Measuring equity in per capita primary care investment in Ontario: Challenges for data linkage and analysis

Introduction Fifteen years ago almost all primary care physicians (PCPs) were paid fee-for-service. Now, many physicians receive other payments as well, including capitation payments, incentives and bonuses and funding for other health professionals. It is challenging to track these changes in primary care payment and understand how they relate to individual patients. Objectives and Approach The objectives of this study were to assess changes in PCP payments from 2002/03 to 2011/12 and examine differences in per capita investment by urban-rural status, recent arrival (proxy for immigrant status) and income quintile. This required a three-step approach: assigning payments to physicians, assigning patients to physicians and then apportioning the payments by patient. Payments were apportioned based on the type of payment and how the data were captured. For example, capitation payments were paid monthly, but without any detail as to which patients they were for, so all capitation payments were summed and apportioned among all rostered patients. Results All PCPs for whom we had payment data and to whom patients could be assigned were included. Three types of physician-patient 'relationships' were identified: the patient was on the physician's formal roster; the patient was 'virtually' rostered to the physician who provided the plurality of their care; or the patient was part of the physician's overall panel, which includes all patients seen during the year, rostered and not. The type of relationship determined which payment were allocated to each patient. When the $3.5B in payments were apportioned and different populations compared, we found inequities in new primary care investment by income, immigrant status and rurality. For example, we found a disproportionate investment in interdisciplinary teams for non-immigrant Ontarians living in more well-off suburban areas. Conclusion/Implications Estimating per capita primary care investment is a challenging but worthwhile undertaking. The results of this study suggest that the Government of Ontario should facilitate increased participation in new primary care models by immigrants and people living in major urban centres

Primary care bonus payments and patient-reported access in urban Ontario: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Rurality strongly correlates with higher pay-for-performance access bonuses, despite higher emergency department use and fewer primary care services than in urban settings. We sought to evaluate the relation between patient-reported access to primary care and access bonus payments in urban settings. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, secondary data analysis using Ontario survey and health administrative data from 2013 to 2017. We used administrative data to calculate annual access bonuses for eligible urban family physicians. We linked this payment data to adult (≥ 16 yr) patient data from the Health Care Experiences Survey to examine the relation between access bonus achievement (in quintiles of the proportion of bonus achieved, from lowest [Q1, reference category] to highest [Q5]) and 4 patient-reported access outcomes. The average survey response rate to the patient survey during the study period was 51%. We stratified urban geography into large, medium and small settings. In a multilevel regression model, we adjusted for patient-, physician- and practice-level covariates. We tested linear trends, adjusted for clustering, for each outcome. RESULTS: We linked 18 893 respondents to 3940 physicians in 414 bonus-eligible practices. Physicians in small urban settings earned the highest proportion of their maximum potential access bonuses. Access bonus achievement was positively associated with telephone access (Q2 odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.42; Q3 OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.10-1.63; Q4 OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.19-1.79; Q5 OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.50-2.33), after hours access (Q2 OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.09-1.47; Q3 OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.23-1.74; Q4 OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.46-2.15; Q5 OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.52-2.32), wait time for care (Q2 OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85-1.20; Q3 OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.97-1.41; Q4 OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05-1.55; Q5 OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.32-2.00) and timeliness (Q2 OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.98-1.69; Q3 OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.94-1.77; Q4 OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.16-2.13; Q5 OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.38-2.82). When stratified by geography, we observed several of these associations in large urban settings, but not in small urban settings. Trend tests were statistically significant for all 4 outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Although the access bonus correlated with access in larger urban settings, it did not in smaller settings, aligning with previous research questioning its utility in smaller geographies. The access bonus may benefit from a redesign that considers geography and patient experience

Problems in Coordinating and Accessing Primary Care for Attached and Unattached Patients Exacerbated During the COVID-19 Pandemic Year (the PUPPY Study): Protocol for a Longitudinal Mixed Methods Study

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted primary care in Canada, with many walk-in clinics and family practices initially closing or being perceived as inaccessible; pharmacies remaining open with restrictions on patient interactions; rapid uptake of virtual care; and reduced referrals for lab tests, diagnostics, and specialist care. ObjectiveThe PUPPY Study (Problems in Coordinating and Accessing Primary Care for Attached and Unattached Patients Exacerbated During the COVID-19 Pandemic Year) seeks to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across the quadruple aims of primary care, with particular focus on the effects on patients without attachment to a regular provider and those with chronic health conditions. MethodsThe PUPPY study builds on an existing research program exploring patients’ access and attachment to a primary care practice, pivoted to adapt to the emerging COVID-19 context. We intend to undertake a longitudinal mixed methods study to understand critical gaps in primary care access and coordination, as well as compare prepandemic and postpandemic data across 3 Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario, and Nova Scotia). Multiple data sources will be used such as a policy review; qualitative interviews with primary care policymakers, providers (ie, family physicians, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists), and patients (N=120); and medication prescriptions and health care billing data. ResultsThis study has received funding by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research COVID-19 Rapid Funding Opportunity Grant. Ethical approval to conduct this study was granted in Ontario (Queens Health Sciences & Affiliated Teaching Hospitals Research Ethics Board, file 6028052; Western University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board, project 116591; University of Toronto Health Sciences Research Ethics Board, protocol 40335) in November 2020, Québec (Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de l'Estrie, project 2020-3446) in December 2020, and Nova Scotia (Nova Scotia Health Research Ethics Board, file 1024979) in August 2020. ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind to explore the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care systems, with particular focus on the issues of patient’s attachment and access to primary care. Through a multistakeholder, cross-jurisdictional approach, the findings of the PUPPY study will inform the strengthening of primary care during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as have implications for future policy and practice. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/2998