
How federal policy has worsened the U.S. primary care shortage
Loud and clear warnings forecasting the current shortage of primary care physicians in the United States date back to the early 2000s.
Loud and clear warnings
Related:
Of almost 12,000
A CNN report summarizing the findings stated that “many [primary care physicians] said they are overwhelmed with their practices, not because they have too many patients, but because there’s too much red tape generated from insurance companies and government agencies.”
In response, one would have expected that policymakers, when assessing the merits of a proposed healthcare initiative or regulation, would weigh the measure’s likely impact on making primary care practice less burdensome. Yet, such consideration was apparently given little weight when the Health Information Technology for Clinical Health (HITECH) Act was passed as part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. HITECH broadened the authority of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to utilize pay-for-performance (P4P) programs as a means of physician compensation. Needless to say, HITECH’s passage struck a major blow to physician autonomy.
Further reading:
In a 2009 interview, President Obama acknowledged the PCP shortage and the difficulty in attracting physicians to choose a career in primary care, stating: “…keep in mind that the status quo is we don’t have enough primary care physicians. We’ve got to create more primary care physicians. And what we want to do is to provide a powerful set of incentives for more and more young people who are interested in healthcare … to go into primary care.”
Which makes the expansion of P4P through the enactment of the
For the PCPs, CMS’s embrace of P4P didn’t just limit autonomy, it replaced autonomy with compromise and conflict of interest. Some examples of the conflict: Does the physician engage female patients in a discussion of the pros and cons of mammography screening and risk falling short of the threshold percentage required for CMS “reward” revenue? Or does one simply go along with CMS guidelines, limiting mention of evidence raising doubts about the benefits of this screening measure?
How about pursuing tight glycemic control in patients with Type 2 DM, despite evidence suggesting a lack of benefit?
Related:
For years after the publication of evidence outlining the benefit of one-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in men over age 65 who had ever smoked
A 2016 American Association of Medical College (AAMC) report predicted that there will be a national PCP shortage numbering anywhere from 12,500 to 31,100 by 2025.
“This trend is to the detriment of patient access. It is imperative that all healthcare stakeholders recognize and begin to address these issues more proactively, to support physicians and enhance the medical practice environment.”
Given the decisions of policymakers in response to similar warnings over the past decade, such support does not seem likely.
Related to this article









