Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The deadly shortage of primary care doctors

people sitting in a waiting room

Over the last 30 years, there has been a shortage in primary care physicians relative to surgery and other procedure-based specialties.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Lee is a staff physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and an instructor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

There is little debate that there is a deadly and worsening shortage in primary care, and that primary care is a cost-effective and evidence-based model of health care that promotes wellness and prolongs life.

For example, an epidemiological study of U.S. population data found that every 10 additional primary care physicians per 100,000 people was associated with a 51.5-day increase in life expectancy. However, from 2005 to 2015, the density of primary care physicians decreased from 46.6 to 41.4 per 100,000. Despite this, only 5 percent of total health care dollars are spent on primary care. In Medicare, only 3 percent is spent on primary care despite the greater needs of older and disabled adults for care coordination and management of chronic conditions.

The deadly and worsening shortage has been recognized for years.


Its progression has occurred despite the efforts from various governments and organizations. It is primarily the result of a very biased payment system that richly rewards surgeons and other procedure-based specialties. Cognitive-based specialties such as primary care are reimbursed less than procedure-based specialties such as surgery. This pay disparity is further aggravated by primary care’s financial reliance on fee-for-service payment, which is a retrospective approach that depends on maximizing volume and hence rushed visits. These issues have over the last 30 years generated a shortage in primary care physicians relative to surgery and other procedure-based specialties.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The origin of this flawed payment system dates to the 1970s. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was created in 1977. In 1986, CMS formed the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to help solve rising health care costs. MedPAC was heavily influenced by the American Medical Association, which in turn was heavily influenced by various surgical and other procedure-based specialties. In 1992, CMS, heavily influenced by MedPAC, created the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. MPFS richly rewards surgery and other procedure-based specialties. Cognitive-based specialties such as primary care were thereafter reimbursed less. The MPFS was pivotal for physician payment since private insurances typically base their payment amounts on Medicare reimbursements.

In 1991, George H.W. Bush’s administration started a conversation about health reform, and that issue became a focus of the Clinton administration. In 1996, the Institute of Medicine released a report that made comprehensive recommendations to improve primary care. Since then, there have been several other IOM reports. Unfortunately, most of the recommendations were never implemented. In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aided primary care through the expansion of federally qualified health centers, Medicaid expansion and health information support. It, however, did little to implement most of IOM’s 1996 recommendations.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on the state of primary care of 2021 was significant for electing to use the 1996 IOM report as a starting point but then focusing on implementation. It highlighted that decades of underinvestment, the lower primary care physician reimbursement rate, and reliance on a fee-for-service business model have all significantly contributed to the deteriorating state of primary care and the shortage of primary care doctors. The NASEM report of 2021 outlined five key objectives to implement to repair primary care. It, however, prioritized payment reform as the most critical topic to reverse the trends and strengthen primary care.

No one is claiming that doctors are poorly paid, but the shortage is the result of less compensation for primary care relative to other specialties. When a medical student is faced with a debt of about $200,000 and is choosing a specialty, he/she is opting for a specialty with twice if not three times the annual salary of a primary care physician. Bills are being proposed that offer loan forgiveness for medical students who choose primary care and agree to practice in rural settings. If passed, these measures should help in the long term to increase access, especially in rural areas, but this is a slow fix to a problem that is quickly accelerating due to an aging workforce, many of whom are opting for early retirement.

Changing how and how much Medicare and private insurances pay for primary care is essential. I believe that Congress must have the authority to instigate and enforce these changes. In turn, patients need to make local and national legislators aware of the dire circumstances in primary care and how it is impacting their lives. Patients need to demand more government and private investment in primary care and a complete overhaul of the primary care physician payment system and business model. Congress can task CMS to implement these changes and/or create new expert panels. Congress should consider the following to strengthen primary care:

  • It should modernize the flawed and outdated MPFS. It should task CMS and a new expert panel to use the current evidence to design a new MPFS or even create two separate fee schedules to help protect payments for primary-care-related services from being decreased to accommodate for increased payments for other specialty services.
  • It should help create an additional business model and source of revenue other than the existing fee-for-service business model. Congress should help develop a partial capitated per-member per-month payment model. This should provide primary care physicians a fixed amount per patient in advance to write renewal prescriptions, battle insurance companies; denials of ‘edications and treatments, and answer patient e-mail and telephone questions.
  • It should direct CMS to require an increase in overall spend on primary care. CMS could require Medicare and other plans to not just report annual spending but to mandate that a greater proportion of total spending is dedicated to primary care.

Americans need to realize that the limited accessibility, rushed primary care visits, and rising health care costs are due to a biased payment system that favors procedures rather than primary care. They will hopefully promptly realize the last few decades have proven that only a top-down approach will work and that their voices are necessary to drive the needed physician payment reforms that will re-vitalize if not save primary care. It is my hope that every American will reach out to their respective representatives in Congress and advocate.

Read More

Connecticut lawmakers consider new bill to ban female genital mutilation/cutting

Every U.S. state needs a comprehensive law against female genital mutilation and cutting.

U.S. End FGM/C Network and Equality Now

Connecticut lawmakers consider new bill to ban female genital mutilation/cutting

Optimism is growing that a new Bill in Connecticut will lead to the introduction of a statewide ban against female genital mutilation/ cutting (FGM/C). Thousands of women and girls across the state have undergone or are at risk of this harmful practice. Despite this, Connecticut remains one of just nine U.S. states that still lack state-level legal protections—something advocates hope this legislation will finally change.

Survivors and others from impacted communities, alongside women’s rights advocates and civil society organizations - including the U.S. Network to End FGM/C, Sahiyo, Equality Now, and the Connecticut General Assembly’s Commission on Women, Children, Seniors, Equity, and Opportunity - have long called for state legislation against FGM/C in Connecticut, citing how a law would help those at risk and their families resist cultural and social pressures to continue the practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Anti-LGBTQ+ policies harm the health of not only LGBTQ+ people, but all Americans

Courts across the nation are debating whether LGBTQ+ people should be protected from discrimination.

Anti-LGBTQ+ policies harm the health of not only LGBTQ+ people, but all Americans

In 2024, state legislatures introduced an all-time record of 533 bills targeting LGBTQ+ populations. These policies create a patchwork of legal landscapes that vary widely between and within states, affecting aspects of everyday life ranging from how kids learn and play to where adults live and work.

All of these policies have implications for the health of not only LGBTQ+ people but also the general public.

Keep ReadingShow less
Transgender Athletes: President Trump’s Executive Order is Merely Symbolic

U.S. President Donald Trump signs a series of executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House on February 10, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Transgender Athletes: President Trump’s Executive Order is Merely Symbolic

On February 5th, President Trump signed an executive order regarding transgender athletes and their participation in women’s sports, effectively outlawing the practice. But is it law?

While the President has tremendous power, especially when it comes to directing the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) interpretation of statutes, his executive order likely won’t survive.

Keep ReadingShow less
If we can come together on family policy, so should Congress
man in long sleeve shirt standing beside girl in pink tank top washing hands
Photo by CDC on Unsplash

If we can come together on family policy, so should Congress

The issues facing families with young children in our country are numerous and well-known. It’s our politics that’s been the problem.

We know that the share of the federal budget devoted to children is relatively small and declining as a share of spending. Parents frequently want different arrangements for care and work than they can afford or negotiate, and parents’ jobs may not leave enough time or flexibility to care for young children. The share of people having children is declining, with many citing cost concerns. People with children are citing higher levels of pessimism about the future that awaits their kids. But our divided politics has gotten in the way of addressing these challenges. Or so it seemed.

Keep ReadingShow less