Health Affairs

This Article Abstract Submit a response to this article Services E-mail this article to a friend Alert me to new issues of the journal

H E A L T H  S Y S T E M S
P R I M A R Y  C A R E
W E B  E X C L U S I V E   

28 October 2004  
  

Primary Care And 
Health System Performance: 
Adults’ Experiences In Five Countries

Differing performance levels among countries highlight
the potential for improvement and cross-national learning.

By Cathy Schoen, Robin Osborn, Phuong Trang Huynh,
Michelle Doty, Karen Davis, Kinga Zapert, and Jordon Peugh

ABSTRACT:

This paper reports on a 2004 survey of primary care experiences among adults in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The survey finds shortfalls in delivery of safe, effective, timely, or patient-centered care, with variations among countries. Delays in lab test results and test errors raise safety concerns. Failures to communicate, to engage patients, or to promote health are widespread. Aside from clinical preventive care, the United States performs poorly on most care dimensions in the study, with notable cost-related access concerns and short-term physician relationships. Contrasts across countries point to the potential to improve performance and to learn from international initiatives.

Primary care stands at the center of medical care systems. Key functions include providing an entry point, delivering core medical and preventive care, and helping patients coordinate and integrate care.¹ When working well, each of these dimensions is instrumental in improving health outcomes and cost performance.² Ready access to effective primary care also offers the potential to reduce disparities in care, increasing citizens’ opportunities to live healthy, productive lives. Internationally, a shared challenge in the twenty-first century is how to redesign primary care to make care more accessible, continuous, coordinated, and patient-centered. Calls to redesign care systems include an emphasis on promoting health and engaging patients in their own care.³

This paper presents findings from the 2004 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the seventh in a series of annual international surveys.⁴ The 2004 survey focuses on primary care and ambulatory care experiences.
In each of these countries, the quest to improve system performance has sparked an array of primary care initiatives. These operate within varying country contexts.⁵

The United States is unique for its high percentage of specialists (60 percent or more, depending on definition), mix of primary care doctors, cost sharing, and high rates of uninsurance. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom rely on general practitioners (GPs) and family practice doctors for primary care; less than half of all physicians are specialists. The United Kingdom is unique among the five countries for requiring that patients register with a GP clinic and that GPs have arrangements for after-hours care. It is also the only country that pays for care based on capitation, with performance incentives. The other four countries all pay predominantly fee for service, although New Zealand is moving toward capitation.⁶ The United Kingdom also provides the most comprehensive coverage, with few or no patient costs. Canada also covers physician care in full but leaves gaps in pharmacy care. Australia’s and New Zealand’s universal insurance systems include provisions for cost sharing for doctor visits as well as for other care.

Survey methods. The survey explores recent experiences with access to care, emergency care, coordination, continuity, and doctor-patient interactions. The survey also sought adults’ views of choice, access to medical records, e-mail communication with physicians, and care systems overall. By identifying areas of shared concern and contrasting country differences from the patient perspective, the study seeks to inform policy efforts. Findings indicate substantial room for improvement in all five countries on key dimensions of care quality and missed opportunities to communicate, coordinate care, and engage patients. Country variations point to the potential to learn from cross-national experiences.

The survey consisted of telephone interviews with random, representative samples of people age eighteen and older in each of the five countries. The questionnaire was designed by researchers at the Commonwealth Fund and Harris Interactive, with the advice of and review by experts in each country, and it drew from concepts and modified scales in surveys developed for primary care.⁷ Except for minor wording changes to reflect terminology differences, the same instrument was used in each country. Harris Interactive and country affiliates conducted telephone interviews between 29 March and 17 May 2004. Interviews lasted an average of seventeen minutes. The survey was conducted in English, with a French option in Canada and a Spanish option in the United States.

The final samples of adults were 1,400 in Australia, 1,410 in Canada, 1,400 in New Zealand, 3,061 in the United Kingdom, and 1,401 in the United States. The Commonwealth Fund provided support for random samples of 1,400 in each country. The Health Foundation partnered with the fund to expand the U.K. sample in specific regions, to enable future analysis by U.K. country.⁸

All surveys are subject to sampling error. The margin of sampling error is approximately plus or minus three percentage points for differences between countries and plus or minus two percentage points for country averages at the 95 percent confidence level. Poststratification weights were applied in each country to adjust for variations between the sample demographics and known population parameters. Analysis compared responses between or within countries using t-tests and chi-square tests. Text and exhibits indicate where differences were significant at the .05 level. The exhibits compare each country, indicating where country pairs differ significantly.⁹

Survey Findings

Views of the health system. The survey asked about system views, confidence, and general cost experiences. Based on a question also asked in 1998 and 2001, the United States stands out as the most negative in overall public views and the United Kingdom as the most positive, repeating a pattern observed across the six years. One-third of U.S. adults called for rebuilding in 2004, with public discontent up since 2001, returning to 1998 levels (Exhibit 1). In contrast, U.K. system views have improved since 2001. In New Zealand and Canada, views have grown more positive across the six-year period, with a marked decline in the vote to rebuild. Australia has fluctuated over time. Yet in all of the countries, majorities continue to call for major reforms. Moreover, in all five countries, only a minority of adults are “very confident” that they will get high-quality, safe medical care when needed.

When respondents were asked about total out-of-pocket costs during the past year, wide differences emerged. The United States stands out for the greatest exposure to costs, and the United Kingdom for the least. More than one-quarter of U.S. adults (both insured and uninsured) spent more than $1,000 out of pocket on health care in the past year, far exceeding expense burdens in the other countries. Reflecting national insurance designs that include patient cost sharing or benefit gaps, adults in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand were more exposed to costs than their U.K. counterparts but less so than U.S. adults.

Access. Having a usual doctor or place for care with a relationship over time provides a critical foundation for primary care. The vast majority of adults in all five countries reported having either a regular doctor or place of care, such as a clinic, health center, or group practice (Exhibit 2). The United States was notable, with about one in ten adults having no usual person or place and nearly one in five, no usual doctor. Except in the United States, these relationships tended to be long-term. Nearly two thirds of U.K. adults had been with the same doctor or place of care for more than five years, as had the majority of adults in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In contrast, only 37 percent of U.S. adults had such long-term relationships.

To explore accessibility to patients, the survey asked about timeliness, twenty-four-hour availability, and financial access. Reports revealed striking between-country differences. The majority of adults in New Zealand and Australia said that they received appointments the same day the last time they were sick and needed medical attention. In contrast, only one-third or less of Canadian or U.S. adults reported such rapid access. Canadian and U.S. adults also reported long waits, with 20–25 percent waiting at least six days to get an appointment when sick, a waiting time rare in Australia or New Zealand.

Difficulty in getting care nights, weekends, or holidays was of significant concern in all five countries. Although problems were most widespread in the United States, majorities of adults in Australia and Canada also said that after-hours access was difficult. Even in New Zealand, where the rate of difficulty was lowest, one-third of adults viewed after-hours access as difficult.

Telephone help lines provide a potential source for primary care access after hours. In the United Kingdom, NHS Direct operates a twenty-four-hour telephone nurse advice and information service. When respondents were asked about any use of such assistance in the past two years, help lines were used most frequently in Canada and the United Kingdom, followed by the United States.¹⁰

Access concerns were also related to costs. As found in past surveys, the percentage of adults who went without care because of costs correlated closely with countries’ insurance systems. With a system characterized by high uninsurance rates and cost sharing for the insured, U.S. adults were the most likely to say that they did not see a doctor when sick, did not get recommended tests or follow-up care, or went without prescription medications because of costs in the past year. New Zealand rates of not seeing a doctor rivaled U.S. rates and were significantly higher than rates in the other three countries. The United Kingdom and Canada stand out for having negligible cost-related access problems. Australia stands midway between the country extremes.

Lower-income adults’ access to care was particularly sensitive to costs, with problems again the most acute in the United States. Among adults with incomes below countries’ national medians, the share going without any of the three services because of cost ranged from a low of 12 percent in the United Kingdom, 26 percent in Canada, 35 percent in Australia, and 44 percent in New Zealand to a high of 57 percent in the United States (data not shown in Exhibit 2).

Emergency room care. The emergency room (ER) serves as a sensitive indicator for how well care systems are responding to patients’ needs. ER use rates during the past two years were significantly higher in Canada and the United States than the other three countries (Exhibit 3). Canadian and U.S. adults were also more likely to have gone to the ER for care that their regular source could have provided if available. In these two countries, such ER visits accounted for about half of recent ER use. The survey also found use of the ER substituting for regular physician care in the other three countries, but to a lesser extent. Notably, adults in Canada and the United States were less likely than adults in the other countries to report rapid access to doctors when sick and more likely to say that after-hours access was difficult. In combination, these indicators signal widespread patient concerns about timely primary care access in both countries.

The quality of ER care was of concern in all countries. Long waiting times (two hours or more) were common. ER waits appear to be a particular concern in Canada, but waits were also often long in the United Kingdom and United States. Lack of effective ER response to pain emerged as a shared concern across countries. Among those in pain when they went to the ER, at most half of adults in any country thought that the ER staff did everything they could to help control pain. Australian and U.K. ERs received the highest marks for pain relief, but even in these countries substantial shares of patients thought that the staff could have done more. In all countries, reports of follow-up care after ER visits indicate frequent gaps in continuity with primary care doctors. Among those with a usual care source and an ER visit, 28–36 percent said that their doctor did not seem informed or up-to-date about care received in the ER.

Coordination. Improving coordination and continuity of care are key goals of primary care initiatives. Failure to coordinate care across sites of care or capture episodes of care in patients’ medical histories can lead to medical errors, undermine quality and outcomes, increase duplication and other inefficiencies, and frustrate and overwhelm patients. The survey found coordination concerns in all five countries.

Seeing multiple doctors and other health professionals was the norm, with little variation by country (Exhibit 4). Among those with a recent doctor visit, one in four or more adults in each country reported a problem with coordination of care based on three indicators: Test results or medical records were not available at the time of a scheduled appointment; patients received duplicate tests or procedures; patients received conflicting information; or some combination. U.S. rates were significantly higher than at least three of the other four countries on each measure.

About two of five adults said that they take prescription drugs regularly, with the majority of these taking multiple medications. Among those taking prescription drugs regularly, failures by physicians to review medications were frequent, raising risks of drug interactions. High proportions also said that their doctor had not explained medication side effects. On these indicators, U.K. adults were significantly more likely to cite failures to review or explain side effects of medications, but rates were high in all countries.

Timely receipt and accuracy of lab and diagnostic results emerged as a coordination and safety risk. Among those with a recent test, 16–28 percent said that there was a time when they did not receive results or that results were not clearly explained. Rates of results delayed or not explained were significantly lower in Australia and higher in Canada than in the other countries.

Raising safety concerns, 8–15 percent of patients said that they were given incorrect test results (either false positive or negative) or had experienced delays in being notified about abnormal results. Test error rates were highest in Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Also, as seen with the ER, continuity and coordination gaps with primary care also occurred after hospitalization.

Missed opportunities: doctor-patient communications and interactions. A key goal of efforts to improve performance and primary care is to make care more patient-centered. On this dimension, the study reveals missed opportunities to identify patients’ preferences or concerns, to communicate well, or to engage patients in care decisions. Across countries, most adults rated their doctors positively, and the majority said that their doctor always listens carefully and explains things clearly (Exhibit 5). In each country, adults were much less positive about physicians’ spending adequate time with them. New Zealand and Australia adults were the most positive on these measures, repeating patterns observed in earlier surveys.¹¹ On each of these measures, U.S. adults were significantly less likely to score their doctors highly and the most likely among the five countries to report concerns.

Asked to consider times when they needed care or treatment, the majority of patients in all countries except the United States think that their doctors always make goals and plans clear, with Australia and New Zealand being the most positive; one in five U.K. and U.S. adults responded negatively to this item.

Failure to engage patients in treatment or care plans was frequent in all countries. One-third to half of respondents said that their doctors sometimes, rarely, or never tell them about choices or involve them in care decisions. Survey findings further indicate failure to solicit questions from patients. In four of five countries, at least one in five adults reported a recent time when they left the doctor’s office without getting important questions answered.

A significant share of adults in each country also reported a time when they did not follow their doctor’s advice, with nonadherence rates highest in the United States. Repeating patterns observed in a survey of sicker adults, one of the leading reasons for nonadherence was disagreement with the recommendation.¹² In the United States and New Zealand, costs were also named as one of the top three reasons. Not taking medications as prescribed was the advice most commonly disregarded in all countries (data on nonadherence reasons or type are not shown).

Preventive care and health promotion. A hallmark of high-quality primary care is an emphasis on preventive care, counseling, and awareness of patients’ health concerns. Findings indicate shortfalls in promoting health in all five countries (Exhibit 6). On provisions of clinical preventive care, however, the United States tended to lead or rank high among countries. The survey reveals a failure to routinely make sure patients are up-to-date on recommended preventive care. In all countries the percentage of the elderly receiving a flu shot in the past year fell short of guidelines, with rates lowest in Canada and New Zealand.

Country guidelines vary for Pap test (cervical cancer screen) and mammograms for both frequency and age ranges.¹³ To compare rates, we calculated the percentage of women meeting country-specific guidelines and also compared screening rates for an age range shared in common. On Pap tests, U.S. women were the most likely and Australian women the least likely to be screened within guidelines. Mammography within guidelines varied more narrowly, with about three of four women reporting a screen within the recommended time period. Both measures indicate that sizable shares of women are not being screened as recommended. Comparing frequency rates for a fixed age range shows wider variation across countries on both measures. Within the 25–64 (Pap test) and 50–64 (mammogram) age ranges, rates for Pap tests and mammograms within the past two years were lowest in the United Kingdom and highest in the United States.

The study findings indicate an overall lack of emphasis on prevention. At least half of adults in each country said that their doctor does not send reminders, has not recently provided advice or counseling on weight or exercise, or has not asked if there were any emotional issues affecting their health. Lack of discussions on weight or exercise is particularly notable, given emerging epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the five countries. Physician outreach may also be particularly important for mental health. Studies indicate that primary care physicians frequently fail to detect depressive symptoms despite the fact that screening can improve care outcomes.¹⁴

The lack of patient-centered care extends to those with chronic illnesses. Despite studies indicating that self-management plans are a critical component to improving or maintaining health for people with a chronic illness, one-third or more of those with a chronic condition diagnosis said “no” when asked if their doctor had given them a plan to manage their care at home.¹⁵

Provider choice, medical records, and e-mail access. Assuring that patients have a choice of providers has emerged as a policy priority in the five countries to varying degrees. The study finds, however, that most adults are somewhat or very satisfied with their current amount of choice (Exhibit 7).

Respondents reported varying access to their medical records, ranging from a low of 28 percent in the United Kingdom to a high of 51 percent in the United States. There appears to be broad interest in spreading this access.

Interest in e-mail communication with physicians exists but appears less widespread than the desire for access to medical records. Among those with Internet access but without e-mail access to doctors, less than half in any country wanted to be able to communicate by e-mail with their doctor. Notably, about one in five adults in each country did not have Internet access.

Discussion And Policy Implications

Primary care is fundamental to a high-performance health care system and plays an important role in health care quality, costs, and outcomes. As the entry point and the setting where the general public is most likely to experience the health care system, primary care also influences public confidence in the system. In all five countries, the study found shortfalls in delivering safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable care, although performance varies among countries. For patients, deficits in accessibility, continuity, and coordination add up to poor quality-of-care experiences. The findings indicate opportunities to take policy action and to learn from countries’ initiatives.

While most of the attention on safety has focused to date on hospitals, adults’ experiences in primary care settings indicate a further set of challenges. Lab and test error rates and delays were notably high, given that this was a random survey of adults rather than a subset of sicker patients. These reports signal a need to improve test information flow and systems to lower error rates. The risk of medication errors, drug interactions, or complications in ambulatory settings also appears high, given the substantial share of adults reporting that their doctors failed to review medications or alert them to potential side effects.

Widespread deficiencies. The study found deficiencies in delivery of effective care as measured by widespread failure to give patients plans to manage chronic conditions at home and gaps in receipt of recommended preventive tests. The fact that the United States performed relatively well on clinical preventive measures suggests that policy leadership, clear guidelines, and market pressures could make a difference. For the past decade, the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS), a U.S. private-sector quality initiative, has targeted clinical preventive care as a core indicator, pressuring health plans to measure and improve outcomes.¹⁶ This pressure, in combination with national policies, likely contributed to high U.S. screening rates. Yet in the United States as well as other countries, only a minority of patients report having had discussions with their physicians about emotional health, despite recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that primary care clinicians ask a few simple questions to screen for depression. Moving from policy to action and accountability in this area could make a difference.

Deficiencies in patient-centered care cut across countries, based on patients’ reports of widespread failure to involve them in treatment decisions and to make goals clear or answer their questions. These communication failures potentially undermine care and contribute to lack of adherence to medical advice.

Access to care is central to a high-performing care system and efforts to redesign primary care. The marked variations in timely access to physicians and variations in ER use point to gaps in each country but also signal the potential to do better. The high rates of same-day access in Australia and New Zealand show that it is possible to design systems to enable rapid response. The fact that these countries also had lower ER use rates and shorter ER waiting times suggests that more timely access to primary care could help ease demands on ERs and improve the continuity of care. Opportunities thus exist for cross-national learning.¹⁷

The study underscores the extent to which patient cost sharing for primary care can undermine accessibility, deter patients from getting recommended care, and contribute to inequities. Access barriers were particularly acute in the United States, where uninsurance rates are high and insured patients face growing cost sharing. U.S. income disparities persist across primary care and quality dimensions and disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities.¹⁸

Adults’ experiences indicate that failure to coordinate care can lead to inefficiencies as measured by delays in care, duplication, lack of information flow, conflicting advice, or wasted time. Coordination failures also undermine effective care, especially when information fails to move from the hospital, ER, or diagnostic sites to where patients see their regular doctors.

Poor U.S. performance. Across multiple dimensions of care, the United States stands out for its relatively poor performance. With the exception of preventive measures, the U.S. primary care system ranked either last or significantly lower than the leaders on almost all dimensions of patient-centered care: access, coordination, and physician-patient experiences. These findings stand in stark contrast to U.S. spending rates that outstrip those of the rest of the world. The performance in other countries indicates that it is possible to do better. However, moving to a higher-performing health care system is likely to require system redesign and innovative policies.¹⁹

Policy implications. A number of tools are available to policy leaders in the five countries we studied as they seek to improve primary care. These countries differ in the extent to which they are pursuing these strategies, offering rich opportunities to inform policy cross-nationally.

Redesign efforts include innovative payment systems that reward high-quality performance and team-based approaches to care. For example, New Zealand’s new Primary Health Organizations, an interdisciplinary model of care for an enrolled population, are based on a population needs–based funding formula, with a focus on increased payments to care for Maori, Pacific Islander; and other low-income, disadvantaged populations.²⁰ A new incentive-based contract for GPs in the United Kingdom explicitly rewards achieving quality targets.²¹

Countries are also looking to learning collaboratives to redesign care. The United Kingdom has an extensive primary care collaborative network to expand same-day access and improve outcomes for chronic conditions.²² ER collaboratives in Australia are under way to improve pain control and reduce waiting times. Australia’s comparatively positive reports on ER waits and pain relief suggest that this collaborative may offer insights for other countries.²³

Policy efforts to improve after-hours coverage could at once respond to patients’ concerns, ease ER stress, and improve links to primary providers. National initiatives offer multiple examples. Australia has implemented several after-hours primary care demonstration projects and recently announced plans to facilitate after-hours GP clinics colocated with emergency departments.²⁴ Canada recently instituted a Primary Health Care Transition Fund to encourage models of round-the-clock, team-based care, which are integrated across services and settings and are focused on health promotion and management of chronic disease.²⁵ The United Kingdom has set up a twenty-four-hour nurse-staffed hotline and NHS Walk-In Centres to improve after-hours care.²⁶ In addition to countries in this study, Denmark has developed evening clinics and physician telephone-triage systems to make care more accessible during off hours.²⁷

A key policy lever is lowering cost barriers to make preventive and primary care more accessible. New Zealand is reducing cost sharing for low-income, child, elderly, and minority populations as part of its primary care initiative, with an endpoint of universal low-cost access for all. In contrast, in the United States, policy pushes toward plans with high front-end deductibles could exacerbate access disparities.²⁸ Affordability concerns likely contribute to the mixed U.S. performance on a range of quality indicators.²⁹

Insurance systems could also encourage continuity with physicians over time. This is a particular challenge in the United States, given the short-term nature of physician-patient relationships reported in our survey. Yet past studies indicate that these frequent changes in the United States are less a matter of patient choice than of switching because of plan changes or network instability.³⁰ Efforts to improve insurance stability as well as coverage could improve continuity. The challenge for the United States is how to redirect the system’s market and competitive orientation to encourage continuity and more patient-centered care.³¹

Perhaps the most powerful health care policy tool that countries are pursuing is investment in information technology (IT).³² Electronic medical records and electronic prescribing systems can reduce medical errors, remind patients and physicians about preventive and follow-up care, and facilitate the sharing of integrated records and information across sites of care. The United Kingdom has made a major investment in moving to an integrated uniform information system encompassing both primary and acute care.³³

Challenges ahead. Wide variations observed among the five countries surveyed suggest that individual countries’ policies make a difference. Although it is beyond the limits of this study to attribute performance to particular policy initiatives, promising initiatives under way in each country warrant further study and tracking over time. The challenge in all five countries is finding the right combination to improve primary care and move to a high-performance care system. The lack of a strong patient-centered or primary care orientation in the United States emerges throughout the survey and underscores the importance of examining international strategies that could be adapted and instituted at home.³⁴

This study was supported by the Commonwealth Fund. The authors thank the editors and four anonymous reviewers for many thoughtful comments that improved this paper. They also gratefully acknowledge the substantial contributions of an expert panel for its advice on the questionnaire. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Commonwealth Fund or its directors or officers.

NOTES

1. B. Starfield, Primary Care (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).
2. J. Macinko, B. Starfield, and L. Shi, “The Contribution of Primary Care Systems to Health Outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Countries, 1970–1998,” Health Services Research 38, no. 3 (2003): 831–865.
3. Institute of Medicine, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the Twenty-first Century (Washington: National Academies Press, 2001); and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Towards High Performing Health Systems (Paris: OECD, 2004).
4. Recent articles in the series include R.J. Blendon et al., “Inequities in Health Care: A Five-Country Survey,” Health Affairs 21, no. 3 (2002): 182–191; R.J. Blendon et al., “Common Concerns amid Diverse Systems: Health Care Experiences in Five Countries,” Health Affairs 22, no. 3 (2003): 117–121; and R.J. Blendon et al., “Confronting Competing Demands to Improve Quality: A Five-Country Hospital Survey,” Health Affairs 23, no. 3 (2004): 119–135.
5. G.F. Anderson, V. Petrosyan, and P.S. Hussey, Multinational Comparisons of Health Systems Data (New York: Commonwealth Fund, October 2002); and Starfield, Primary Care.
6. The Hon. Annette King, minister of health, New Zealand, The Primary Health Care Strategy (Wellington: Ministry of Health, February 2001).
7. D.G. Safran et al., “Measuring Patients’ Experiences with Individual Physicians,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 19 Supp. (2004): 177; A. Coulter and H. Magee, The European Patient of the Future (Maidenhead, U.K.: Open University Press, 2003); and Healthcare Commission and Picker Institute Europe, “Patient Survey Report 2004: Primary Care,” 2004, www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/assetRoot/04/00/86/89/04008689.pdf (20 October 2004).
8. The Health Foundation is an independent charity based in London, www.health.org.uk. Interviews were conducted in London and in Wales, Scotland, and Ireland to assure at least 500 respondents in each area.
9. Differences in survey practices among the countries make calculation of response rates infeasible. Harris made extensive efforts to assure a representative sample. Adults age eighteen and older were selected randomly in households, up to ten attempts were made to make contact, and calls were made at different times and on both weekdays and weekends. Respondents could specify and schedule interview times.
10. In the United Kingdom, the survey named the national help line, NHS Direct or NHS-24.
11. Blendon et al., “Inequities in Health Care”; and Blendon et al., “Common Concerns.”
12. Blendon et al., “Common Concerns.”
13. Pap test guidelines: Australia, ages 18–70, every two years; Canada, ages 18–69, every three years; New Zealand, ages 20–69, every three years; United Kingdom, ages 25–49, every three years, and ages 50–64, every five years; and United States, ages 18–64, every three years. Mammogram guidelines: Australia, ages 50–69, every two years; Canada, ages 50–69, every two years; New Zealand, ages 50–64, every two years; United Kingdom, ages 50–64, every three years; and United States, age 40 and older, every two years.
14. M. Pignone et al., “Screening for Depression in Adults: A Summary of Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,” Annals of Internal Medicine 136, no. 10 (2002): 765–776.
15. E.H. Wagner, “Managed Care and Chronic Illness: Health Services Research Needs,” Health Services Research 32, no. 5 (1977): 702–714.
16. National Committee for Quality Assurance, The State of Health Care Quality, 2003: Industry Trends and Analysis (Washington: NCQA, 2003).
17. M. Murray et al., “Improving Timely Access to Primary Care: Case Studies of the Advance Access Model,” Journal of the American Medical Association 289, no. 8 (2003): 1042–1046.
18. C. Schoen and M. Doty, “Inequities in Access to Medical Care in Five Countries,” Health Policy 67, no. 3 (2004): 309–322; and Institute of Medicine, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care (Washington: National Academies Press, 2003).
19. T. Bodenheimer, “Innovations in Primary Care in the United States,” British Medical Journal 326, no. 7393 (2003): 797–798; and A. Majeed and A.B. Bindman, “What Can Primary Care in the United States Learn from the United Kingdom?” British Medical Journal 326, no. 7393 (2003): 799.
20. King, The Primary Health Strategy.
21. P.C. Smith and N. York, “Quality Incentives: The Case of U.K. General Practitioners,” Health Affairs 23, no. 2 (2004): 112–118.
22. National Primary Care Development Team, “The National Primary Care Collaborative,” www.npdt.org/scripts/default.asp?site_id=5 (27 September 2004).
23. National Institute of Clinical Studies, National Emergency Department Collaborative Report, April 2004, www.nicsl.com.au/knowledge_reports_detail.aspx?view=13 (20 October 2004).
24. Philip Davies, deputy secretary, Australia Department of Health and Ageing, personal communication, 27 September 2004.
25. Health Canada, “Primary Health Care Transition Fund,” 19 November 2002, www.hc-sc.gc.ca/phctf-fassp/english/index.html (1 October 2004).
26. NHS Direct Online, “About NHS Direct: NHS Direct Telephone Service,” www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/innerpage.asp?Area=52 (1 October 2004); and NHS England, “NHS Walk-In Centres,” www.nhs.uk/england/noAppointmentNeeded/walkinCentres/default.aspx (27 September 2004).
27. K. Davis, “The Danish Health System through an American Lens,” Health Policy 59, no. 2 (2002): 119–132.
28. For cautions and critique, see K. Davis, “Consumer Directed Health Care: Will It Improve Health System Performance? Concluding Commentary,” Health Services Research 39, no. 4, Part 2 (2004): 1219–1233.
29. P.S. Hussey et al., “How Does the Quality of Care Compare in Five Countries?” Health Affairs 23, no. 2 (2004): 89–99.
30. K. Davis and C. Schoen, “Assuring Quality, Information, and Choice in Managed Care,” Inquiry 35, no. 2 (1998): 104–114.
31. K. Grumbach and T. Bodenheimer, “A Primary Care Home for Americans: Putting the House in Order,” Journal of the American Medical Association 288, no. 7 (2002): 889–893.
32. W.E. Hammond III, “Electronic Medical Records—Getting It Right and Going to Scale,” January 2004, www.cmwf.org/usr_doc/hammond_emedicalrecords_695.pdf (1 October 2004).
33. NHS Confederation, The National Strategy for IT in the NHS, Briefing no. 88 (London: NHS Confederation, August 2003).
34. Starfield, Primary Care; and K. Davis et al., Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Looking at the Quality of American Health Care through the Patient’s Lens (New York: Commonwealth Fund, January 2004).

Cathy Schoen (CS{at}cmwf.org) is vice president, Health Policy, Research, and Evaluation, at the Commonwealth Fund in New York City. Robin Osborn is vice president, International Health Policy and Practice, there; Phuong Trang Huynh, a program officer; Michelle Doty, a senior analyst; and Karen Davis, president. Kinga Zapert is vice president of Harris Interactive in New York City, where Jordan Peugh is a senior research manager.

DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.var.487
©2004 Project HOPE–The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.