ArticleHealth affairs scholar2026
Primary care, weather, and the missed opportunity for savings.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extreme weather is a recurring source of stress on healthcare delivery, yet health systems remain largely reactive. Unlike an individual medical emergency, which the system absorbs one case at a time, a heat wave, wildfire smoke episode, or storm affects an entire population simultaneously. The resulting surge degrades care for every emergency patient, not only those the weather directly harmed. Primary care that anticipates weather-related risk and intervenes proactively can blunt that surge, but a central barrier to scaling such care is economic rather than clinical. Conventional prevention accounting counts only the benefit to the treated patient, and fee-for-service payment offers primary care practices only limited and poorly matched means to fund anticipatory care. Payment models that reward keeping patients healthy, such as global budgets, can address this, but only if risk adjustment accounts for environmental exposure so that providers serving vulnerable populations are not penalized. To address this, we outline 4 priorities: evaluations that capture system-wide costs; payment that rewards anticipatory care and adjusts for environmental risk; supply-side resilience in primary care, built jointly with public health agencies; and data infrastructure linking exposure to healthcare utilization.
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.