Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Managed care, primary care, and the patient-practitioner relationship

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study examines how specific attributes of managed health plans influence patients’ relationships with their primary care practitioners (PCPs) and determines whether these effects are mediated by access to, continuity with, or perceived choice of PCPs.

DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS: The data source was the nationally representative 1996/97 Community Tracking Study Household Survey (cumulative response rate 65%). The study population (N=19,415) was composed of 18- to 64-year-old adults whose most recent visit in the past 12 months was made to their primary care delivery site.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Patients’ ratings of their interpersonal relationships with their PCPs as measured by a 7-item scale.

RESULTS: Gatekeeping arrangements that require patients to select a primary care physician or obtain authorization for specialty referrals were associated with lower ratings of the patient-PCP relationship. Health plan use of a provider network had no effect on the patient-PCP scale score. Although there were no significant differences across any insurance payer categories, uninsured adults rated their relationships with PCPs as significantly poorer than did their insured counterparts. Shorter office waits, having a specific clinician at the primary care site, better perceived choice of PCPs, and a longer duration of relationship with the primary care practitioner were associated with higher ratings of the patient-PCP relationship. Perceived choice of primary care practitioners, but not access to or continuity with PCPs, attenuated some of the negative effects of gatekeeping arrangements on patients’ relationships with their primary care practitioners.

CONCLUSIONS: Managed health plans that loosen restrictions on provider choice, relax gatekeeping arrangements, or promote access to and continuity with PCPs, are likely to experience higher patient satisfaction with their primary care practitioner relationships. Lack of health insurance impedes the development of patients’ relationships with their primary care practitioners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Donaldson MS, Yordy KD, Lohr KN, Vanselow N, eds. Primary Care: America’s Health in a New Era. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Leopold N, Cooper J, Clancy C. Sustained partnership in primary care. J Fam Pract. 1996;42:129–37.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hjortdahl P, Laerum E. Continuity of care in general practice: effect on patient satisfaction. BMJ. 1992;304:1287–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Emanuel EJ, Brett AS. Managed competition and the patient-physician relationship. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:879–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Grumbach K, Selby JV, Damberg C, et al. Resolving the gatekeeper conundrum: what patients value in primary care and referrals to specialists. JAMA. 1999;282:261–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lake T. Do HMOs make a difference? Consumer assessments of health care. Inquiry. 1999;36:411–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Miller RH, Luft HS. Managed care plans: characteristics, growth and premium performance. Annu Rev Public Health. 1994;15:437–59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Davis K, Collins KS, Schoen C, Morris C. Choice matters: enrollees’ views of their health plans. Health Aff (Millwood). 1995;14:100–12.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Flocke SA, Stange KC, Zyzanski SJ. The impact of insurance type and forced discontinuity on the delivery of primary care. J Fam Pract. 1997;45:129–35.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mechanic D, Schlesinger M. The impact of managed care on patients’ trust in medical care and their physicians. JAMA. 1996;275:1693–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kao AC, Green DC, Zaslavsky AM, Koplan JP, Cleary PD. The relationship between method of physician payment and patient trust. JAMA. 1998;280:1708–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schmittdiel J, Selby JV, Grumbach K, Quesenberry CP Jr. Choice of a personal physician and patient satisfaction in a health maintenance organization. JAMA. 1997;278:1596–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Forrest CB, Starfield B. Entry into primary care and continuity: the effects of access. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1330–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Safran DG, Tarlov AR, Rogers WH. Primary care performance in fee-for-service and prepaid health care systems: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA. 1994;271:1579–86.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mark T, Mueller C. Access to care in HMOs and traditional insurance plans. Health Aff. 1996;15:81–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kerr EA, Hays RD, Lee ML, Siu AL. Does dissatisfaction with access to specialists affect the desire to leave a managed care plan? Med Care Res Rev. 1998;55:138–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Emanuel EJ, Dubler NN. Preserving the physician-patient relationship in the era of managed care. JAMA. 1995;273:323–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Thom DH, Campbell B. Patient-physician trust: an exploratory study. J Fam Pract. 1997;44:169–76.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. O’Malley AS, Forrest CB, O’Malley PG. Low-income women’s priorities for primary care: a qualitative study. J Fam Pract. 2000;49:141–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kemper P, Blumenthal D, Corrigan JM, et al. The design of the Community Tracking Study: a longitudinal study of health system change and its effects on people. Inquiry. 1996;33:195–206.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Metcalf CE, Kemper P, Kohn LT, Pickereign JD. Site Definition and Sample Design for the Community Tracking Study (Technical Publication I). Washington, DC: Center for Studying Health System Change; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Reschovsky JD. Do HMOs make a difference? Data and methods. Inquiry. 1999;36:378–89.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Starfield B. Primary Care: Balancing Health Needs, Services, and Technology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lambrew JM, DeFrisse GH, Carey TS, Ricketts TC, Biddle AK. The effects of having a regular doctor on access to primary care. Med Care. 1996;34:138–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mainous AG, Gill JM. The importance of continuity of care in the likelihood of future hospitalization: is site of care equivalent to a primary care clinician? Am J Public Health. 1998;88:1539–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shah BV, Barnwell BG, Bieler GS. SUDAAN User’s Manual Release 7.5. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12: How to Score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales. 2nd Ed. Boston, Mass: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang J, Yu KF. What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. JAMA. 1998;280:1690–1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Safran DG, Rogers WH, Tarlov AR, et al. Organizational and financial characteristics of health plans: are they related to primary care performance? Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:69–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Nelson DE, Thompson BL, Davenport NJ, Penaloza LJ. What people really know about their health insurance: a comparison of information obtained from individuals and their insurers. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:924–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Laine C, Davidoff F. Patient-centered medicine: a professional evolution. JAMA. 1996;275:152–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Quill TE, Brody H. Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and patient choice. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:763–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Mettler J, et al. The effectiveness of intensive training for residents in interviewing. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:118–26.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Smith RC, Marshall-Dorsey AA, Osborn GG, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for teaching patient-centered interviewing. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;39:27–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hall JA, Roter DL, Katz NR. Meta-analysis of correlates of provider behavior in medical encounters. Med Care. 1988;26:657–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kasteler J, Kane RL, Olsen DM, Thetford C. Issues underlying prevalence of “doctor-shopping” behavior. J Health Soc Behav. 1976;17:328–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE. Impact of the doctor-patient relationship on the outcomes of chronic disease. In: Stewart M, Roter D, eds. Communicating with Medical Patients. London: Sage Publications; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher B. Forrest MD, PhD.

Additional information

Received from the Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Md.

This research was supported by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant no. 036484.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Forrest, C.B., Shi, L., Schrader, S.v. et al. Managed care, primary care, and the patient-practitioner relationship. J GEN INTERN MED 17, 270–277 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10309.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10309.x

Key words

Navigation