ArticleHealth services research2026
Are the Best Worth the Wait? Physician Quality Scores and Access Delays.
Article in Health services research, 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
Abstract
objectiveThe Veterans Health Administration's (VHA) Community Care Network generally includes physicians with higher Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) quality scores than nonparticipants, yet veterans disproportionately receive care from participating physicians with lower scores. Whether physician quality or availability influences veterans' use of community care has not been comprehensively evaluated. Our objective was to assess whether VHA community care specialists with higher MIPS quality scores receive greater referral volume or have longer wait times. STUDY SETTING AND
designWe used multivariate regression models to assess the associations between physicians' MIPS quality scores, ranging from 0 to 100, and wait times or referral volumes. We also tested whether wait time moderated the association between physician quality and referral volume. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: We used administrative data to identify referrals to community-based specialists during 2021-2022. Referrals were then merged with MIPS quality scores from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services using national provider identifiers. PRINCIPAL
findingsOur sample included 83,911 specialty care referrals involving 43,736 specialists. The mean MIPS quality score was 81.9 (SD = 20.9), including 77.9% of physicians who scored ≥ 75, the threshold for a positive payment adjustment. The overall mean wait time was 21.8 days (SD = 22.0), and the mean referral volume was 6.6 per year (SD = 10.5). In covariate-adjusted regression models, MIPS scores were not associated with wait times (+0.12 days per 10-point increase, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.25) or referral volumes (-0.15 referrals per 10-point increase, 95% CI: -0.37, 0.06). Wait time did not significantly moderate the relationship between MIPS score and referral volume.
conclusionPhysician quality appears to play a limited role in shaping referral decisions or access patterns in VHA community care. Although higher-scoring physicians sometimes have slightly longer wait times, these differences are small and do not translate into higher referral volumes.
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.