ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020
Use of Primary Care and Specialty Providers: Findings from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lung cancer screening completion rates and neighborhood disadvantage among primary care patients in an integrated delivery network health system: a retrospective data analysis.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- What Happens to Refugees when Accessing Primary Care in the United States?: A Qualitative Meta-synthesis.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2026Review
- Primary Care Informatics: Vitalizing the Bedrock of Health Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Disparities in Healthcare-Seeking Behavior and Decision Preference Among Hispanics: A Comparative Study Across Races/Ethnicities, SES, and Provider Types.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- HPV vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and practices among New York State medical providers, dentists, and pharmacists.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
- Association of Patient and Site-of-Care Characteristics With Reproductive Carrier Screening Timing in a Large Integrated Health System.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Continuity of Care and Coordination of Care: Can they Be Differentiated?International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA comprehensive picture of how the US population engages in specialty care use is lacking, even though redesign models focused on specialty care are becoming more popular.
objectiveTo describe the type of provider, primary care or specialist, most often seen by individuals, to test associations between type of provider most often seen and insurance coverage, and to test associations between the number of generalist and specialist visits and insurance coverage.
designCross-sectional analysis of 2013-2016 Medicaid Expenditure Panel Survey. Logistic and negative binomial models were used in multivariate regression modeling.
participantsDepending on the analysis, the study samples include between 71,402 and 79,518 US residents. MAIN MEASURES: Individuals' provider type most often seen, primary care visits, and specialist visits were reported. KEY
resultsMore than half of the sample (55%) predominantly visited primary care providers (or generalists), and 36% predominantly visited specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting generalists, 80% visited only one type of primary care provider, and 24% also visited one or more specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting specialists, 48% visited only one type of specialist, and 47% did not visit any generalists in the year. Among Medicare enrollees, 50% predominantly visited specialists, and 40% predominantly visited generalists. Medicare enrollment was associated with greater odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05), and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment and having no insurance were associated with lower odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05). Medicare enrollment was associated with 13% more generalist visits and 35% more specialist visits, and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment was associated with 38% more generalist visits and 15% more specialist visits (all p < 0.05).
conclusionsGiven the overall frequency of specialty care use and the reliance on multiple specialists in any given year, particularly among Medicare enrollees, public payers are uniquely positioned to promote specialty care redesign and champion improved coordination between specialists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.