Robert L. Phillips

The Rise of Electronic Health Record Adoption Among Family Physicians

PURPOSE Realizing the benefits of adopting electronic health records (EHRs) in large measure depends heavily on clinicians and providers’ uptake and meaningful use of the technology. This study examines EHR adoption among family physicians using 2 different data sources, compares family physicians with other office-based medical specialists, assesses variation in EHR adoption among family physicians across states, and shows the possibility for data sharing among various medical boards and federal agencies in monitoring and guiding EHR adoption. METHOD We undertook a secondary analysis of American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) administrative data (2005–2011) and data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) (2001–2011). RESULTS The EHR adoption rate by family physicians reached 68% nationally in 2011. NAMCS family physician adoption rates and ABFM adoption rates (2005–2011) were similar. Family physicians are adopting EHRs at a higher rate than other office-based physicians as a group; however, significant state-level variation exists, indicating geographical gaps in EHR adoption. CONCLUSION Two independent data sets yielded convergent results, showing that adoption of EHRs by family physicians has doubled since 2005, exceeds other office-based physicians as a group, and is likely to surpass 80% by 2013. Adoption varies at a state level. Further monitoring of trends in EHR adoption and characterizing their capacities are important to achieve comprehensive data exchange necessary for better, affordable health care.

Electronic health record functionality needed to better support primary care

Electronic health records (EHRs) must support primary care clinicians and patients, yet many clinicians remain dissatisfied with their system. This article presents a consensus statement about gaps in current EHR functionality and needed enhancements to support primary care. The Institute of Medicine primary care attributes were used to define needs and meaningful use (MU) objectives to define EHR functionality. Current objectives remain focused on disease rather than the whole person, ignoring factors such as personal risks, behaviors, family structure, and occupational and environmental influences. Primary care needs EHRs to move beyond documentation to interpreting and tracking information over time, as well as patient-partnering activities, support for team-based care, population-management tools that deliver care, and reduced documentation burden. While stage 3 MUs focus on outcomes is laudable, enhanced functionality is still needed, including EHR modifications, expanded use of patient portals, seamless integration with external applications, and advancement of national infrastructure and policies.

specialty Board Certification in the United States: Issues and Evidence

Background: The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) certification and maintenance of certification (MOC) programs strive to provide the public with guidance about a physicians competence. This study summarizes the literature on the effectiveness of these programs. Method: A literature search was conducted for studies published between 1986 and April 2013 and limited to ABMS certification. A modified version of Kirkpatricks 4 levels of program evaluation included the reaction of stakeholders to certification, the extent to which physicians are encouraged to improve, the relationship between performance in the programs and nonclinical external measures of physician competence, and the relationship of performance in the programs with clinical quality measures. Results: Patients and hospitals value of board certification and physician participation in MOC are high. Physicians are conflicted as to whether the effort involved is worth its value. Self‐reported evidence shows improvement in knowledge, practice infrastructure, communication with patients and peers, and clinical care. Certification performance is generally related to nonclinical external measures such as types of training, practice characteristics, demographics, and disciplinary actions. In general, physicians who are board certified provide better patient care, albeit the results have modest effect sizes and are not unequivocal. Conclusions: Certification boards should continuously try to improve their programs in response to feedback from stakeholders, changes in the way physicians practice, as well as the growth in the fields of measurement and technology. Keeping pace with these changes in a responsible and evidence‐based way is important.

Health is primary: Family medicine for America's health.

PURPOSE More than a decade ago the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation, American Board of Family Medicine, Association of Departments of Family Medicine, Association of Family Practice Residency Directors, North American Primary Care Research Group, and Society of Teachers of Family Medicine came together in the Future of Family Medicine (FFM) to launch a series of strategic efforts to “renew the specialty to meet the needs of people and society,” some of which bore important fruit. Family Medicine for America’s Health was launched in 2013 to revisit the role of family medicine in view of these changes and to position family medicine with new strategic and communication plans to create better health, better health care, and lower cost for patients and communities (the Triple Aim). METHODS Family Medicine for America’s Health was preceded and guided by the development of a family physician role definition. A consulting group facilitated systematic strategic plan development over 9 months that included key informant interviews, formal stakeholder surveys, future scenario testing, a retreat for family medicine organizations and stakeholder representatives to review strategy options, further strategy refinement, and finally a formal strategic plan with draft tactics and design for an implementation plan. A second communications consulting group surveyed diverse stakeholders in coordination with strategic planning to develop a communication plan. The American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians joined the effort, and students, residents, and young physicians were included. RESULTS The core strategies identified include working to ensure broad access to sustained, primary care relationships; accountability for increasing primary care value in terms of cost and quality; a commitment to helping reduce health care disparities; moving to comprehensive payment and away from fee-for-service; transformation of training; technology to support effective care; improving research underpinning primary care; and actively engaging patients, policy makers, and payers to develop an understanding of the value of primary care. The communications plan, called Health is Primary, will complement these strategies. Eight family medicine organizations have pledged nearly

More Comprehensive Care Among Family Physicians is Associated with Lower Costs and Fewer Hospitalizations

20 million and committed representatives to a multiyear implementation team that will coordinate these plans in a much more systematic way than occurred with FFM. CONCLUSIONS Family Medicine for America’s Health is a new commitment by 8 family medicine organizations to strategically align work to improve practice models, payment, technology, workforce and education, and research to support the Triple Aim. It is also a humble invitation to patients and to clinical and policy partners to collaborate in making family medicine even more effective.

“Community vital signs”: incorporating geocoded social determinants into electronic records to promote patient and population health

PURPOSE Comprehensiveness is lauded as 1 of the 5 core virtues of primary care, but its relationship with outcomes is unclear. We measured associations between variations in comprehensiveness of practice among family physicians and healthcare utilization and costs for their Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS We merged data from 2011 Medicare Part A and B claims files for a complex random sample of family physicians engaged in direct patient care, including 100% of their claimed care of Medicare beneficiaries, with data reported by the same physicians during their participation in Maintenance of Certification for Family Physicians (MC-FP) between the years 2007 and 2011. We created a measure of comprehensiveness from mandatory self-reported survey items as part of MC-FP examination registration. We compared this measure to another derived from Medicare’s Berenson-Eggers Type of Service (BETOS) codes. We then examined the association between the 2 measures of comprehensiveness and hospitalizations, Part B payments, and combined Part A and B payments. RESULTS Our full family physician sample consists of 3,652 physicians providing the plurality of care to 555,165 Medicare beneficiaries. Of these, 1,133 recertified between 2007 and 2011 and cared for 185,044 beneficiaries. There was a modest correlation (0.30) between the BETOS and self-reported comprehensiveness measures. After adjusting for beneficiary and physician characteristics, increasing comprehensiveness was associated with lower total Medicare Part A and B costs and Part B costs alone, but not with hospitalizations; the association with spending was stronger for the BETOS measure than for the self-reported measure; higher BETOS scores significantly reduced the likelihood of a hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS Increasing family physician comprehensiveness of care, especially as measured by claims measures, is associated with decreasing Medicare costs and hospitalizations. Payment and practice policies that enhance primary care comprehensiveness may help “bend the cost curve.”

The Primary Care Extension Program: A Catalyst for Change

Social determinants of health significantly impact morbidity and mortality; however, physicians lack ready access to this information in patient care and population management. Just as traditional vital signs give providers a biometric assessment of any patient, community vital signs (Community VS) can provide an aggregated overview of the social and environmental factors impacting patient health. Knowing Community VS could inform clinical recommendations for individual patients, facilitate referrals to community services, and expand understanding of factors impacting treatment adherence and health outcomes. This information could also help care teams target disease prevention initiatives and other health improvement efforts for clinic panels and populations. Given the proliferation of big data, geospatial technologies, and democratization of data, the time has come to integrate Community VS into the electronic health record (EHR). Here, the authors describe (i) historical precedent for this concept, (ii) opportunities to expand upon these historical foundations, and (iii) a novel approach to EHR integration.

Making Personalized Health Care Even More Personalized: Insights From Activities of the IOM Genomics Roundtable

The Affordable Care Act authorized, but did not fund, the Primary Care Extension Program (PCEP). Much like the Cooperative Extension Program of the US Department of Agriculture sped the modernization of farming a century ago, the PCEP could speed the transformation of primary care. It could also help achieve other goals such as integrating primary care with public health and translating research into practice. The urgency of these goals and their importance to achieving the Triple Aim for health care should increase interest in rapidly building the PCEP, much as the need to feed the country did a century ago.

The Future Role of the Family Physician in the United States: A Rigorous Exercise in Definition

Genomic research has generated much new knowledge into mechanisms of human disease, with the potential to catalyze novel drug discovery and development, prenatal and neonatal screening, clinical pharmacogenomics, more sensitive risk prediction, and enhanced diagnostics. Genomic medicine, however, has been limited by critical evidence gaps, especially those related to clinical utility and applicability to diverse populations. Genomic medicine may have the greatest impact on health care if it is integrated into primary care, where most health care is received and where evidence supports the value of personalized medicine grounded in continuous healing relationships. Redesigned primary care is the most relevant setting for clinically useful genomic medicine research. Taking insights gained from the activities of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Roundtable on Translating Genomic-Based Research for Health, we apply lessons learned from the patient-centered medical home national experience to implement genomic medicine in a patient-centered, learning health care system.

A needs-based method for estimating the behavioral health staff needs of community health centers

As the US health care delivery system undergoes rapid transformation, there is an urgent need to define a comprehensive, evidence-based role for the family physician. A Role Definition Group made up of members of seven family medicine organizations developed a statement defining the family physician’s role in meeting the needs of individuals, the health care system, and the country. The Role Definition Group surveyed more than 50 years of foundational manuscripts including published works from the Future of Family Medicine project and Keystone III conference, external reviews, and a recent Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education Family Medicine Milestones definition. They developed candidate definitions and a “foil” definition of what family medicine could become without change. The following definition was selected: “Family physicians are personal doctors for people of all ages and health conditions. They are a reliable first contact for health concerns and directly address most health care needs. Through enduring partnerships, family physicians help patients prevent, understand, and manage illness, navigate the health system and set health goals. Family physicians and their staff adapt their care to the unique needs of their patients and communities. They use data to monitor and manage their patient population, and use best science to prioritize services most likely to benefit health. They are ideal leaders of health care systems and partners for public health.” This definition will guide the second Future of Family Medicine project and provide direction as family physicians, academicians, clinical networks, and policy-makers negotiate roles in the evolving health system.