dedicated specifically to family practice activities and duties day in and day out are most important. Most retention, most active in practice, most volume, and most years helps make the most for SMART Basic Health Access

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Another Fine CMS You Have Gotten Us Into

Perhaps we are indeed back to the time of Another Fine Mess (Laurel and Hardy). In a mad rush to implement innovation and to save all possible costs, CMS is creating complications for people that it is most responsible to protect. As PBS and Ken Burns celebrate the legacy of The Roosevelts, it is tragic to see what has become of over a century of effort involving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and health care equity. The United States has one of the most complex health designs and clearly the various designers often know not what they are doing to others. More cartoons and comedians would find this a ripe area for material if not for the suffering involved. Health and Human Services has a huge role across Social Security and US health care. CMS or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has a dominant role to play in the design of health care in the United States.  CMS can be progressive or regressive. Interestingly CMS has chosen to appear to be progressive and in
Read more

The Essential True Reform Restores Primary Care and Much More

The list of distractions from True Reform are impressive. For decades True Reform has been specifically avoided as primary care worsens within practices and from outside. The demise is most specifically about the financial design. Unless there is a focus on True Reform, there is little hope for Basic Health Access. This may not make as much sense to those outside of family medicine. Family physicians not familiar with AAFP may also be clueless. If you think that you can fix primary care with more technology, more rearrangements, more types of health professional graduates, or more expansions of training - think again. None of these have any hope of working without financial design changes - major changes. The following are various concepts that dominate the discussions at AAFP and primary care meetings and media releases of associations and foundations and institutions. Members, staff, media releases, programs, and personnel have been reviewed.  There is little about Tru
Read more

Innovation Is the Problem Not the Solution for Worsening Health

Image
Innovation is good. Innovation worship is not good. Innovation application without scientific testing or clinical trials is unethical regarding clinical interventions and should be just as prohibited with regard to health policy. Clinical trials can harm hundreds or thousands. Innovative policies can harm millions. It takes a reasonable understanding of health care, health care outcomes, social determinants, and the investments that most improve social determinants to understand the consequences arising from the innovative nightmares past, present, and future. If you review the information sources with a critical eye, you too may find that the innovative policy designs have been disruptive to care, have hurt health care where health care is most needed, have reduced access to care, and have resulted in distortions in the literature. Indeed what is accepted and published in journals seriously lacks consideration of alternative hypothesis, lacks inclusion of many pages of limitatio
Read more