By Maanasa Kona, Megan Houston, and Nia Gooding

It is hard to overstate the importance of primary care in ensuring robust health outcomes at the population level. Evidence shows that not only can primary care prevent illness and death, but it is also associated with more equitable distribution of health in populations. Countries with strong primary care systems experience better health outcomes than those with weak primary care systems, including reduced unnecessary hospitalization and less socioeconomic inequality, as well as improved management of chronic diseases. The United States falls short on a number of indicators that demonstrate the strength of a nation’s primary care system.

To strengthen a national primary care system, a threshold issue to consider is how to improve access. The primary care access problem can be divided into five composite and interconnected dimensions: (1) availability of primary care clinicians, (2) accessibility of primary care services geographically, (3) accommodation in terms of appointment availability and hours, (4) affordability, and (5) acceptability in terms of comfort and communication between patient and clinician.

In a new report, CHIR’s Maanasa Kona and Megan Houston as well as former CHIR team member Nia Gooding reviewed the research to assess whether policy initiatives targeting primary care access have been effective in reducing health care disparities. Their report, published by the Milbank Memorial Fund, is available  here, and five fact sheets distilling the information from the reports here.

The authors’ work was supported by the National Institute for Health Care Reform.