Shortage of primary care physicians could mean doctor will not see you

When Massachusetts improved its health care system, it found that a shortage of physicians was exacerbated. At the national level, addressing the problem will require changes to the system.

Mark Trahant

Mark Trahant

Despite reform, budget pressures could hurt health care.

Sen. Bernie Sanders

Despite reform, budget pressures could hurt health care.

"I need to see a doctor." These six words have been written into our programming as modern humans.

We wait in line at the clinic. We make an appointment. We know instinctively that this is the one person to see who can check out our health, fix us up when it can be done, or design a treatment course when we are facing complicated health issues.

But that programming no longer works: There are not enough doctors, and, even if this goes against what we've been trained to think, seeing a physician is not always the best medical choice.

The shortage of primary care physicians is one of the larger trends that made health care reform necessary. Some 56 million Americans don't have a regular doctor. And when you open up more health care access, that scarcity increases. When Massachusetts enacted universal coverage it exacerbated the primary care shortage — something that is expected to occur nationally when some 30 million who have been uninsured seek regular care.

"By 2025, the wait to see a doctor could get a lot longer if the current number of students training to be primary care physicians doesn't increase soon," according to a new University of Missouri study. Jack Colwill, professor emeritus of family and community medicine in the MU School of Medicine, and his research team found that the U.S. could face a shortage of up to 44,000 family physicians and general internists in less than 20 years.

One of the factors complicating this issue is age. "Typically, older adults seek care from generalists nearly three times each year, double the rate of adults younger than 65," Colwill found. That means the number of doctor visits will increase by 29 percent by 2025 while the number of family physicians will increase less than 5 percent.

Last month the New England Journal of Medicine published one practice's “snapshot” of the work required for primary care. "Primary care practices typically measure productivity according to the number of visits, which also drives payment," wrote Richard J. Baron, M.D. "Work that does not involve a visit from a patient is invisible to those who support and purchase primary care."

Dr. Baron used electronic medical records to chart that invisible care. "At a time when the primary care system is collapsing and U.S. medical-school graduates are avoiding the field, it is urgent that we understand the actual work of primary care and find ways to support it," he wrote. "Our snapshot reveals both the magnitude of the challenge and the need for radical change in practice design and payment structure."

I think that radical change has to start within each of us, the patient, as we rethink what we need from a health care system. We should ask, and often, what do we expect? And, how do we pay for that?

I also think the education angle is interesting. Higher education is under incredible financial pressure, at the very moment we need more from those same institutions. Once again there is that same need for radical change in practice (medical and nursing schools) design and payment structure.

Just look at what’s happened to primary care training. A generation ago about half of all medical students picked general medicine over a specialty practice; today's it's only about 30 percent. In the larger health care system the main reason for that disparity is wealth. Specialists earn far more than general practioners; a gap of more than $100,000 per year.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act addresses this shortage with several provisions. For example bonuses will be paid for Medicare and Medicaid for primary care practices and repayment of student loans for underserved areas with the National Health Service Corps.

The Indian health system represents one of those underserved areas. The Congressional Research Service recently reported: "The IHS has a high vacancy rate in many of its health professions, 20 percent for physicians, dentists, and nurses, for instance, as of December 2008." The new law opens up a number of options for American Indians and Alaska Natives interested in health careers: scholarship and loan repayment programs; incentives designed to encourage health professionals to work in Indian health; funds for continuing education; and new demonstration projects using students. There will be new grants for "teaching health centers" and for expanding or creating primary care residency programs. The law also allows for newly accredited or expanded primary care residency programs.

But even then will that be enough? How long will it take to fill those pipelines? The answers might not come from a doctor. More on this topic next week.


Topics: Native People

About the Author

Mark Trahant is a writer, speaker and Twitter poet. He is a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and lives in Fort Hall, Idaho. You can reach him through www.marktrahant.com. He is the author of "The Last Great Battle of the Indian Wars," the story of Sen. Henry Jackson and Forrest Gerard.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Tue, Jun 8, 7:34 a.m. Inappropriate

We are not going to solve the shortage of primary care physicians until we solve the problem of outrageous malpractice insurance fees. The cost of malpractice insurance drove my internist spouse out of private practice once and for all. That's why there's no money in primary care -- it's not (necessarily) because of reimbursements, but rather because internists can't charge enough (as specialists can) to cover malpractice insurance. And the situation is unlikely to change because Congress is made up of lawyers who want to protect their colleagues' opportunities for legal fees.

Posted Tue, Jun 8, 11:17 a.m. Inappropriate

People interested in this subject might want to refer back to my 2009 Crosscut article on the patient-centered medical home model that's been implemented at Group Health Cooperative and is also being used by Geisinger, Swedish Medical Center, and other more forward-looking organizations.
http://crosscut.com/2009/09/03/health-medicine/19209/

Posted Wed, Jun 9, 10:39 a.m. Inappropriate

No money in primary care? I saw primary care docs recently, and they charged over $10/minute, and that's assuming they spent twice as many minutes charting as the actual time they spent with me.

California has done "tort reform" for medical malpractice, and it turns out it doesn't make any difference. Insurance companies raise their rates when the stock market goes bad and their usual source of profits, large investments in the market, is not performing.

And the simple fact is that back in the 80s the AMA forced sharp cuts in the number of doctors graduating in the 90s and beyond. As long as the doctor monopoly gets to decide how many doctors there are, the price will remain high.

And how fitting is it that American doctors have presided over the American lifestyle of low exercise and high calories. Dr. Frederick Stare once called diabetics "America's largest class of drug addicts, made that way by their doctors", referring to the fact that weight loss and exercise will make it possible for any Class II diabetics to stay off insulin. But even today, 40 years later, it is only slowly trickling into the public mind that some forms of diabetes are avoidable.

It's time for the schools of medicine to move over and let public health take a shot at managing our public health.

Posted Wed, Jun 9, 7:06 p.m. Inappropriate

Multiple solutions: Train more doctors. The AMA has long maintained artificial limits on medical schools. Create incentives for young doctors to go into primary care like covering a percent of their medical education costs. Increase the cost and limit access to getting training in certain specialties. Or, better yet, increase the numbers of physician assistants who are qualified to do much, if not most, of what many primary care physicians do.

SteveC

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »