The state of primary health care systems in ten high-income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Primary care systems in high-income countries perform comparatively better than the U.S. system in large part due to decades of investment, an adequate workforce supply, and universal healthcare. This research identifies successes and areas of improvement of 10 high-performing primary care systems in four areas of care: 1) access, 2) continuity, 3) comprehensiveness, 4) and coordination. Cross-national comparisons using primary data from the 2022 CMWF International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians (N ranged from 321-2,092) and the 2023 CMWF International Health Policy Survey on the General Population (N ranged from 750-4,820). Countries included: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the U.K., and the U.S. • More than 90% of adults in all surveyed countries reported having a regular primary care doctor except Sweden, the U.S., and Canada. • Less than 5% of physicians reported high telehealth use in their patient encounters, except for in the U.K. and New Zealand where over 10% reported high use. • Over a quarter of physicians in the U.S., Germany, and France report screening patients for social needs, compared to just 8% in the Netherlands. • Care coordination with social services was a major challenge in all surveyed countries, with over 75% of physicians in the U.K., Australia, and France reporting major challenges. Primary care systems in 10 other high-income countries outperform the U.S. system, particularly when it comes to access to care and care continuity. Policy options to consider for U.S. policymakers include narrowing the wage gap between generalist and specialist physicians and rewarding and holding providers accountable for continuity of care. On the other hand, countries like Sweden and the Netherlands can learn from the U.S. on how to adequately coordinate care between primary care physicians, specialists, and hospitals. Key messages • Investment in primary care yields better health outcomes, greater equity and lower costs. • Many high-income countries in Europe have high performing primary care systems, something the U.S. system can learn from.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".