What happened to home HIV test collection kits? Intent to use kits, actual use, and barriers to use among persons at risk for HIV infection.

Through sequential cross-sectional surveys, we examined intent to use home HIV test collection kits, actual use and barriers to use among persons at high risk for HIV infection. Interest in kits was assessed in the 1995-96 HIV Testing Survey (HITS, n=1683). Kit use, knowledge of kits and barriers to use were assessed in the 1998-99 HITS (n=1788), after kits had become widely available. When asked to choose among future testing options, 19% of 1995-96 participants intended to use kits. Untested participants were more likely than previously tested HIV-negative participants to choose kits for their next HIV test (p < 0.001). Among 1998-99 participants, only 24 (1%) had used kits; 46% had never heard of kits. Predictors of not knowing about kits included never having been HIV tested and black or Latino race. Common reasons for not using kits among participants aware of home test kits were concerns about accuracy, lack of in-person counselling and cost. Despite high rates of anticipated use, kits have had minimal impact on the testing behaviour of persons at high risk for HIV infection. Increasing awareness of kits, reducing price and addressing concerns about kit testing procedures may increase kit use, leading to more HIV testing by at-risk individuals.

Unlocking specialists' attitudes toward primary care gatekeepers.

OBJECTIVES: Many managed care plans rely on primary care physicians to act as gatekeepers, which may increase tension between these physicians and specialists. We surveyed specialist physicians in California to determine whether their attitudes toward primary care gatekeepers differed depending on how the specialists were paid and the settings in which they practiced. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional survey using a mailed questionnaire. The predictors of specialist attitudes toward gatekeepers were measured using chi-square, the t test, and regression analyses. POPULATION: A probability sample of 1492 physicians in urban counties in California in the specialties of cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, general surgery, neurology, ophthalmology, and orthopedics was used. OUTCOMES: We used questions about specialists' attitudes toward primary care physicians in the gatekeeper role. A summary score of attitudes was developed. RESULTS: A total of 979 physicians completed the survey (66%). Attitudes toward primary care physicians were mixed. Relative to nonsalaried physicians, those who were salaried had a somewhat more favorable attitude toward gatekeepers (P = .13), as did physicians with a greater percentage of practice income derived from capitation (P =.002). CONCLUSIONS: Specialists' attitudes toward the coordinating role of primary care physicians are influenced by the practice setting in which the specialists work and by financial interests that may be threatened by referral restrictions. Policies that promote alternatives to fee for service and shift specialty practice toward more organized group settings may generate a common sense of purpose among primary care physicians and specialists.

Primary care physicians' experience with disease management programs.

OBJECTIVE: To examine primary care physicians' perceptions of how disease management programs affect their practices, their relationships with their patients, and overall patient care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey. SETTING: The 13 largest urban counties in California. PARTICIPANTS: General internists, general pediatricians, and family physicians. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Physicians' self-report of the effects of disease management programs on quality of patient care and their own practices. Respondents included 538 (76%) of 708 physicians: 183 (34%) internists, 199 (38%) family practitioners, and 156 (29%) pediatricians. Disease management programs were available 285 to (53%) physicians; 178 had direct experience with the programs. Three quarters of the 178 physicians believed that disease management programs increased the overall quality of patient care and the quality of care for the targeted disease. Eighty-seven percent continued to provide primary care for their patients in these programs, and 70% reported participating in major patient care decisions. Ninety-one percent reported that the programs had no effect on their income, decreased (38%) or had no effect (48%) on their workload, and increased (48%)) their practice satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Practicing primary care physicians have generally favorable perceptions of the effect of voluntary, primary care-inclusive, disease management programs on their patients and on their own practice satisfaction.

Specialists' and primary care physicians' participation in medicaid managed care.

OBJECTIVE: To compare specialist and primary care physician participation in California's Medicaid fee-for-service and managed care programs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: A probability sample stratified by county and by race of 962 specialist physicians and 713 primary care physicians practicing in the 13 largest counties in California in 1998. MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS: We used physician self-report from mailed questionnaires to compare acceptance of new Medicaid and new Medicaid managed care patients by specialists versus primary care physicians and by physician demographics, practice setting, attitudes toward Medicaid patients, and attitudes toward Medicaid managed care. We analyzed results using logistic regression with data weighted to represent the total population of primary care and specialist physicians in the 13 counties. MAIN RESULTS: Specialists were as likely as primary care physicians to have any Medicaid patients in their practices (56% vs 56%; P=.9). Among physicians accepting any new patients, specialists were more likely than primary care physicians to be taking new Medicaid patients but were significantly more likely to limit their acceptance to only Medicaid fee-for-service patients. Thus, specialists were much less likely than primary care physicians to accept new Medicaid managed care patients. After controlling for physician demographics, practice settings, and attitudes toward Medicaid patients and Medicaid managed care, specialists remained much less likely to accept new Medicaid managed care patients. CONCLUSIONS: Expansion of Medicaid managed care may decrease access to specialists as specialists were less likely to accept new Medicaid managed care patients compared to Medicaid fee-for-service patients. Any decrease in access may be mitigated if states are able to contract with group model HMOs and to recruit minority physicians.

Friend or foe? How primary care physicians perceive hospitalists.

BACKGROUND: Increased use of hospitalists is redefining the role of primary care physicians. Whether primary care physicians welcome this transition is unknown. We examined primary care physicians' perceptions of how hospitalists affect their practices, their patient relationships, and overall patient care. METHODS: A mailed survey of randomly selected general internists, general pediatricians, and family practitioners with experience with hospitalists practicing in California. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' self-reports of hospitalists' effects on quality of patient care and on their own practices. RESULTS: Seven hundred eight physicians were eligible for this study, and there was a 74% response rate. Of the 524 physicians who responded, 34% were internists, 38% were family practitioners, and 29% were pediatricians. Of the 524 respondents, 335 (64%) had hospitalists available to them and 120 (23%) were required to use hospitalists for all admissions. Physicians perceived hospitalists as increasing (41%) or not changing (44%) the overall quality of care and perceived their practice style differences as neutral or beneficial. Twenty-eight percent of primary care physicians believed that the quality of the physician-patient relationship decreased; 69% reported that hospitalists did not affect their income; 53% believed that hospitalists decreased their workload; and 50% believed that hospitalists increased practice satisfaction. In a multivariate model predicting physician perceptions, internists, physicians who attributed loss of income to hospitalists, and physicians in mandatory hospitalist systems viewed hospitalists less favorably. CONCLUSIONS: Practicing primary care physicians have generally favorable perceptions of hospitalists' effect on patients and on their own practice satisfaction, especially in voluntary hospitalist systems that decrease the workload of primary care physicians and do not threaten their income. Primary care physicians, particularly internists, are less accepting of mandatory hospitalist systems. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2902-2908

Does HIV reporting by name deter testing? MESH Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: Name-based HIV reporting is controversial in the United States because of concerns that it may deter high-risk persons from being tested. We sought to determine whether persons at risk of HIV infection knew their state's HIV reporting policy and whether they had delayed or avoided testing because of it. DESIGN: A cross-sectional anonymous survey. METHODS: We interviewed 2404 participants in one of three high-risk groups: men who have sex with men (MSM), heterosexuals attending a sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic, and street-recruited injection drug users (IDU). Participants were asked standardized questions about their knowledge of reporting policies and reasons for having delayed or avoided testing. We recruited in eight US states: four with name-based reporting and four without; all offered anonymous testing at certain sites. RESULTS: Fewer than 25% correctly identified their state's HIV reporting policy. Over 50% stated they did not know whether their state used name-based reporting. Of the total, 480 participants (20%) had never been tested. Of these, 17% from states with name-based reporting selected concern about reporting as a reason for not testing compared with 14% from states without name-based reporting (P = 0.5). Comparing previously tested participants from states with name-based reporting to those from states without, concern about HIV reporting was given as a reason for delaying testing by 26% compared with 13% of IDU (P < 0.001), and for 26% compared with 19% of MSM (P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Most participants did not know their state's HIV reporting policy. Name-based reporting policies were not associated with avoiding HIV testing because of worry about reporting, although they may have contributed to delays in testing among some IDU.

Effects of primary care coordination on public hospital patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of primary care coordination on utilization rates and satisfaction with care among public hospital patients. DESIGN: Prospective randomized gatekeeper intervention, with 1-year follow-up. SETTING: The Adult General Medical Clinic at San Francisco General Hospital, a university-affiliated public hospital. PATIENTS: We studied 2,293 established patients of 28 primary care physicians. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized based on their primary care physician's main clinic day. The 1,121 patients in the intervention group (Ambulatory Patient-Physician Relationship Organized to Achieve Coordinated Healthcare [APPROACH] group) required primary care physician approval to receive specialty and emergency department (ED) services; 1,172 patients in the control group did not. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Changes in outpatient, ED, and inpatient utilization were measured for APPROACH and control groups over the 1-year observation period, and the differences in the changes between groups were calculated to estimate the effect of the intervention. Acceptability of the gatekeeping model was determined via patient satisfaction surveys. RESULTS: Over the 1-year observation period, APPROACH patients decreased their specialty use by 0.57 visits per year more than control patients did ( P =.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.05 to -0.01). While APPROACH patients increased their primary care use by 0.27 visits per year more than control patients, this difference was not statistically significant (P =.14; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.66). Changes in low-acuity ED care were similar between the two groups (0. 06 visits per year more in APPROACH group than control group, P =. 42; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.22). APPROACH patients decreased yearly hospitalizations by 0.14 visits per year more than control patients (P =.02; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.03). Changes in patient satisfaction with care, perceived access to specialists, and use of out-of-network services between the 2 groups were similar. CONCLUSIONS: A primary care model of health delivery in a public hospital that utilized a gatekeeping strategy decreased outpatient specialty and hospitalization rates and was acceptable to patients.

Conditional expression of a Gi-coupled receptor causes ventricular conduction delay and a lethal cardiomyopathy.

Cardiomyopathy is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Ventricular conduction delay, as shown by prolonged deflections in the electrocardiogram caused by delayed ventricular contraction (wide QRS complex), is a common feature of cardiomyopathy and is associated with a poor prognosis. Although the G(i)-signaling pathway is up-regulated in certain cardiomyopathies, previous studies suggested this up-regulation was compensatory rather than a potential cause of the disease. Using the tetracycline transactivator system and a modified G(i)-coupled receptor (Ro1), we provide evidence that increased G(i) signaling in mice can result in a lethal cardiomyopathy associated with a wide QRS complex arrhythmia. Induced expression of Ro1 in adult mice resulted in a >90% mortality rate at 16 wk, whereas suppression of Ro1 expression after 8 wk protected mice from further mortality and allowed partial improvement in systolic function. Results of DNA-array analysis of over 6,000 genes from hearts expressing Ro1 are consistent with hyperactive G(i) signaling. DNA-array analysis also identified known markers of cardiomyopathy and hundreds of previously unknown potential diagnostic markers and therapeutic targets for this syndrome. Our system allows cardiomyopathy to be induced and reversed in adult mice, providing an unprecedented opportunity to dissect the role of G(i) signaling in causing cardiac pathology.

Medicaid managed care's impact on safety-net clinics in California.

A growing percentage of Medicaid patients are receiving medical care within a managed care system. This policy change has raised concerns about whether safety-net providers can maintain their share of Medi-Cal (California Medicaid) patients. From 1995 to 1997 several of California's counties implemented mandatory Medi-Cal managed care. The majority of California's safety-net primary care clinics experienced a decline in the percentage of their patients insured by Medi-Cal. However, after the overall decline in the number of Medi-Cal beneficiaries was controlled for, the increased penetration of Medi-Cal managed care in a county was not independently associated with a decline in clinics' share of Medi-Cal patients. Despite this fact, it may become increasingly difficult for clinics to maintain their current level of services with declining Medi-Cal enrollment and other anticipated reforms in their funding.

Name-based surveillance and public health interventions for persons with HIV infection. Multistate Evaluation of Surveillance for HIV Study Group.

Name-based surveillance of HIV infection is the law in 31 U.S. states but remains controversial. This policy can be advocated solely to support surveillance of the epidemic, but a frequent argument is that it also provides a public health benefit by allowing follow-up of HIV-infected persons. These persons can then receive timely medical care and can be assisted with notifying sex and needle-sharing partners. Few comparative data are available to evaluate the outcomes of these interventions. In five states with name-based surveillance of HIV infection, the Multistate Evaluation of Surveillance for HIV Study Group surveyed a cross-sectional probability sample of persons with AIDS who tested positive for HIV before the date of their AIDS diagnosis. Health department follow-up of a reported HIV infection was not associated with more timely receipt of medical care after a positive HIV test result. Only 8.6% of persons who delayed medical care after their first positive HIV test result gave concern about being reported by name as a reason; no person gave it as the main reason. Persons who were tested anonymously and those who were tested confidentially did not differ in the mean number of sex and needle-sharing partners notified: Those tested anonymously reported personally notifying 3.85 sex and needle-sharing partners, and those tested confidentially reported notifying-personally and through the health department-3.80 partners. Many researchers and policymakers believe that name-based surveillance of HIV infection will have positive or negative effects on partner notification and access to health care. These results suggest that the potential for such effects has been exaggerated.

Multistate evaluation of anonymous HIV testing and access to medical care. Multistate Evaluation of Surveillance of HIV (MESH) Study Group.

CONTEXT: Infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the only infectious disease for which anonymous testing is publicly funded, an exception that has been controversial. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether anonymous HIV testing was associated with earlier HIV testing and HIV-related medical care than confidential HIV testing. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas. PARTICIPANTS: Probability sample of 835 new acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) cases reported to the state health department's HIV/AIDS Reporting System from May 1995 through December 1996. All had responded to the AIDS Patient Survey; 643 had been tested confidentially for HIV, and 192 had been tested anonymously. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: First CD4+ cell count; number of days from HIV-positive test result to first HIV-related medical care, from first HIV-related medical care to AIDS, and from first HIV-positive test result to AIDS. RESULTS: Persons tested anonymously sought testing and medical care earlier in the course of HIV disease than did persons tested confidentially. Mean first CD4+ cell count was 0.427x 10(9)/L in persons tested anonymously vs 0.267x 10(9)/L in persons tested confidentially. Persons tested anonymously experienced an average of 918 days in HIV-related medical care before an AIDS diagnosis vs 531 days for persons tested confidentially. The mean time from learning they were HIV positive to the diagnosis of AIDS was 1246 days for persons tested anonymously vs 718 days for persons tested confidentially. After adjustment for the subject's age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, income, insurance status, HIV exposure group, whether the respondent had a regular source of care or symptoms at the time of the HIV test, and state residence, anonymous testing remained significantly associated with earlier entry into medical care (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Anonymous testing contributes to early HIV testing and medical care.

Primary care physicians' experience of financial incentives in managed-care systems.

BACKGROUND: Managed-care organizations' use of financial incentives to influence the practice of primary care physicians is controversial. We studied the prevalence and effects of these incentives. METHODS: We surveyed a probability sample of primary care physicians practicing in the largest urban counties in California in 1996. The physicians were asked about the types of incentives they encountered, the amount of income that was keyed to incentives, their experience of pressure in their practices, and the ways in which such pressure affected patient care. RESULTS: Data were analyzed for 766 physicians involved in managed-care systems. Thirty-eight percent of these physicians reported that their arrangements with the managed-care system included some type of incentive in the form of a bonus. Fifty-seven percent of the physicians reported that they felt pressure from the managed-care organization to limit referrals (17 percent said they believed such pressure compromised patient care), and 75 percent felt pressure to see more patients per day (24 percent believed such pressure compromised patient care). The physicians who reported that their financial arrangements included an incentive based on referrals were more likely than others to have felt pressured to limit referrals in a manner that compromised care (adjusted odds ratio 2.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 5.0), and physicians with an incentive based on productivity were more likely to have felt pressure to see more patients that they believed compromised care (adjusted odds ratio, 2.1; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 3.8). The physicians whose health care systems used incentives keyed to productivity were less likely than others to be very satisfied with their practices (adjusted odds ratio, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.6), whereas those whose systems included incentives related to the quality of care or patients' satisfaction were more likely to be very satisfied (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 3.0). CONCLUSIONS: Many managed-care organizations include financial incentives for primary care physicians that are indexed to various measures of performance. Incentives that depend on limiting referrals or on greater productivity apply selective pressure to physicians in ways that are believed to compromise care. Incentives that depend on the quality of care and patients' satisfaction are associated with greater job satisfaction among physicians.

The fall and rise of carotid endarterectomy in the United States and Canada.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of carotid endarterectomy in the prevention of stroke when the procedure is performed in regional centers of surgical excellence. However, the relative effects of these studies on the rates of carotid endarterectomy in the United States and Canada have been unclear. METHODS: We calculated the annual rate of carotid endarterectomy in the U.S. states of California and New York and in the Canadian province of Ontario from 1983 through 1995. We also studied whether patients in the early 1990s were selectively referred to hospitals with high volumes of procedures and historically low in-hospital mortality rates. RESULTS: Rates of carotid endarterectomy fell in all three regions from 1984 to 1989 (from 126 to 66 per 100,000 adults 40 years of age or older in California, from 65 to 40 per 100,000 in New York, and from 40 to 15 per 100,000 in Ontario), after the publication of studies demonstrating that the rates of complications of carotid endarterectomy were unacceptably high. However, the clinical trials of the 1990s, which showed benefit from carotid endarterectomy, were associated with a dramatic resurgence in the rates of the procedure from 1989 to 1995 (from 66 to 99 per 100,000 in California, from 40 to 96 per 100,000 in New York, and from 15 to 38 per 100,000 in Ontario). These increased rates were not associated with proportionally greater numbers of referrals of patients to hospitals with low mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: There have been a dramatic fall and rise in the rates of carotid endarterectomy in both the United States and Canada, which correlate with the publication of first unfavorable and then favorable clinical studies. The absence of selective referral of patients to centers with the lowest mortality rates raises questions about whether the benefits of carotid endarterectomy in the general population are similar to those demonstrated in the clinical trials.

Physician supply and medical education in California. A comparison with national trends.

Concerns have been voiced about an impending oversupply of physicians in the United States. Do these concerns also apply to California, a state with many unique demographic characteristics? We examined trends in physician supply and medical education in California and the United States between 1980 and 1995 to better inform the formulation of workforce policies appropriate to the state's requirements for physicians. We found that similar to the United States, California has more than an ample supply of physicians in the aggregate, but too many specialists, too few underrepresented racial/ethnic minority physicians, and poor distribution of physicians across the state. However, recent growth in the supply of practicing physicians and resident physicians per capita in California has been much less dramatic than in the country overall. The state's unusually high rate of population growth has enabled California, unlike the United States as a whole, to absorb large increases in the number of practicing physicians and residents during 1980 to 1995 without substantially increasing the physician-to-population ratio. Due to a projected slowing of the state's rate of population growth, the supply of physicians per capita in the state will begin to rise steeply in coming years unless the state implements prompt reductions in the production of specialists. An immediate 25% reduction in specialist residency positions would be necessary to bring the state's supply of practicing specialists in line with projected physician requirements for the state by 2020. We conclude that major changes will be required if the state's residency programs and medical schools are to produce the number and mix of physicians the state requires. California's medical schools and residency programs will need to act in concert with federal and state government to develop effective policies to address the imbalance between physician supply and state requirements.

Independent practice association physician groups in California.

We surveyed independent practice association (IPA) physician groups in California about their approaches to staffing, physician payment, and governance. Most IPAs desired more primary care physicians but not more specialists. Capitation was the major mode of remuneration for primary care physicians in 77 percent of IPAs, and for specialists in 30 percent of IPAs. Most IPAs also used financial incentives related to use of referral or ancillary services. Boards of directors were dominated by physicians, but governance tended to be centralized rather than highly democratic. We found that IPAs mirror many of the broader trends in physician staffing and physician payment that exist in managed care organizations.

Selection and exclusion of primary care physicians by managed care organizations.

CONTEXT: Little is known about the problems physicians may be encountering in gaining access to managed care networks and whether the process used by managed care plans to select physicians is discriminatory. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence and predictors of denials or terminations of physicians' managed care contracts and the impact these denials and terminations had on primary care physicians' involvement with managed care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mail survey of a probability sample of primary care physicians. SETTING: A total of 13 large urban counties in California. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians (family practice, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, or pediatrics) who work in office-based practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Denial or termination from a contract with an independent practice association (IPA) or health maintenance organization (HMO) and managed care contracts. RESULTS: Of the 947 respondents (response rate, 71%), 520 were involved in office-based primary care. After adjusting for sampling and response rate, 22% of primary care physicians had been denied or terminated from a contract with an IPA or HMO, but 87% of office-based primary care physicians had at least 1 IPA or direct HMO contract. Solo practice was the strongest predictor of having experienced a denial or termination and of having neither an IPA nor a direct HMO contract. Physician age, sex, and race did not predict the level of involvement with managed care. However, physicians' patient demographics were associated with managed care participation; physicians in managed care had significantly lower percentages of uninsured and nonwhite patients in their practices. Physicians experiencing a denial or termination had fewer capitated patients in their practice. CONCLUSIONS: Denials and terminations, although relatively common, do not preclude most primary care physicians from participating in managed care. Managed care selective contracting does not appear to be systematically discriminatory based on physician characteristics, but it may be biased against physicians who provide greater amounts of care to the underserved.

Who uses needle exchange? A study of injection drug users in treatment in San Francisco, 1989-1990.

We examined use of the San Francisco needle exchange program (NEP) by 1093 injection drug users (IDUs) recruited in methadone maintenance and out-patient detoxification programs in the first 2 years after the opening of the NEP in 1988. Thirty-one percent of IDUs had ever used the NEP. IDUs who were frequent injectors, homeless, and aware of their serostatus were more likely to use the NEP. To assess self-selection of IDUs at risk for seroconversion for using needle exchange, we calculated pre-needle exchange seroconversion rates. Among 385 IDUs seen twice, the HIV seroconversion rate was 0.38% per person year among subjects who never used needle exchange, but it was 9.34% per person year among those who later used needle exchange (p = 0.003). NEP attracted a subset of IDUs at very high risk for HIV infection. Among injectors who were interviewed before and after the opening of the needle exchanges in San Francisco, the number of sharing partners did not change among IDUs who attended or among IDUs who never attended the NEP. The NEP attracted a very-high-risk subgroup of IDUs, as measured by risk behavior and pre-needle exchange HIV-seroconversion rate. NEPs should be considered prime sites for behavior-change interventions.

Primary care and patient perceptions of access to care.

BACKGROUND: Although much is known about how insurance affects access to care, it is unclear whether good primary care contributes to access. The purpose of this study was to determine how optimal primary care given by providers at a regular place of care, defined in terms of continuity, comprehensiveness, communication, and availability, contributed to perceptions of access to care in a large population-based probability sample of adults. METHODS: Data were from a cross-sectional survey of 6674 English- and Spanish-speaking adults 18 to 64 years of age, randomly sampled from 41 urban California communities with a range of levels of access to care. RESULTS: Following adjustment for sociodemographics and need for care, we found that having "optimal" primary care contributed independently to improved self-rated access, as did having health insurance, a regular place, and a regular provider. The largest difference n access was between having any health insurance and not having insurance. Once insurance was available, each additional element contributed in a cumulative manner to self-rated access. For those with insurance and a regular place, adding optimal primary care improved self-rated access to an extent similar to adding a regular provider. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that although providing insurance to the uninsured is the most effective means of improving self-rated access, the other elements each improve access as well. Once insurance and a regular place are provided, good primary care at that place may be equivalent to having a regular provider in terms of perceived access. Results support promotion of primary care as a model of health care that encourages good access.