Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29472957›Full record

ArticleKansas journal of medicine2017

Direct Primary Care in 2015: A Survey with Selected Comparisons to 2005 Survey Data.

Kyle Rowe, Whitney Rowe, Josh Umbehr, Frank Dong, Elizabeth Ablah

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Kansas journal of medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Revisiting the Time Needed to Provide Adult Primary Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kyle RoweDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, KS.
Whitney RoweDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Family Medicine Residency Program at Wesley Medical Center, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, KS.
Josh UmbehrAtlas MD Concierge Family Practice, Wichita, KS.
Frank DongWestern University of Health Sciences, Pomona, CA.
Elizabeth AblahDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita, KS.
University of Kansas · USWestern University of Health Sciences · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDirect primary care (DPC), a fee for membership type of practice, is an evolving innovative primary care delivery model. Little is known about current membership fees, insurance billing status, physician training, and patient panel size in DPC practices. This study aimed to obtain current data for these variables, as well as additional demographic and financial indicators, and relate the findings to the Healthy People 2020 goals. It was predicted that DPC practices would (1) submit fewer claims to insurance, (2) have decreased membership fees, (3) be primarily family medicine trained, and (4) have increased the projected patient panel size since 2005.

methodsAn electronic survey was sent to DPC practices (n = 65) requesting location, membership fees, projected patient panel size, insurance billing status, training, and other demographic and financial indicators. Data were aggregated, reported anonymously, and compared to two prior characterizations of DPC practices done in 2005.

resultsThirty-eight of 65 (59%) practices responded to the 2015 survey. The majority of respondents (84%) reported using an EMR, offering physician email access (82%), 24-hour access (76%), same day appointments (92%), and wholesale labs (74%). Few respondents offered inpatient care (16%), obstetrics (3%), or financial/insurance consultant services. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of practices reported annual individual adult membership rates between $500 and $1,499, decreased from 2005 where 81% reported greater than a $1,500 annual fee. The proportion of practices who submit bills to insurance decreased from 75% in 2005 to 11% in 2015. Fifty-six percent (56%) of practices reported projected patient panel size to be greater than 600, increased from 40% in 2005. Family medicine physicians represented 87% of respondents, markedly different from 2005 when 62 - 77% of DPC respondents were general internal medicine physicians.

conclusionsMost DPC practices no longer submit to insurance and are family medicine trained. Compared with the previous sampling, DPC practices report decreased membership fees and increased projected panel size. These trends may signify the DPC movement's growth in application and scope.

Indexed as

concierge medicinedelivery of health careprimary health careretainer medicine

Identifiers

PMID29472957
PMCPMC5733409
OpenAlexW2919796467

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.