Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an intervention designed to help patients choose a new primary care provider (PCP) compared with the usual method of assigning patients to a new PCP.
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial conducted between November 1998 and June 2000.
INTERVENTION: Provision of telephone or web-based provider-specific information to aid in the selection of a provider.
SETTING: Medical center within a large HMO.
PATIENTS: One thousand and ninety patients who were ≥30 years old, whose previous PCP had retired and who responded to a mailed questionnaire 1 year after linkage with a new PCP.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The questionnaire assessed perceptions of choice, satisfaction, trust, and retention of the PCP. During the intervention period, 85% of subjects obtained a new PCP. Intervention subjects were more likely to perceive that they chose their PCP (78% vs 22%; P<.001), to retain their PCP at 1 year (93% vs 69%; P<.001), and to report greater overall satisfaction with the PCP (67% vs 57%; P<.01), compared to control subjects who were assigned to a PCP. The intervention subjects also reported greater trust in their PCP on most measures, but these differences did not remain statistically significant after adjustments for patient age, gender, ethnicity, education, and health status.
CONCLUSIONS: Encouraging patients to choose their PCP can result in mutually beneficial outcomes for both patients and providers, such as greater overall satisfaction and duration of the relationship. Further research is needed to identify the types of information most useful in making this choice and to understand the relevant underlying patient expectations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Eisenberg JM, Power EJ. Transforming insurance coverage into quality health care: voltage drops from potential to delivered quality. JAMA. 2000;284:2100–7.
Davis K, Collins KS, Schoen C, Morris C. Choice matters: enrollees’ views of their health plans. Health Aff (Millwood). 1995;Summer:99–112.
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.
Kaiser Family Foundation/Agency of Health Care Research and Quality. National survey on Americans as health care consumers: an update on the role of quality information. http://www.ahcpr.gov/qual/kffhigh00.htm. Accessed December 12, 2000.
Robinson S, Brodie M. Understanding the quality challenge for health consumers: the Kaiser/AHCPR survey. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1997;23:239–44.
Gawande AA, Blendon RJ, Brodie M, Benson JM, Levitt L, Hugick L. Does dissatisfaction with health plans stem from having no choices? Health Aff (Millwood). 1998;17:184–94.
Schmittdiel J, Grumbach K, Selby JV, Quesenberry CP. Effect of physician and patient gender concordance on patient satisfaction and preventive care practices. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15:761–9.
Annas GJ. Patients’ rights in managed care-exit, voice, and choice. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:210–5.
Jones TO, Sasser WE. Why satisfied customers defect. Harv Bus Rev. 1995:Nov–Dec:88–99.
Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE. Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care. 1989;27(suppl):110–27.
Thom DH, Ribisl KM, Stewart AL, Luke DA. Further validation and reliability testing of the trust in physician scale. Med Care. 1999;37:510–7.
Krupat E, Stein T, Selby JV, Yeager CM, Schmittdiel J. Choice of a primary care physician and its relationship to adherence among patients with diabetes. Am J Manag Care. 2002;8:191–9.
Krupat E, Rosenkranz SL, Yeager CM, Barnard K, Putnam SM, Inui TS. The practice orientations of physicians and patients: the effect of doctor-patient congruence on satisfaction. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;39:49–59.
Rubin HR, Gandek B, Rogers WH, Kosinski M, McHorney CA, Ware JE. Patients’ ratings of outpatient visits in different practice settings. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA. 1993;270:835–40.
Reference Manual Release STATA. 6.0. College Station, Tex: STATA Press; 1999.
Kao AC, Green DC, Davis NA, Koplan JP, Cleary PD. Patients’ trust in their physicians: effects of choice, continuity, and payment method. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13:681–6.
Bates DW, Gawande AA. The impact of the Internet on quality measurement. Health Aff (Millwood). 2000;19:104–14.
Hofer TP, Hayward RA, Greenfield S, Wagner EH, Kaplan SH, Manning WG. The unreliability of individual physician “report cards” for assessing the costs and quality of care of a chronic disease. JAMA. 1999;281:2098–105.
Epstein A. Public release of performance data: a progress report from the front. JAMA. 2000;283:1884–6.
Marshall MN, Shekelle PG, Leatherman S, Brook RH. The public release of performance data: what do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. JAMA. 2000;283:1866–74.
Spranca M, Kanouse DE, Elliot M, Short PF, Farley DO, Hays RD. Do consumer reports of health plan quality affect health plan selection. Health Serv Res. 2000;35:933–48.
Hibbard JH, Jewett JJ. What type of quality information do consumers want in a health care report card? Med Care Res Rev. 1996;53:28–47.
David SP, Greer DS. Social marketing: application to medical education. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:125–7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This study was funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hsu, J., Schmittdiel, J., Krupat, E. et al. Patient choice. J GEN INTERN MED 18, 319–325 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20145.x
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20145.x