Does the way we pay primary care providers influence emergency department use during after-hours?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early 2000s, Ontario introduced extensive primary care reforms to increase around-the-clock access to comprehensive primary care in response to inadequate access to primary care, including the way Ontario primary care physicians were paid. This thesis investigates the extent to which changes in physician payment could affect emergency department visits. First, a review evaluating the impact of access to primary care on primary care and emergency department utilization was conducted. Secondly, the impact of Ontario’s after-hours premium on emergency department visits was investigated, first within Ontario, then compared to four control provinces. Finally, rates of primary care services and emergency department visits were compared between the two most popular physician remuneration models. Data sources include databases housed at ICES as well as the Canadian Community Health Survey linked to the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System. The review found that while improving access to primary care increased primary care visits, the effects on emergency department visits were often limited, and the effects depends on the intervention used to improve access to care and the context of the health care system. The introduction of Ontario’s after-hours premium was associated with a reduction in less-urgent emergency department visits, particularly during after-hours; however, subsequent increases in the premium were found to have only a small further reduction in emergency department visits and comparisons to other provinces suggested that an increase in the premium was unlikely to be causal. Physicians paid by blended capitation were found to provide fewer primary care services than physicians paid by enhanced/blended fee-for-service model, especially outside regular working-hours. For most patients, having a physician paid by blended capitation was associated with making more emergency department visits; however, for patients with multiple chronic conditions, blended capitation was associated with a reduction in more urgent emergency department visits. The way primary care physicians are remunerated can influence the way patients receive care, in both the primary care and emergency department setting, as patients in the blended capitation model may receive fewer primary care services but make more less-urgent emergency department visits.\nTRANSLATE with x English Arabic Hebrew Polish Bulgarian Hindi Portuguese Catalan Hmong Daw Romanian Chinese Simplified Hungarian Russian Chinese Traditional Indonesian Slovak Czech Italian Slovenian Danish Japanese Spanish Dutch Klingon Swedish English Korean Thai Estonian Latvian Turkish Finnish Lithuanian Ukrainian French Malay Urdu German Maltese Vietnamese Greek Norwegian Welsh Haitian Creole Persian TRANSLATE with COPY THE URL BELOW Back EMBED THE SNIPPET BELOW IN YOUR SITE Enable collaborative features and customize widget: Bing Webmaster Portal Back
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".