Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Large Independent Primary Care Medical Groups

Lawrence P. Casalino, Melinda A. Chen, C. Todd Staub, Matthew J. Press, Jayme L. Mendelsohn, John T. Lynch and Yesenia Miranda
The Annals of Family Medicine January 2016, 14 (1) 16-25; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1890
Lawrence P. Casalino
1Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
MD, PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: lac2021@med.cornell.edu
Melinda A. Chen
1Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
MD, MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. Todd Staub
2ProHealth Physicians, Farmington, Connecticut
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew J. Press
1Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
MD, MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jayme L. Mendelsohn
1Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John T. Lynch
2ProHealth Physicians, Farmington, Connecticut
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yesenia Miranda
1Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Characteristics of the 5 Primary Care Groups

    CharacteristicArizona Community PhysiciansCentral Ohio Primary Care PhysiciansInfinity Primary Care PhysiciansNew West PhysiciansProHealth Physicians
    LocationArizonaOhioMichiganColoradoConnecticut
    Year started19941996200419941997
    Physicians, No.1302554965242
    Physicians as owners, %9183608175
    Physicians in primary care,a %88691008295
    General internal medicine physicians, %3231333131
    Family medicine physicians, %4520675129
    Geriatricians, %00000
    Hospitalists, %0220140
    Pediatricians, %12180035
    Outpatient practice sites, No.545391790
    Other specialtiesDermatology, endocrinology, gynecology, pediatrics, rheumatologyAllergy, endocrinology, infectious disease, pediatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitationNoneCardiology, gastroenterology, psychiatryGastroenterology, otolaryngology, neurology, pediatrics, plastic surgery
    Nurse practitioners and physician assistants, No.3625127142
    Nurse care managers, No.16266
    NCQA PCMH sites, No.444441771
    Ancillary servicesLaboratory
    Imaging, including bone density test, CT, MRI, mammography, ultrasound
    Laboratory
    Imaging, including bone density, CT, MRI, nuclear stress tests, and stress echocardiograms, ultrasound, physical therapy
    Laboratory
    Imaging, including bone density test, CT, nuclear stress tests and stress echocardiogram, ultrasound
    Laboratory
    Imaging, including bone density test, CMIT, stress echocardiogram, ultrasound
    Laboratory
    Imaging, including ultrasound, echocardiogram, bone density test
    Annual revenue, in millions, $95.8122.022.552158.9
    Gross revenue from payors Commercial, %5362717868
     Traditional Medicare, %222017013
     Traditional Medicaid/SCHIP, %0.331<110
     Medicare Advantage, %1786224
     Medicaid HMOs, %40300
     Other, %47203
    Patients in risk contracts
     Medicare Shared Savings or Pioneer, No.26,382b05,044c032,858
     Medicare Advantage, No.20,00020,0004,13013,00010,500
     Medicaid ACO, No.00000
     Other form of risk for patient care, including ACO-like or pay-for-performance contracts with health insurers, No.15,000160,00037,98450,000109,300
    Participate in an IPANoNoYesNoNo
    Physician compensation Base salary, %000600
     Productivity, %10090902090
     Other,d %010102010
    • ACO = accountable care organization; CMIT = carotid intima-media thickness test; CT = computed tomography; HMO = health maintenance organization; IPA = independent practice association; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; NCQA = National Committee for Quality Assurance; PCMH = patient-centered medical home; SCHIP = State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

    • Note: Information for 2014 provided in writing by the 5 medical groups.

    • ↵a Includes family practitioners, general internists, geriatricians, and general pediatricians. Does not include hospitalists.

    • ↵b Through the Commonwealth Primary Care ACO.

    • ↵c Through the Physician Organization of Michigan ACO.

    • ↵d Components include quality, cost control, panel size, patient satisfaction, other.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Characteristics of Physicians in the Primary Care Groups

    CharacteristicMean for all Groups (N = 168)Arizona Community Physicians (n = 29)Central Ohio Primary Care Physicians (n = 33)Infinity Primary Care Physicians (n = 37)New West Physicians (n = 39)ProHealth Physicians (n = 30)
    Response rate, %675866747860
    Age, y50.755.747.448.648.954.0
    Sex, female, %39.520.751.552.851.313.3
    Specialty
     Family practice, %58.162.145.575.066.736.7
     Internal medicine, %38.934.548.522.233.360.0
     Other3.03.46.12.80.03.3
    Years in the group10.911.910.310.210.811.6
    Physician as owners, %a84.296.697.066.789.572.4
    Previous practice setting
     Solo/small primary care, %48.865.539.413.559.073.3
     Multispecialty, %620.76.12.70.03.3
     Hospital based, %2513.821.267.67.710.0
     Academic medical center, %7.76.915.25.45.16.7
     Community health center/public, %3.66.93.00.05.13.3
     VA/government, %0.60.03.00.00.00.0
     Residency or fellowship training, %21.413.830.313.535.910.0
    Office visits per day, No.18.818.218.619.018.020.4
    Hours worked per day10.39.810.710.210.010.9
    • VA = Veterans Affairs.

    • Note: Data from physician survey; see Supplemental Appendix 2 (http://annfammed.org/content/14/1/16/suppl/DC1) for a copy of the survey instrument.

    • ↵a This percentage may differ from the percentage in Table 1. Table 1 gives the percentage reported by group leaders; Table 2 gives the percentage of respondents who reported being owners/shareholders.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Physicians’ Satisfaction With Work Life and Medical Group

    Area of SatisfactionAll Groups (N = 168)Arizona Community Physicians (n = 29)Central Ohio Primary Care Physicians (n = 33)Infinity Physicians (n = 37)New West Physicians (n = 39)ProHealth Physicians (n = 30)
    Overall satisfaction
     Satisfaction with their medical group4.14.54.53.14.63.4
     Somewhat or very satisfied, mean %74.389.787.942.994.953.3
     Very satisfied, mean %48.269.066.711.471.820.0
     Very dissatisfied, mean %1.20.00.02.92.60.0
    Satisfaction with their career in medicine4.04.43.83.54.23.9
     Somewhat or very satisfied, mean %80.893.178.863.992.375.9
     Very satisfied, mean %38.051.736.425.043.634.5
     Very dissatisfied, mean %4.20.06.18.32.93.4
    Income and quality of life
    Satisfied with income3.84.23.82.94.53.5
     Agree or strongly agree, mean %69.992.672.832.497.453.4
     Strongly agree, mean %27.629.627.35.953.816.7
     Strongly disagree, mean %2.50.03.08.80.00.0
    Satisfied with clinical workload3.33.63.52.73.92.9
     Agree or strongly agree, mean %57.572.460.635.379.536.6
     Strongly agree, mean %13.920.721.226.515.43.3
     Strongly disagree, mean %7.36.93.017.60.010.0
    Satisfied with work/life balance3.33.53.32.43.82.9
     Agree or strongly agree, mean %52.765.557.631.374.330
     Strongly agree, mean %15.320.715.26.325.66.7
     Strongly disagree, mean %7.46.93.018.80.010.0
    Intragroup relations and processes
    Satisfied with ownership in the group4.24.44.43.84.44.0
     Agree or strongly agree, mean %85.489.793.972.787.283.4
     Strongly agree, mean %43.955.254.521.266.716.7
     Strongly disagree, mean %0.60.00.00.02.60.0
    Satisfied with input into key decisions3.53.83.92.74.23.0
     Agree or strongly agree, mean %60.167.875.727.384.640
     Strongly agree, mean %24.532.124.26.148.76.7
     Strongly disagree, mean %4.90.03.012.10.010.0
    Group’s quality improvement efforts
    Group invests in processes that improve the quality of care4.24.14.63.74.83.9
     Agree or strongly agree, mean %88.593.1100.073.597.476.6
     Strongly agree, mean %47.927.669.717.689.723.3
     Strongly disagree, mean %1.80.00.05.92.60.0
    Group’s compensation formula rewards physicians who provide high quality care3.43.23.72.64.23.1
     Agree or strongly agree, mean %533169.724.387.243.3
     Strongly agree, mean %20.717.224.26.141.010.0
     Strongly disagree, mean %5.53.43.012.10.010.0
    Relations with hospitals and specialists
    Physician ownership offers less pressure from external entities, eg, hospitals4.14.44.43.74.14.1
     Agree or strongly agree, mean %82.493.190.967.676.986.6
     Strongly agree, mean %44.851.763.623.551.333.3
     Strongly disagree, mean %0.60.00.00.02.60.0
    Satisfied with autonomy in practicing medicine4.04.34.23.54.23.6
     Agree or strongly agree, mean %78.689.684.959.492.363.3
     Strongly agree, mean %34.444.845.528.141.010.0
     Strongly disagree, mean %1.20.00.06.30.00.0
    Primary care group = more cohesion3.93.94.43.44.43.6
     Agree or strongly agree, mean %78.279.39755.989.766.7
     Strongly agree, mean %30.920.745.58.856.416.7
     Strongly disagree, mean %2.40.00.05.92.63.3
    Easy access to specialty care4.34.14.54.24.54.0
     Agree or strongly agree, mean %93.393.110088.294.890
     Strongly agree, mean %41.224.951.538.261.523.3
     Strongly disagree, mean %0.60.00.00.00.03.3
    • Note: Responses were on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree or 1 = very unsatisfied and 5 = very satisfied, as appropriate. See Supplemental Appendix 2 at http://annfammed.org/content/14/1/16/suppl/DC1 for a copy of the survey instrument.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Physicians’ Reported Reasons for Joining Their Medical Group

    ReasonAll Groups (N = 168) %Arizona Community Physicians (n = 29) %Central Ohio Primary Care Physicians (n = 33) %Infinity (n = 37) %New West (n = 39) %ProHealth (n = 30) %
    Greater negotiating leverage with health insurers45.258.642.421.638.573.3
    Group’s business expertise allows physician to focus on medicine41.758.645.516.253.836.7
    Potential for higher income38.175.933.332.423.133.3
    Greater autonomy than in other large organizations33.337.945.537.823.123.3
    Opportunity to become an owner25.013.815.243.233.313.3
    Alignment with group values, culture23.23.424.240.523.120.0
    Prefer primary care to multispecialty group22.610.327.318.930.823.3
    Better work-life balance22.620.727.321.623.120.0
    Technological infrastructure (eg, emergency medical response)8.96.90.010.810.316.7
    Need to relocate geographically6.00.03.05.410.310.0
    Group’s clinical quality programs5.40.00.010.810.33.3
    • Note: Data from the physician survey conducted for this project. Each physician was asked to choose up to 3 reasons for joining his or her current medical group. Percentages are the percentages of physicians who selected that reason for joining their group. See Supplemental Appendix 2 (http://annfammed.org/content/14/1/16/suppl/DC1) for a copy of the survey instrument.

Additional Files

  • Tables
  • Supplemental Appendixes 1-2

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental data: Appendixes - PDF file
  • The Article in Brief

    Large Independent Primary Care Medical Groups

    Lawrence P. Casalino , and colleagues

    Background In the turbulent U.S. health care environment, physicians are increasingly, choosing to become employed by large organizations, such as large multispecialty or single specialty medical groups. This opportunity is often not available, however, and many physicians are becoming employed by hospitals. For primary care physicians (PCPs), there is another option: the large physician-owned primary care medical group. Few physicians and policy experts are aware of these groups. In this article, the authors describe five large PCP groups and their advantages, disadvantages, and challenges.

    What This Study Found Large independent physician-owned primary care groups offer physicians an attractive employment alternative to hospital or large multispecialty medical groups and can also benefit patients and society. The scale of the groups makes it possible for them to develop laboratory and imaging services, health information technology, and quality improvement infrastructure, while their multiple practice sites offer patients easy geographic access and the small practice environment that many patients and physicians prefer. The five groups studied had an average size of 148 physicians of whom 87 percent were primary care physicians. Unlike hospital-employed and multi-specialty groups, these independent groups can aim to reduce health care costs without conflicting incentives to fill hospital beds and keep specialist incomes high. Some, however, are under pressure to sell to organizations that could provide capital for additional infrastructure to engage in value-based contracting and provide substantial income to physicians from the sale.The groups' physicians reported only moderate satisfaction with their clinical workload and work-life balance, suggesting that the groups have not fully resolved the difficulties of practicing primary care medicine.

    Implications

    • The authors conclude that large independent primary care physician groups have the potential to make primary care attractive to physicians and to improve patient care by combining human scale advantages of physician autonomy and the small practice setting with resources that are important to succeed in value-based contracting.
  • Correction

    The degree of MD was erroneously added to Jayme L. Mendelsohn, MPH in the author listing for: Casalino LP, Chen MA, Staub C, Press MJ, Mendelsohn JL, Lynch JT, Miranda Y. Large Independent Primary Care Medical Groups. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14:16-25. A new PDF will be uploaded and the online version will therefore differ from the print version of the article.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 14 (1)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 14 (1)
Vol. 14, Issue 1
January/February 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • In Brief
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Large Independent Primary Care Medical Groups
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 14 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Large Independent Primary Care Medical Groups
Lawrence P. Casalino, Melinda A. Chen, C. Todd Staub, Matthew J. Press, Jayme L. Mendelsohn, John T. Lynch, Yesenia Miranda
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2016, 14 (1) 16-25; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1890

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Large Independent Primary Care Medical Groups
Lawrence P. Casalino, Melinda A. Chen, C. Todd Staub, Matthew J. Press, Jayme L. Mendelsohn, John T. Lynch, Yesenia Miranda
The Annals of Family Medicine Jan 2016, 14 (1) 16-25; DOI: 10.1370/afm.1890
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Correction
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • The Medicare Access And CHIP Reauthorization Act And The Corporate Transformation Of American Medicine
  • Holding On and Letting Go: A Perspective from the Keystone IV Conference
  • In This Issue: Size Matters
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Feasibility and Acceptability of the “About Me” Care Card as a Tool for Engaging Older Adults in Conversations About Cognitive Impairment
  • Treatment of Chlamydia and Gonorrhea in Primary Care and Its Patient-Level Variation: An American Family Cohort Study
  • Performance-Based Reimbursement, Illegitimate Tasks, Moral Distress, and Quality Care in Primary Care: A Mediation Model of Longitudinal Data
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • primary care
  • medical groups

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine