ArticleJournal of market access & health policy2026
Primary Care or Primary Problem? Aligning Access Pathways with Patient Needs Across the Care Continuum.
Article in Journal of market access & health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the United States, access to healthcare is shaped not only by patient need but also by payer policies that determine which providers are reimbursable, how care is sequenced, and what constitutes a legitimate entry point into the system. These gatekeeping functions, while valuable for supporting clinical prioritization, risk stratification, and continuity of care, can also unintentionally reinforce structural inequities and credential hierarchies that delay or limit timely and equitable care, particularly for historically marginalized populations. While reform efforts often focus on expanding benefits or provider networks, fewer address the underlying design of access itself or the rules that govern how patients enter care. It is argued in this paper that a more equitable and efficient healthcare system requires multi-entry care models, in which nurses, behavioral health clinicians, pharmacists, and community health workers may serve as condition-appropriate, reimbursable first points of contact within coordinated care teams. Drawing on evidence from Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Health Administration, and commercial payers, these models may support cost containment, improve care coordination, facilitate appropriate utilization, and promote earlier patient engagement. While findings from these models are not uniform across all settings, evidence suggests that outcomes are highly dependent on implementation context, system design, and supporting infrastructure. When implemented with appropriate safeguards (such as interoperable health records, team-based care requirements, and coordinated referral tracking), multi-entry systems can preserve continuity while expanding access. Payers are uniquely positioned to lead this transformation by aligning reimbursement policy with patient needs, supporting team-based care infrastructure, and embedding accountability into access pathways, thereby creating a system that can be more responsive, inclusive, and sustainable.
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.