Characteristics of primary care office visits to nurse practitioners, physician assistants and physicians in United States Veterans Health Administration facilities, 2005 to 2010: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND: Primary care, an essential determinant of health system equity, efficiency, and effectiveness, is threatened by inadequate supply and distribution of the provider workforce. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has been a frontrunner in the use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Evaluation of the roles and impact of NPs and PAs in the VHA is critical to ensuring optimal care for veterans and may inform best practices for use of PAs and NPs in other settings around the world. The purpose of this study was to characterize the use of NPs and PAs in VHA primary care and to examine whether their patients and patient care activities were, on average, less medically complex than those of physicians. METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of administrative data from VHA primary care encounters between 2005 and 2010. Patient and patient encounter characteristics were compared across provider types (PA, NP, and physician). RESULTS: NPs and PAs attend about 30% of all VHA primary care encounters. NPs, PAs, and physicians fill similar roles in VHA primary care, but patients of PAs and NPs are slightly less complex than those of physicians, and PAs attend a higher proportion of visits for the purpose of determining eligibility for benefits. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a highly successful nationwide primary care system relies on NPs and PAs to provide over one quarter of primary care visits, and that these visits are similar to those of physicians with regard to patient and encounter characteristics. These findings can inform health workforce solutions to physician shortages in the USA and around the world. Future research should compare the quality and costs associated with various combinations of providers and allocations of patient care work, and should elucidate the approaches that maximize quality and efficiency.

Cost of wind energy: comparing distant wind resources to local resources in the midwestern United States.

The best wind sites in the United States are often located far from electricity demand centers and lack transmission access. Local sites that have lower quality wind resources but do not require as much power transmission capacity are an alternative to distant wind resources. In this paper, we explore the trade-offs between developing new wind generation at local sites and installing wind farms at remote sites. We first examine the general relationship between the high capital costs required for local wind development and the relatively lower capital costs required to install a wind farm capable of generating the same electrical output at a remote site,with the results representing the maximum amount an investor should be willing to pay for transmission access. We suggest that this analysis can be used as a first step in comparing potential wind resources to meet a state renewable portfolio standard (RPS). To illustrate, we compare the cost of local wind (∼50 km from the load) to the cost of distant wind requiring new transmission (∼550-750 km from the load) to meet the Illinois RPS. We find that local, lower capacity factor wind sites are the lowest cost option for meeting the Illinois RPS if new long distance transmission is required to access distant, higher capacity factor wind resources. If higher capacity wind sites can be connected to the existing grid at minimal cost, in many cases they will have lower costs.

Variation in use of surveillance colonoscopy among colorectal cancer survivors in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend colonoscopies at regular intervals for colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. Using data from a large, multi-regional, population-based cohort, we describe the rate of surveillance colonoscopy and its association with geographic, sociodemographic, clinical, and health services characteristics. METHODS: We studied CRC survivors enrolled in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study. Eligible survivors were diagnosed between 2003 and 2005, had curative surgery for CRC, and were alive without recurrences 14 months after surgery with curative intent. Data came from patient interviews and medical record abstraction. We used a multivariate logit model to identify predictors of colonoscopy use. RESULTS: Despite guidelines recommending surveillance, only 49% of the 1423 eligible survivors received a colonoscopy within 14 months after surgery. We observed large regional differences (38% to 57%) across regions. Survivors who received screening colonoscopy were more likely to: have colon cancer than rectal cancer (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.05-1.90); have visited a primary care physician (OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.14-1.82); and received adjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.27-2.41). Compared to survivors with no comorbidities, survivors with moderate or severe comorbidities were less likely to receive surveillance colonoscopy (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.49-0.98 and OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.66, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite guidelines, more than half of CRC survivors did not receive surveillance colonoscopy within 14 months of surgery, with substantial variation by site of care. The association of primary care visits and adjuvant chemotherapy use suggests that access to care following surgery affects cancer surveillance.