Physician-Level Continuity of Care and Patient Outcomes in All-Payer Claims Database.

INTRODUCTION: Being one of the few existing measures of primary care functions, physician-level continuity of care (Phy-CoC) is measured by the weighted average of patient continuity scores. Compared with the well-researched patient-level continuity, Phy-CoC is a new instrument with limited evidence from Medicare beneficiaries. This study aimed to expand the patient sample to include patients of all ages and all types of insurance and reassess the associations between full panel-based Phy-CoC scores and patient outcomes. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis at patient-level using Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD). Phy-CoC scores were calculated by averaging patient's Bice-Boxerman Index scores and weighted by the total number of visits. Patient outcomes included total cost and preventable hospitalization. RESULTS: In a sample of 1.6 million Virginians, patients who lived in rural areas or had Medicare as primary insurance were more likely to be attributed to physicians with the highest Phy-CoC scores. Across all adult patient populations, we found that being attributed to physicians with higher Phy-CoC was associated with 7%-11.8% higher total costs, but was not associated with the odds of preventable hospitalization. Results from models with interactions revealed nuanced associations between Phy-CoC and total cost with patient's age and comorbidity, insurance payer, and the specialty of their physician. CONCLUSIONS: In this comprehensive examination of Phy-CoC using all populations from the VA-APCD, we found an overall positive association of higher full panel-based Phy-CoC with total cost, but a non-significant association with the risk of preventable hospitalization. Achieving higher full panel-based Phy-CoC may have unintended cost implications.

Exploring the Association Between Physician Continuity of Care and Diagnosing Hypertension.

Context. The American Board of Family Medicine was funded by the Gordon Betty Moore Foundation to study the association between physician continuity of care, a clinical quality measure, and its impact on accurate, timely, efficient, and cost-effective diagnosis of target conditions that contribute to cardiovascular disease. In this exploratory analysis, we used electronic health records data from the PRIME registry to examine the association of continuity with factors leading to a hypertension diagnosis. Objective. 1) to determine the rate and timeliness of hypertension diagnosis, 2) to investigate the number of hypertension-level blood pressure (BP) readings in the 12 months prior to the diagnosis, and 3) to explore the association between physician continuity of care and these variables. Study Design and Population Studied. In this cohort study, we created two patient cohorts. Our prospective cohort consisted of patients who had 2 or more BP readings greater than SBP of 130 or DBP of 80 mm Hg in 2017-2018 and who did not have a hypertension diagnosis prior to the date of the second reading. Our retrospective cohort consisted of patients who had a hypertension diagnosis in 2018-2019. Dataset. Electronic health records extracted from the PRIME registry Outcome Measures. The rate of diagnosis was calculated by dividing the number of patients with a hypertension diagnosis by the number of patients whose BP readings exceeded the thresholds for hypertension per clinical guidelines. We investigated the timeliness of diagnosis by counting the average days between the second reading and the diagnosis dates. We also identified the number of hypertension-level BP readings in the past 12 months for patients diagnosed with hypertension. Results. Of 7,615 eligible patients from 4 pilot practices, the rate of hypertension diagnosis varied from 39.6% (solo practice) to 11.5% (large practice). The average days until diagnosis ranged from 142 days (solo practice) to 247 days (medium practice). Among patients diagnosed with hypertension (n=104,727), 25.7% had 0, 39.8% had 1, 14.7% had 2 and 19.7 had 3 or more hypertension-level BP readings in the 12 months prior to the diagnosis. We found no significant association between physician continuity of care and the rate or timeliness of the hypertension diagnosis. Conclusions. Factors leading to a hypertension diagnosis may be influenced more by other unobserved variables than by physician continuity of care.

Trends of Geriatric Certification and Practice Patterns of Family Physicians: 1988-2019.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Demand for geriatric care is increasing due to aging population. Trends in maintaining certification in geriatrics are unreported. Our objective was to describe the historic trend of family physicians who certified in geriatric medicine (FPs-GM) since 1988 and to assess differences in practice patterns between FPs-GM and family physicians (FPs). METHODS: We performed a retrospective descriptive study using administrative data collected by the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). The study population was family physicians registering to continue their ABFM certification from 2017 to 2019. Medicare public use billing data was linked to ABFM administrative data on certification history. We used univariate analysis for descriptive analysis and logistic regression to identify contributors of recertification in geriatrics. RESULTS: We identified a total of 3,207 FPs-GM between 1988 and 2019. More than half maintained GM certification since 2009 (57%), with male gender, White race, and urban practice associated with maintaining GM certification; 61% of their patients were older adults. FPs-GM were more likely to be in an academic practice setting with nearly half (53%) also practicing in hospitals or nursing homes. In the adjusted regression model, younger FPs or FPs who treat more older patients were significantly more likely to be recertified in geriatrics whereas other demographics and practice characteristics were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Most FPs who recently earned GM certification tended to retain certification since the required accredited fellowship started in 1995.

Measuring the Value Functions of Primary Care: Physician-Level Continuity of Care Quality Measure.

PURPOSE: Care continuity is foundational to the clinician/patient relationship; however, little has been done to operationalize continuity of care (CoC) as a clinical quality measure. The American Board of Family Medicine developed the Primary Care CoC clinical quality measure as part of the Measures That Matter to Primary Care initiative. METHODS: Using 12-month Optum Clinformatics Data Mart claims data, we calculated the Bice-Boxerman Continuity of Care Index for each patient, which we rolled up to create an aggregate, physician-level CoC score. The physician quality score is the percent of patients with a Bice-Boxerman Index ≥0.7 (70%). We tested validity in 2 ways. First, we explored the validity of using 0.7 as a threshold for patient CoC within the Optum claims database to validate its use for reflecting patient-level continuity. Second, we explored the validity of the physician CoC measure by examining its association with patient outcomes. We assessed reliability using signal-to-noise methodology. RESULTS: Mean performance on the measure was 27.6%; performance ranged from 0% to 100% (n = 555,213 primary care physicians). Higher levels of CoC were associated with lower levels of care utilization. The measure indicated acceptable levels of validity and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Continuity is associated with desirable health and cost outcomes as well as patient preference. The CoC clinical quality measure meets validity and reliability requirements for implementation in primary care payment and accountability. Care continuity is important and complementary to access to care, and prioritizing this measure could help shift physician and health system behavior to support continuity.

Physician- versus practice-level primary care continuity and association with outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: To compare physician-level versus practice-level primary care continuity and their association with expenditure and acute care utilization among Medicare beneficiaries and evaluate whether continuity of outpatient primary care at either/both physician or/and practice level could be useful quality measures. DATA SOURCE: Medicare Fee-For-Service claims data for community dwelling beneficiaries without end-stage renal disease who were attributed to a national random sample of primary care practices billing Medicare (2011-2017). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective secondary data analysis at per Medicare beneficiary per year level. We used multivariable linear regression with practice-level fixed effects to estimate continuity of care score at physician versus practice level and their associations with outcomes. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHOD: We calculated clinician- and practice-level Bice-Boxerman continuity of care index scores, ranging from 0 to 1, using primary care outpatient claims. Medicare expenditures, hospital admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and readmissions were obtained from the Medicare Beneficiary Summary File: Cost and Utilization Segment. Ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSC) were defined using diagnosis codes on inpatient claims. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We studied 2,359,400 beneficiaries who sought care from 13,926 physicians. Every 0.1 increase in physician continuity score was associated with a $151 reduction in expenditure per beneficiary per year (p < 0.01), and every 0.1 increase in practice continuity score was associated with $282 decrease (p < 0.01) per beneficiary per year. Both physician- and practice-level continuity were associated with lower Medicare expenditures among small, medium, and large practices. Both physician- and practice-level continuity were associated with lower probabilities of hospitalization, ED visit, admissions for ACSC, and readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care continuity of care could serve as a potent value-based care quality metric. Physician-level continuity is a unique value center that cannot be supplanted by practice-level continuity.

Family Practices in Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative Showed No Changes in Medicare Costs or Utilization.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed that the Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative (TCPI) would improve health outcomes for patients, reduce utilization of institutional services, and generate significant savings for payers by the end of September 2019. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate whether participation in TCPI's Practice Transformation Networks (PTNs) was associated with improved cost and utilization outcomes for Medicare patients of family medicine-based practices in the first 2 years, that is, 2016-2017, of the Initiative. STUDY DESIGN: A quasi-experimental design with a longitudinal cohort of family medicine-based practices and a propensity-matched comparison sample. SUBJECTS: A total of 761 PTN practices and 3451 non-PTN practices. MEASURES: To measure practice-level patient outcomes, we attributed patients to practice based on the plurality of office visits. We obtained Medicare claims from 2011 to 2017 to assess PTN participation effects for Medicare Part A and B costs, hospital admission, and emergency department visit rates using a Difference-in-Differences design, adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: The differences in Medicare Part A and B costs (-1.71%, P=0.25), annual rates of hospitalization (-0.59%, P=0.12) and emergency department visit (-0.29%, P=0.46) were not significantly lower among PTN practices (N=761) than among propensity score-matched non-PTN practices (N=3541). CONCLUSIONS: TCPI's transforming efforts, such as the outcomes examined in the study, might need a longer time frame to manifest and require evaluation after the full 4-year participation period. The indistinguishable effect of PTN participation may also be attributed to the fact that non-PTN practices might have participated in other initiatives that changed their care and curbed health care utilization and costs consequently.

Racial and ethnic disparities in access to primary care during COVID-19.

Context: Early evidence suggests that many patients chose to forgo or delay necessary medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Existing and well-documented racial and ethnic disparities in access to care were exacerbated by the pandemic for many reasons, potentially including the additional barriers involved in a rapid shift to telehealth for certain groups of patients. Objectives: 1) Examine changes in primary care visit volume and telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. 2) Test for racial and ethnic differences in primary care in-person and telehealth visits during the pandemic relative to pre-pandemic levels. Study design: Longitudinal. Datasets: EHR data including patient visits, procedures, and demographics captured in the American Board of Family Medicine's PRIME Registry. Population studied: 2,966,859 patients seeing 1,477 primary care clinicians enrolled in the PRIME Registry. Outcome measures: 7-day average of weekly visits per clinician, both in-person and telehealth, tracking trends in the volume of care provided before and during the pandemic by patient race/ethnicity. We defined telehealth conversion ratio (TCR) as the number of telehealth visits during the pandemic divided by the total number of pre-pandemic visits. We calculated TCR and visit volume changes from March 15 through the end of 2020 relative to the same period in 2019. Results: During the pandemic we observed decreases of 12% and 22% in the average number of total and in-person visits, respectively, as well as a 10% TCR. Total visits reached a nadir in April 2020 with a 29% decrease from the same point in 2019. Telehealth visits peaked the following week with 23% of that week's total visits, and 139 times more than 2019. Total visits decreased and telehealth visits increased for patients of all races/ethnicities. The magnitude of these changes differed, with Black (5% decline, 15% in-person decline, 10% TCR) and Hispanic (9%, 24%, 15%) patients seeing less of a decrease in total visits than White (12%, 21%, 9%) and Asian (16%, 30%, 14%) patients. Conclusion: Declines in primary care visits during the pandemic were partially offset by an increase in telehealth use. Utilization in our sample suggests less decline in Black and Hispanic patient primary care utilization during the pandemic than expected, in contrast to Asian patients, who demonstrated the largest declines. This metric and these results are novel and foundational for ongoing & further study using other data sources.

Can one or two simple questions predict poor medication adherence?

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Poor adherence to evidence-based medications is a major problem in conventional clinical practise. Better prognostic tools are needed to identify those with the highest likelihood of being non-adherent. The objective of this study is to determine if a 2-item patient activation status (PAS) measure identifies Medicare beneficiaries at risk of poor adherence to drugs typically recommended in treating type 2 diabetes. METHODS: PAS and medication adherence were assessed for respondents to the 2009 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and then compared using bivariate and multivariate tests. Participants' PAS was classified as "active," "high effort," "complacent," or "passive" based on how confident they were in identifying needed medical care and whether they brought medication lists to their doctors' visits. Adherence with oral antidiabetic drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and statins was assessed using proportion of days covered (PDC). RESULTS: A total of 940 Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes enrolled in Part D plans in 2009. The overall effect of PAS on medication adherence was small (3% lower PDC for complacent/passive vs active/high effort beneficiaries, P < 0.10). However, interactions of complacent/passive PAS with other characteristics associated with poor adherence identified certain subgroups as especially prone to problematic adherence: age < 65 (PDC -11%, P < 0.05), non-Hispanic black (PDC -13%, P < 0.05), and morbidly obese (-9%, P < 0.10). CONCLUSION: A single question relating to taking medication lists to doctor visits may help identify patient subgroups prone to poor adherence in conventional practise, but larger samples are necessary to validate and extend these findings.

Quality Changes Among Primary Care Clinicians Participating in the Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative.

ABSTRACT: The Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative (TCPI) was designed to provide technical assistance to clinicians and prepare practices to participate in value-based payment arrangements. In this longitudinal cohort study, we assessed whether clinician's participation in TCPI practice transformation networks (PTNs) was associated with changes in quality of care from 2016 to 2018. We extracted quarterly measure performance data from 2016 to 2018 on two NQF-endorsed measures, one for outcome (Controlling High Blood Pressure) and one for process (Use of Imaging Studies for Low Back Pain), from 1,981 primary care clinicians enrolled in the PRIME Registry. Clinicians participating in PTNs were identified and compared with their counterparts who did not participate in PTNs. We found that the performance of PTN clinicians on controlling high blood pressure and use of imaging studies for low back pain was equivalent to that of non-PTN clinicians during the first 3 years of the TCPI. Although PTNs provided assistance to help practices achieve their clinical outcomes, these findings suggest that the changes in quality of care, for the measures studied, among PTN clinicians in the first 3 years of the TCPI were attributable to temporal trends rather than participation in PTNs.

The Evolving Family Medicine Team.

A decade of practice transformation, consolidation, and payment experimentation have highlighted the need for team-based primary care, but little is known about how team composition is changing over time. Surveys of Family Physicians (FPs) from 2014-18 reveal they continue to work alongside inter-professional team members and suggest slow but steady growth in the proportion of FPs working with nurses, behaviorists, clinical pharmacists, and social workers.

Characteristics of Family Medicine Residency Graduates, 1994-2017: An Update.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize graduates of family medicine (FM) residencies from 1994 to 2017 and determine whether they continue to practice family medicine after residency. METHOD: We sampled physicians who completed FM residency training from 1994-2017 using 2017 American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile linked with administrative files of the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM). The main outcomes measured were characteristics of FM residency graduates, including medical degree type (Doctor of Medicine, MD vs Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, DO), international medical school graduates (IMGs) vs US graduates, sex, ABFM certification status, and self-designated primary specialty. Family medicine residency graduates were grouped into 4-year cohorts by year of residency completion. RESULTS: From 1994 to 2017, 66,778 residents completed training in an ACGME accredited FM residency, averaging 2,782 graduates per year. The number of FM residency graduates peaked in 1998-2001, averaging 3,053 each year. The composition of FM residents diversified with large increases in DOs, IMGs, and female graduates over the past 24 years. Of all the FM residency graduates, 91.9% claimed FM as their primary specialty and 81% were certified with ABFM in 2017. FM/sport medicine (2.1%), FM/geriatric medicine (0.9%), internal medicine/geriatrics (0.8%), and emergency medicine (0.7%) were the most common non-FM primary specialties reported. CONCLUSIONS: DOs, IMGs, and female family medicine residency graduates increased from 1994 to 2017. With 9 in 10 graduates of family medicine residencies designating FM as their primary specialty, FM residency programs not only train but supply family physicians who are likely to remain in the primary care workforce.

Team Configurations, Efficiency, and Family Physician Burnout.

INTRODUCTION: The delivery of team-based care relies on team structure and teamwork. Little is known about the landscape of team configurations in family medicine practices in the United States. Teamwork between diverse team members likely impacts both performance and physician well-being. We examined team configuration and teamwork and whether they are associated with family physician (FP) well-being. METHODS: We used data from practice demographic questionnaires completed by FPs who registered for the American Board of Family Medicine Family Medicine Certification Examination in 2017 and 2018. We grouped 14 types of health care professionals into medical assistant (MA)/nurse, nurse practitioner (NP)/physician assistant (PA), and specialist, and we characterized 3 common team configurations. We used FPs' subjective ratings to measure perceived teamwork efficiency and a validated single-item measure to identify FPs who were burned out. RESULTS: Among 2575 FPs in our sample, 22% worked collaboratively with MA/nurse only; 40% with MA/nurse and NP/PA or specialist; and 38% with MA/nurse, NP/PA, and specialist. The distribution of perceived teamwork efficiency was not statistically different across team configurations. In teams with greater perceived teamwork efficiency, FPs were less likely to be burned out. For FPs working with expansive teams, optimal perceived teamwork efficiency was associated with significantly reduced odds of burnout after controlling for practice and physician characteristics. CONCLUSION: Most FPs practice in multidisciplinary teams. Regardless of the team structure, FPs who perceived their teams as having greater efficiency were less likely to be burned out. We found that optimal perceived teamwork efficiency was associated with significantly reduced odds of burnout for FPs in all types of team configurations. Improving teamwork efficiency may be an effective strategy for practice organizations to support not only team functioning but also physician well-being.

Gender Differences in Personal and Organizational Mechanisms to Address Burnout Among Family Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined how interventions designed to address physician burnout might impact female and male physicians differently. Our aim was to test whether there are gender differences in individual approaches to address burnout and/or in organizational support aimed at physician well-being. METHODS: An online survey was administered in 2019 to family physicians in California and Illinois who are either board certified by the American Board of Family Medicine, a member of their state Academy of Family Physicians, or both. Descriptive statistics and bivariate independence tests were performed for each personal step and organizational support to determine whether there was any gender difference. RESULTS: A total of 2176 family physicians (58% female and 42% male) responded to the survey. A total of 55% of female and 50% of male physicians were burned out. Female physicians were more likely to reduce work hours/go part time and to use domestic help; males were more likely to spend more time on hobbies. Only 8% reported taking no personal steps to address burnout. Male and female physicians reported similar types of organizational support aimed at physician wellness; yet, 20% reported that their organization did not provide any type of well-being support. CONCLUSIONS: We identified gendered differences in physician responses to burnout. Effectively mitigating burnout may require different individual-level approaches and different organizational support mechanisms for female and male physicians.

General Practitioners in US Medical Practice Compared With Family Physicians.

PURPOSE: General practitioners (GPs) are part of the US physician workforce, but little is known about who they are, what they do, and how they differ from family physicians (FPs). We describe self-identified GPs and compare them with board-certified FPs. METHODS: Analysis of data on 102,604 Doctor of Medicine and Doctor of Osteopathy physicians in direct patient care in the United States in 2016, who identify themselves as GPs or FPs. The study used linking databases (American Medical Association Masterfile, American Board of Family Medicine [ABFM], Area Health Resource File, Medicare Public Use File) to examine personal, professional, and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Of the physicians identified, 6,661 self-designated as GPs and 95,943 self-designated as FPs. Of the self-designated GPs, 116 had been ABFM certified and were excluded from the study. Of the remaining 102,488 physicians, those who self-designated as GPs but were never ABFM certified constituted the GP group (n = 6,545, 6%). Self-designated FPs that were ABFM certified made up the FP group (n = 79,449, 78%). The remaining self-designated FPs not ABFM certified constituted the uncertified group (n = 16,494, 16%). GPs differed from FPs in every characteristic examined. Compared with FPs, GPs are more likely to be older, male, Doctors of Osteopathy, graduates of non-US medical schools, and have no family medicine residency training. GPs practice location is similar to FPs, but GPs are less likely to participate in Medicare or to work in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: GPs in the United States are a varied group that differ from FPs. Researchers, educators, and policy makers should not lump GPs together with FPs in data collection, analysis, and reporting.

Prevalence and Factors Associated with Family Physicians Providing E-Visits.

PURPOSE: The use of telemedicine has grown in recent years. As a subset of telemedicine, e-visits typically involve the evaluation and management of a patient by a physician or other clinician through a Web-based or electronic communication system. The national prevalence of e-visits by primary care physicians is unclear as is what factors influence adoption. The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of family physicians providing e-visits and associated factors. METHODS: A national, cross-sectional practice demographic questionnaire for 7580 practicing family physicians was utilized. Bivariate statistics were calculated and logistic regression was conducted examining both physician level and practice level factors associated with offering e-visits. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of offering e-visits was 9.3% (n = 702). Compared with private practice physicians, other physicians were more likely to offer e-visits if their primary practice was an academic health center/faculty practice (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.91), managed care/health maintenance organization (HMO) practice (OR, 9.79; 95% CI, 7.05 to 13.58), hospital-/health system-owned medical practice (not including managed care or HMO) (OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.83 to 3.41), workplace clinic (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.43 to 3.63), or federal (military, Veterans Administration [VA]/Department of Defense) (OR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.93 to 6.89). Physicians with no official ownership stake (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.68) or other ownership arrangement (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.71) had lower odds of offering e-visits compared with sole owners. CONCLUSION: Fewer than 10% of family physicians provided e-visits. Physicians in HMO and VA settings (ie, capitated vs noncapitated models) were more likely to provide e-visits, which suggests that reimbursement may be a major barrier.

Motivation for Participation in the American Board of Family Medicine Certification Program.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Board certification programs have been criticized as not relevant to practice, not improving patient care, and creating additional burdens on already overburdened physicians. Many physicians may feel compelled to participate in board certification programs in order to satisfy employer, hospital, and insurer requirements; however, the influence of forces as motivators for physicians to continue board certification is poorly understood. METHODS: We used data from the 2017 American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Family Medicine Certification Examination practice demographic registration questionnaire for those seeking to continue their certification, removing physicians who indicated they did not provide direct patient care. We utilized a mixed-methods design. For the quantitative analysis, a proportional odds logistic regression was used to examine the association between predictor variables and increasing levels of external motivation. For the qualitative analysis, we used a deductive approach to examine open-text responses. RESULTS: Of the analytical sample of 7,545 family physicians, approximately one-fifth (21.4%) were motivated to continue their board certification solely by intrinsic factors. Less than one-fifth (17.3%) were motivated only by extrinsic factors, and the majority (61.2%) reported mixed motivations for continuing their board certification. Only 38 respondents (0.5%) included a negative opinion about the certification process in their open-text responses. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of family physicians in this sample noted a requirement to continue their certification, suggesting that there has been no significant increase in the requirements from employers, credentialing bodies, or insurers for physicians to continue board certification noted in previously cited work. Furthermore, only 17.5% of our sample reported solely external motivation to continue certification, indicating that real or perceived requirements are not the primary driver for most physicians to maintain certification.

Scope of Practice and Patient Panel Size of Family Physicians Who Work With Nurse Practitioners or Physician Assistants.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Little is known about how the presence of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) in a practice impacts family physicians' (FPs') scope of practice. This study sought to examine variations in FPs' practice associated with NPs and PAs. METHODS: We obtained data from American Board of Family Medicine practice demographic questionnaires completed by FPs who registered for the Family Medicine Certification Examination during 2013-2016. Scope of practice score was calculated for each FP, ranging from 0-30 with higher numbers equating to broader scope of practice. FPs self-reported patient panel size. Primary care teams were classified into NP only, PA only, both NP and PA, or no NP or PA. We estimated variation in scope and panel size with different team configurations in regression models. RESULTS: Of 27,836 FPs, nearly 70% had NPs or PAs in their practice but less than half (42.5%) estimated a panel size. Accounting for physician and practice characteristics, the presence of NPs and/or PAs was associated with significant increases in panel sizes (by 410 with PA only, 259 with NP only and 245 with both; all P<0.05) and in scope score (by 0.53 with PA only, 0.10 with NP only and 0.51 with both; all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that team-based care involving NPs and PAs was associated with higher practice capacity of FPs. Working with PAs seemed to allow FPs to see a greater number of patients and provide more services than working with NPs. Delineation of primary care team roles, responsibilities and boundaries may explain these findings.

Physician Opinions about American Board of Family Medicine Self-Assessment Modules (2006-2016).

INTRODUCTION: Maintenance of Certification (MOC) was implemented to help physicians remain current with evolving medical standards, but has been criticized for being irrelevant to practice. We assessed family physicians' (FPs') opinions about the content of American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) self-assessment modules (SAMs). METHODS: We used ABFM administrative data from feedback surveys completed after each of the 16 SAMs from 2006 to 2016. FPs rated agreement with 2 statements-1) "Content is appropriate for my practice," and 2) "Content was presented at an appropriate level"-on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). We calculated mean ratings of each statement by year and stratified by Knowledge Assessment (KA) and Clinical Simulation (CS) portions of the SAM. We plotted mean ratings by FPs' age at their first SAM completion and the total number of SAMs completed. RESULTS: SAMs were completed (n = 633,198) from 2006 to 2016 with 448,408 (71%) feedback surveys completed. The annual mean ratings of both statements varied little (less than 0.5) and were above 4.5 for all SAMs. CS ratings were consistently lower than KA ratings. FPs of all ages at first SAM provided similar ratings and agreement with content appropriateness increased with repeated exposure to SAMs. CONCLUSION: Over 11 years, the content of ABFM SAMs was regarded by FPs as appropriate for practice and presented at an appropriate level. Continued monitoring of feedback is necessary to keep the content of MOC programs relevant for physicians' practice.

Practice Rurality of Family Physicians Enrolled in a Practice Transformation Network.

The Transforming Clinical Practice Initiative prioritized the delivery of free practice transformation assistance by Practice Transformation Networks (PTNs) to small and rural practices that may otherwise lack the resources needed to succeed in Medicare's value-based payment (VBP) programs. We assessed the enrollment of rural practices in PTNs using 2016 TCPI enrollment data and American Board of Family Medicine recertification examination registration data from 2013 to 2016. PTNs enrolled a higher proportion of rural family medicine practices than are represented across the general workforce (P < .0001). We await more comprehensive data releases to fully understand enrollment to this important initiative.

Fellowship or Further Training for Family Medicine Residents?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The breadth of family medicine (FM) generates debate about the length of residency training. One argument used by proponents for lengthening training is that residents feel unprepared for practice. The objectives of our study were to (1) identify the proportion of FM residency graduates intending to pursue fellowship training and those who would have done an additional year of core residency training had it been available, and (2) determine whether an association exists between these two variables. METHODS: We used data collected by the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) as part of resident certification examination application in 2014 and 2015. Data included fellowship intention, and interest in pursuing another year of residency training if it were available. We used descriptive and bivariate statistics. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 6,235 residents, of which 17.0% (n=1,063) intended to enroll in a fellowship. Overall 54.2% of residents were "not at all likely" to extend residency training, with 19.9% "extremely/moderately likely". Forty-six percent of those intending a fellowship were "not at all likely" to extend training and only 29% of those "extremely/moderately likely" to extend residency training intended to enroll in a fellowship. CONCLUSIONS: We found a disconnect between fellowship intention and desire for another year of residency training. Desire for fellowship may be more about obtaining specific skills and expertise or additional certifications, and less about being prepared for general practice in family medicine.