Why is it so hard to get medical care? And what should we do about it?

You may have noticed, should you or a family member or a friend have had a health problem recently, that it is difficult to get care. It is difficult to find a doctor (or a nurse practitioner, or any health care provider) who is available to add you to their panel. If you are lucky enough to have one, especially one who practices primary care (a family physician or general internist or geriatrician for adults), it is still difficult to get an appointment. If you think you just have a simple question, it can be difficult to get through to them to ask it. Sometimes you can get a nurse, or a medical assistant, or perhaps the desk clerk who may be familiar with some things enough to answer, but often they cannot. Many practices now have “patient portals” (e.g., MyChart ®) where you can post a question for your doctor (often in the form of “I have these symptoms but I can’t get an appointment; do you think I need to be seen?”) that, hopefully, they will answer before you are in extremis.

When all these methods fail, and you are still sick, you can visit an Urgent Care Center, sometimes run by local health systems and sometimes by private chains. They can care for many problems and do some tests, but a lot of things will lead to them sending you to the local Emergency Department. That is, of course, what you were trying to avoid, if for no other reason than the long wait (often hours, even if you have a severe problem that, once they diagnose it, can truly be an emergency; I wrote in the past about a close family member who waited 7 hours to be found to have appendicitis). Not all ED waiting rooms look like “The Pitt”, but it is not uncommon, especially in those centers who have the facilities to care for really dire problems needing urgent intervention (heart attacks, strokes, acute abdominal issues needing surgery, etc.) 

A big part of the problem is that there is a shortage of primary care physicians. This is worse in the US than in other countries but is becoming a problem elsewhere as well, as discussed by Dr. Kenny Lin in “Primary Care Supply and Access Challenges Around the World” on his substack CommonSenseMD. There are also shortages of other physicians (thus the line out the door of the cardiologist’s office), exacerbated by distribution problems (specialists tend to group in major cities and wealthier suburbs). But much of the delay in getting into subspecialists would be mitigated by having more family doctors and other primary care physicians. This works in 4 ways:

1.      The primary care doctor can take care of lots of the problems that people otherwise seek out subspecialty care for. Because you have a heart, it doesn’t mean you need a cardiologist.
2. If the primary care doctor identifies a problem that they think does require a subspecialist (say, a cardiologist) they can refer you to one who is less backed up because primary care doctors have done an assessment and identified that there is a problem requiring a subspecialist. This also makes the subspecialist more effective, because the people they see have already been assessed by a physician and they have a clearer issue on which to focus their attention.
3. Once the subspecialist does their assessment, makes their treatment plan, and initiates it, much of the follow-up can be done by the primary care doctor, freeing the subspecialist from needing to see so many follow-ups and having more appointments for new patient assessments.
4.  Many people (especially older people) have more than one health problem. Not only is going to a separate subspecialist for each potentially inefficient and possibly unnecessary, but can result in “communications problems” between them. This can be dangerous for the patient, in part because treatments for one condition sometimes worsen another. Having a primary care doctor who cares for the whole person, not just one organ system or disease, and is in possession of the assessments and plans from all the subspecialists, means the patient receives care that is coordinated and managed appropriately.

This model is understood and often utilized by subspecialty physicians who understand that their time and effort is best spent in the narrow area in which they are expert. The problem is that it requires a sufficient number of primary care doctors (about 40-50% of physicians), and, in the US, we don’t have them, and are not even moving in the right direction. As I have discussed before, a big reason that students do not choose to become primary care doctors is money…that their incomes are far less than subspecialists, and this needs to be addressed (see, for example, Primary Care, Private Equity, and Profit: How to ensure poor quality care for the American people, Sept 28, 2023).

Another part of the reason people do not access care is cost; the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) newsletter Family Medicine Today reports on a survey by West Health-Gallup that 1 In 3 Americans Are Making Basic Living Sacrifices, Borrowing Money To Afford Health Care. Of course ‘…the “need to make these trade-offs was far more common among the uninsured, Gallup found, with 62% saying they made at least one sacrifice to afford their care. However, 29% of those with insurance also said they were forced to make a trade-off to cover their health care costs.” So…a big problem.

The cost issue may seem to be one that is more clearly related to my contention, in a recent blog (Feb 26, 2026), that The problem with the US healthcare 'system': THE INSATIABLE PURSUIT OF EVER MORE MONEY BY CORPORATIONS AND WALL ST., but in fact so is the shortage of primary care physicians and the difficulty getting appointments. On Feb 18, Health Care Un-covered addressed “The Economic Exploitation of Independent Physicians by Insurers”. It is also a result of practices being owned by profit-making private equity companies (or sometimes by insurance companies, such as UnitedHealth owning Optum) that determine the practice parameters and character, including the speed-up (seeing more patients more quickly) and other business approaches that are good for making money but not for people’s health. In addition, this includes the practice of replacing primary care physicians with less-trained non-physicians, such as nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants. I don’t mean to disparage these professionals, and indeed they can be very good and effective in the roles they are put in – seeing acute minor illnesses or checking on the status of chronic illness such as diabetes and hypertension. But being the coordinator, the “quarterback” – of care for the whole person that the primary care physician can fill, as I described above, requires more, not less, training. It makes care better; not the “most profit” or the “most efficient” but the “most likely to maintain and improve the patient’s health”. Even when for-profit companies don’t own the practices, “A wave of coordinated lawsuits is transforming the No Surprises Act’s arbitration system into a battlefield where insurers seek to intimidate physicians, rewrite the law and consolidate control” (How Insurers Are Using the Courts to Rewrite the No Surprises Act, Health Care Un-covered, Mar 11).

The health of the US population has long been worse, using generally accepted health parameters and measures, than in comparable countries. The situation is not improving, as insurers decrease access by increasing premiums and co-pays and deductibles, forcing a significant percentage of Americans to cut back on other necessities, as well as often denying coverage for important care. These practices control not only patients but physicians, along with the control exerted by hospital systems are for-profit ownership of physician practices. It also contributes to a downgraded role and lower pay for primary care physicians, who are key to maintaining health in the US and other countries. It is not a good situation, and it is getting worse, if Americans’ health is the measure.

It is past time for us to ensure that this is the measure, and not maximizing the profit of corporations!

Not enough primary physicians OR Nurse Practitioners: It's the money, stupid!

“Like doctors, more nurse practitioners are heading into specialty care”, a recent article in the Washington Post (June 17, 2024) by Michelle Andrews, a contributing writer for KFF News, and McKenzie Beard, makes the point that

Nurse practitioners have long been a reliable backstop for the primary-care-physician shortfall, which is estimated at nearly 21,000 doctors this year and projected to get worse. But easy access to NPs could be tested in coming years. Even though nearly 90 percent of nurse practitioners are certified to work in primary care, only about a third choose the field, according to a recent study.

That study, called ‘No One Can See You Now: Five Reasons Why Access to Primary Care Is Getting Worse (and What Needs to Change)’ was published by the Millbank Memorial Fund, and goes on at length to explain those reasons, and what needs to change.

Spoiler Alert: Like physicians, primary care nurse practitioners make less money, often for more work, and far less restricted scope of practice. Or, borrowing from an old political mantra, “It’s the money, stupid!” Or, as the WaPo article quotes Candice Chen, an associate professor of health policy and management at George Washington University, “We get what we pay for.”

It is, of course, more than just the raw amount of money. It is also how much NPs – and physicians – are paid for the amount of work that they do. This work is undervalued for primary care, based upon the notion that, somehow, being expert in a narrow specialty and knowing a lot about a little, is worth more than having a broad knowledge and being able to help a lot of people, most people, a great deal. Thus, subspecialists dramatically limit their practices to what they feel most expert at and expect the primary care clinician to do everything else. This often includes preparing people for a procedure and following them up after, which are both completely the responsibility of the person doing the procedure. Subspecialists particularly like to send paperwork back to primary care. “Your primary care doctor (or NP) will have to take care of this.” Implication: ‘Unlike primary care clinicians, I do important things.’

I would argue that managing people’s health is doing important things. Which is what the primary care clinician (family physician, general internist, general pediatrician, or the NPs that work in these fields) does. Managing the actual person, you, not just one of your diseases, or one aspect of one of your diseases; being knowledgeable about you, your life, and the interactions of all your conditions and the impact that they have on the rest of your life.

How might this manifest? Let’s say you have knee pain. You go to your family physician, who examines it, and decides that you need an x-ray. They review the x-ray and the report, and decide that you might benefit from seeing an orthopedist. They fill out the referral. Then, after the consultation and recommendation from the orthopedist, they review it, and decide how to implement the treatment. That is a lot of work. The orthopedist was done in a few minutes. Guess who gets paid, altogether, more?

Like the physicians that employ them, NPs are often very expert in their limited area (say, heart failure management), but often do not know how to manage that problem in the context of a person whose other diseases or medications may complicate that. This is where the (underpaid) primary care clinician, physician or NP, has to come in. It is a lot of responsibility, a lot of work, and often a lot of extra hours. One NP profiled in the WaPo article is taking training to become a dermatological NP. This is one of the medical fields with the highest pay/work ratios. Most of its work is not emergent and can conveniently be scheduled during the day during the week, and is less likely than many other specialties’ work to interfere with treatment for other conditions. And it is very highly reimbursed.

Should people be paid based upon the amount and difficulty of their work? If we did, people doing the most difficult work that everyone agrees needs to be done but that most people do not want to do (e.g., picking up the garbage, doing farm work in the hot sun) would be paid more than those who get fancy offices and lots of perks and boss folks around (e.g., CEOs). But difficult can have other definitions; this is really a separate discussion. In health care, for physicians (and now NPs) it should be how they contribute to the system. Currently the usual measure is money, that is, how much a given practitioner brings into the practice, or more commonly now, to their employer (often a health system), which is based on how much payors (insurers) pay for different things. That amount is not God-given, but a matter of policies that could be changed. Two mechanisms through which the amount of reimbursement is set are the RUC and the facility fee. The RUC is a group of non-governmental physicians appointed by the AMA that makes recommendations on how Medicare money should be divided up between specialists – like “one gallbladder removal is worth 6 complete examinations”, or whatever. Medicare is not required to accept their recommendations, but they usually do. And – surprise – the RUC is mostly made up of subspecialists, not primary care clinicians!

The facility fee is an amount that Medicare (and other insurers, see below) tack on to the physician fee if the practice is owned by a health system rather than a physician, and is often several times the fee for the procedure. To be clear, this means that if I receive a procedure today from a physician in their office and you get the same procedure in the same office by the same physician next week, but in the interim that practice has been acquired by a health system, the charge will be MUCH more. Medicare or your insurance may pay it, or most of it, but your co-pay will be much higher, and all of our premiums go up. This practice is hardly ever made apparent or explained in advance to patients (“Hi, thanks for calling. Just to let you know, Dr. Smith’s practice was just acquired by the MuchProfit Health System, so you will be charged three times as much for your procedure as you would have been last week.”) This is so insidious (not to say evil, but it is evil) that even doctors are often surprised, as revealed in the essay by Dr. Danielle Ofri in the New York Times (June 17, 2024) ‘Even Doctors Like Me Are Falling Into This Medical Bill Trap’ and the follow-up letters and comments from other physicians.

The fact that facility fees and the RUC are about Medicare does not mean that they do not affect the fees, cost, and reimbursement from other insurers. Almost all insurers payment rates are set as multiples of Medicare. That is, if Medicare pays $100 for something, they may pay $150 or $200 (and, more recently, those multiples are lower, with patient responsibility higher). Changing these two factors, facility fees and RUC allocations, for Medicare will affect all insurers and make a real difference in income (which is why most subspecialists and hospitals oppose them).

Should primary care clinicians be paid more, or subspecialists less, or somewhere in between? Whichever, by decreasing the difference more clinicians are likely to enter primary care specialties. And, whichever, the raking off of facility fees to increase the wealth of hospitals, not to mention the pocketing of huge profits by insurers, has to stop.

People, patients, polypills, primary care and POEMs: Making your health better in the real world

A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, ”Polypill Strategy in Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention”, also covered by the New York Times, demonstrated that people who had previous cardiovascular events, (ie., myocardial infarction -- MI, heart attack, stroke or urgent need for bypass for impending MI), had fewer recurrent heart attacks, including fatal ones, strokes, and urgent needs for bypass if they were treated with one pill a day (“polypill”) that combined their recommended medications than they did if they took multiple pills multiple times a day. The conclusion (from the Abstract) summarizes it as:

Treatment with a polypill containing aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin within 6 months after myocardial infarction resulted in a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events than usual care.

This is good news, if not entirely surprising. The effectiveness of medications in preventing recurrent disease is a combination of both how effective the medication is if “taken as directed” and how difficult it is for a person (or, from a doctor-centered perspective, how “compliant” a “patient” is) to take the medication as directed. For an example of what this means, consider birth control, where “theoretical effectiveness” (how effective a method of pregnancy prevention would be if "used as directed" 100% of the time) is contrasted to “use effectiveness” (how likely a person who is ostensibly using a particular method of birth control is to get pregnant). Obviously, what matters to a person who does not want to get pregnant is the latter, and this is greatly impacted by how easy it is to not use it. Condoms and diaphragms have to be used every time and oral contraceptives have to be taken every day, which can contribute to a lower use effectiveness than forms of contraception that do not require this, such as IUDs and implants, known as LARC, long-acting reversible contraception.

So back to prevention of heart attack: Who is surprised that taking one pill a day results in better compliance than taking more pills more often? Hands? No one? Maybe cardiologists, since the alternative was “usual care”, which must have been “multiple pills multiple times a day”. Any sentient person would know, without needing to be a doctor, scientist, statistician, or epidemiologist, that taking one pill a day is not only easier but much more likely to happen than taking multiple pills, and especially taking pills multiple times. Remember, the medication only works if you take it, and the harder you make it to take, the less likely people will and the less likely it is to work. Even drug companies know this; you probably have noticed that when a drug is about to lose its patent one of the first “new drugs” that the company comes out with is a long-acting version of it that you have to take only once a day! I cannot prove that they would have been able to release this in the first place but instead held it in reserve just for this reason, but I would not be surprised. One pill once a day is also likely to be cheaper (except while under patent) and this is a big issue for people who have difficulty affording their medications (ie., most of us, but especially those with lower incomes. In the US, of course).

Though it seems obvious that one pill a day is more likely to be taken, this research study is not without importance. For starters, it showed that it worked to take one pill combining 3 drugs once a day. After all, if it didn’t help prevent disease, it wouldn’t be desirable. That it worked better than “usual care” is almost certainly related to it being one pill once a day, and how difficult it is to remember to take pills more often. [Even those of you who do not have chronic disease: have you ever been given antibiotics to take 4 times a day for 10 days? How often have you actually taken all 40 within the 10 days, even after you’ve started feeling better sooner?] We may presume that taking the multiple pills multiple times a day would have worked as well if people had done it, but because they don’t, it didn’t work as well. The contribution of the study is to show that the one pill once a day works, and because it is one pill once a day, works better.

Another important thing that the study did  is to look at meaningful outcomes: death, repeat heart attack or stroke, need for bypass. This also seems like a “duh”, if you are a regular person, but it has been common in the literature to not measure these but often “intervening variables” such as changes in cholesterol level (or blood sugar, or whatever you are studying) because this is easier to do and requires less follow-up. But having lower cholesterol, for example, only matters to the extent that you are less likely to have a heart attack or stroke!

When this study first came out, I commented on FB and Twitter that

‘Family physicians and other primary care clinicians know this better than subspecialists, since they are focused on "what works best for the disease?" and we on "what is going to work for this person?"!’

Of course, this is, probably, not completely true for all family physicians and all subspecialists, but it is certainly true that it is more likely for primary care clinicians to think about and be aware of how a treatment affects the whole person. Subspecialists are usually concerned with treating one condition, “their” disease”, and at how the treatment they prescribe ameliorates that, while primary care clinicians are looking at how it affects the person’s life. One simple example is drug interactions and “side effects” (which are actually just effects, but not the effects we want). Primary care clinicians care for a person with all the conditions that they have and have to not only see how, for example, their heart disease medicine works for the heart disease but if it is bad for another disease they have, or if its side effects (or difficult regimen, multiple pills multiple times a day) means that they don’t take it.

In research, family physicians and other primary care clinicians have looked for Patient-Oriented Evidence (POE) as opposed to Disease-Oriented Evidence (DOE). DOE looks at whether a treatment, usually in an experimental setting (which often has many differences from real life, such as free medicine and people to remind you to take it!) makes a disease better, while POE looks at whether it makes the person’s life, as a whole, better. This is important, especially if you are a person. (Or probably if you are an animal!) Indeed, family physicians have taken this a step farther to Patient-Oriented Evidence that Matters (POEMs), with sections reviewing recent research that does featured in several family medicine journals. POEMs is, in addition to being a cute acronym, has meaning; not all evidence, disease or patient oriented, actually matters. For example, the study cited above: showing that using a polypill decreases your risk of cardiovascular events and improves your life matters, while simply showing a change in a lab value might well not.

It is really good that there are treatments for diseases, whether common (like heart disease) or rare (like, ironically, I just discovered a rare blood condition also called POEMS!) that can make you better. It is also really good that there are subspecialists who know about them and can make recommendations for treatment (especially for the rarer ones) and who keep up on the literature. But it is also important that there is someone keeping an eye on the person, the patient, with all their diseases and medicines and treatment regimens and side effects, and, oh yeah, the stressors of their everyday life with money, and family, and work (or not having work) and how in heck, in this country, they are going to pay for their treatment. These are the real components of real life, sometimes called the “social determinants of health”, that are poorly addressed by US healthcare.

Polypills are good, as are POEMs. And so are primary care clinicians, especially when their employers allow them sufficient time and encouragement to actually provide comprehensive care for their patients.