Article Figures & Data
Tables
Characteristic Solo Small (2–5 Providers) Medium (6–20 Providers) Large (>20 Providers) P Value Family physicians, No. (%)a 1,677 (15.4) 3,913 (35.9) 3,371 (31.0) 1,927 (17.7) – Sex, No. (%)b Male 1,130 (67.4) 2,459 (62.8) 2,086 (62.9) 1,216 (63.1) Female 547 (32.6) 1,454 (37.2) 1,285 (38.1) 711 (36.9) .002 Race, No. (%)b White 1,258 (75.0) 3,208 (82.0) 2,763 (82.0) 1,514 (78.6) <.001 Black or African American 134 (8.0) 237 (6.1) 186 (5.5) 99 (5.1) .001 Asian 257 (15.3) 404 (10.3) 366 (10.9) 272 (14.1) <.001 Others 28 (1.7) 64 (1.6) 56 (1.7) 42 (2.2) .46 Ethnicity, No. (%)b Non-Hispanic 1,544 (92.1) 3,700 (94.6) 3,212 (95.3) 1,801 (93.5) <.001 Hispanic 133 (7.9) 213 (5.4) 159 (4.7) 126 (6.5) <.001 Years in practice, No. (%)b 0–10 316 (18.8) 1,137 (29.1) 1,000 (29.7) 542 (28.1) <.001 11–20 592 (35.3) 1,291 (33.0) 985 (29.2) 583 (30.3) <.001 21–30 510 (30.4) 1,099 (28.1) 1,046 (31.0) 613 (31.8) <.009 ≥31 259 (15.4) 385 (9.8) 340 (10.1) 189 (9.8) <.001 Percent of county earning <100% of FPL 14.9 14.5 14.7 14.7 <.000 Rurality of county, No. (%)b Urban 1,402 (83.6) 3,117 (79.7) 2,799 (83.0) 1,755 (91.1) <.001 Rural: 20,000–50,000 people 113 (6.7) 271 (6.9) 255 (7.6) 101 (5.2) .01 Rural: 2,500–19,999 people 149 (8.9) 428 (10.9) 280 (8.3) 69 (3.6) <.001 Rural: <2,500 people 13 (0.8) 97 (2.5) 37 (1.1) 2 (0.1) <.001 Combined rural 275 (16.4) 796 (20.3) 572 (17.0) 172 (8.9) <.001 Region of country, No. (%) North 262 (15.6) 629 (16.1) 488 (14.5) 202 (10.5) <.001 South 704 (41.1) 1,387 (35.4) 966 (28.7) 517 (26.8) <.001 West 328 (19.6) 748 (19.1) 910 (27.0) 671 (34.8) <.001 Midwest 355 (21.2) 1,096 (28.0) 961 (28.5) 525 (27.2) <.001 Characteristic Solo Small (2–5 Providers) Medium (6–20 Providers) Large (>20 Providers) P Value Practice organization, No. (%)a Solo 1,487 (88.7) 0 0 0 Group 0 2,243 (57.3) 1,427 (42.3) 721 (37.4) <.001 Safety net 26 (1.6) 386 (9.9) 432 (12.8) 156 (8.1) <.001 Other 164 (9.8) 1,284 (32.8) 1,512 (44.9) 1,050 (54.9) <.001 Care coordinator, No. (%)a Yes 370 (22.1) 1,356 (34.7) 1,623 (48.2) 1,210 (62.8) <.001 No 1,307 (77.9) 2,557 (65.4) 1,748 (51.9) 717 (37.2) PCMH certification, No. (%)a Yes 110 (6.6) 737 (18.8) 1,046 (31.0) 681 (35.3) <.001 No 1,567 (93.4) 3,176 (94.2) 2,325 (69.0) 1,246 (64.7) PCMH = patient-centered medical home.
↵a Percentage within groups.
Servicea Solo Small (2–5 Providers) Medium (6–20 Providers) Large (>20 Providers) P Value Patient care in a language besides English, No. (%) Spanish 404 (24.1) 747 (19.1) 787 (23.4) 462 (24.0) Other 218 (13.0) 292 (7.5) 207 (6.1) 170 (8.8) No 1,055 (62.9) 2,874 (73.4) 2,377 (70.5) 1,295 (67.2) <.001 Newborn care, No. (%) Yes 741 (44.2) 2,326 (59.4) 2,064 (61.2) 1,043 (54.1) <.001 No 936 (55.8) 1,587 (40.6) 1,307 (38.8) 884 (45.9) Prenatal care, No. (%) Yes 140 (8.4) 436 (11.1) 607 (18.0) 394 (20.5) <.001 No 1,537 (91.7) 3,477 (88.9) 2,764 (82.0) 1,533 (79.6) Obstetric deliveries per year, No. (%) 0 1,627 (97.0) 3,666 (93.7) 2,964 (87.9) 1,689 (87.7) <.001 1–25 27 (1.6) 114 (2.9) 244 (7.2) 135 (7.0) 26–50 10 (0.6) 72 (1.8) 106 (3.1) 71 (3.7) ≥51 13 (0.8) 61 (1.5) 57 (1.7) 32 (1.7) Other specialists at primary practice site, No. (%) Multispecialty 0 642 (16.4) 1,466 (43.5) 1,414 (73.4) <.001 Single specialty 1,677 (100.0) 3,271 (83.6) 1,905 (56.5) 513 (26.6) Provides inpatient care, No. (%) Yes 635 (37.9) 1,225 (31.3) 1,164 (34.5) 724 (37.6) <.001 No 1,042 (62.1) 2,688 (68.7) 2,207 (65.5) 1,203 (62.4) Has admitting privileges, No. (%) Yes 1,136 (67.7) 2,424 (62.0) 2,117 (62.8) 1,240 (64.4) <.001 No 541 (32.3) 1,489 (38.1) 1,254 (37.2) 687 (35.7) Scope, I-SOP score, mean (SD)b 14.1 (3.4) 14.8 (3.4) 15.0 (3.7) 14.5 (3.6) <.001 - Table 4
Characteristics Associated With Practicing in Solo or Small Practices, and in Solo Practices
Characteristic Model 1: Solo or Small vs Medium or Large Model 2: Solo vs Small OR (95% CI) P Value OR (95% CI) P Value Sex Male (ref) 1.00 1.00 Female 0.95 (0.87–1.03) .22 0.87 (0.76–0.99) .03 Race White (ref) 1.00 1.00 Black or African American 1.22 (1.03–1.44) .02 1.57 (1.25–1.99) <.001 Asian 1.13 (1.00–1.27) .058 1.97 (1.65–2.36) <.001 Others 0.96 (0.72–1.29) .80 1.27 (0.81–2.01) .30 Ethnicity Non-Hispanic (ref) 1.00 1.00 Hispanic 1.33 (1.13–1.58) <.001 1.62 (1.28–2.05) <.001 Years in practice 0–10 (ref) 1.00 1.00 11–20 1.27 (1.15–1.40) <.001 1.70 (1.45–2.00) <.001 21–30 1.02 (0.92–1.14) .68 1.91 (1.61–2.27) <.001 ≥31 1.31 (1.13–1.51) <.001 2.74 (2.22–3.40) <.001 Percent of county earning <100% of FPL 0.99 (0.98–0.99) .001 1.01 (1.00–1.02) .24 Rurality of county Urban (ref) 1.00 1.00 Rural: 20,000–50,000 people 1.17 (1.00–1.37) .046 0.97 (0.76–1.23) .79 Rural: 2,500–19,999 people 1.76 (1.52–2.03) <.001 0.83 (0.67–1.01) .07 Rural: <2,500 people 3.16 (2.18–4.58) <.001 0.33 (0.18–0.59) <.001 Region of country South (ref) 1.00 1.00 Northeast 0.90 (0.79–1.02) .09 0.82 (0.69–0.98) .03 West 0.47 (0.43–0.53) <.001 0.86 (0.73–1.02) .08 Midwest 0.66 (0.59–0.73) <.001 0.67 (0.57–0.78) <.001 Constant 3.59 <.001 0.29 <.001 FPL = federal poverty level; OR = odds ratio; ref = reference group.
Additional Files
Supplemental Appendixes 1-2
Supplemental data: Appendixes 1-2
Files in this Data Supplement:
- Supplemental data: Appendixes - PDF file
The Article in Brief
Solo and Small Practices: A Vital, Diverse Part of Primary Care
Winston R. Liaw , and colleagues
Background Solo and small practices are facing growing pressure to consolidate. This study sets out to determine the percentage of family physicians in solo and small practices and the characteristics of and services provided by these practices.
What This Study Found More than half of family physicians work in small and solo practices. Thirty-six percent of study respondents work in small practices and 15 percent work in solo practices. Small practices are the most likely to be located in a rural setting (20 percent). Small and solo practices are more common among African American, Hispanic and experienced physicians who have been in practice more than 30 years.
Implications
- Family physicians working in solo and small practices still outnumber those working in medium and large practices.
- These findings, the authors conclude, raise concerns about the types of physicians and communities that are being disproportionately affected by practice consolidation.
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Scope of practice of Japanese primary care physicians and its associated factors: a cross-sectional study
- A Few Doctors Will See Some of You: The Critical Role of Underrepresented in Medicine (URiM) Family Physicians in the Care of Medicaid Beneficiaries
- Small Independent Primary Care Practices Serving Socially Vulnerable Urban Populations
- Racial/Ethnic Minority Identifying Family Physicians Are More Likely to Work in Solo Practices
- Data Challenges in Identifying Patients Due for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Clinics
- The Association of Practice Type and the Scope of Care of Family Physicians
- How Does Prior Experience Pay Off in Large-Scale Quality Improvement Initiatives?
- How Does Prior Experience Pay Off in Large-Scale Quality Improvement Initiatives?
- Differences by sex in supply, payments and clinical activity of family physicians in Ontario: a retrospective population-based cohort study
- Place Matters: Closing the Gap on Rural Primary Care Quality Improvement Capacity--the Healthy Hearts Northwest Study
- Improving Smoking and Blood Pressure Outcomes: The Interplay Between Operational Changes and Local Context
- A Cross-Sectional Study of Factors Associated With Pediatric Scope of Care in Family Medicine
- Identifying Practice Facilitation Delays and Barriers in Primary Care Quality Improvement
- The Ability of Practices to Report Clinical Quality Measures: More Evidence of the Size Paradox?
- Rebuilding after COVID: Planning Systems of Care for the Future
- A Randomized Trial of External Practice Support to Improve Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Primary Care
- Does Ownership Make a Difference in Primary Care Practice?
- Correlates of Burnout in Small Independent Primary Care Practices in an Urban Setting
- Engaging Primary Care Practices in Studies of Improvement: Did You Budget Enough for Practice Recruitment?
- Quality of Cardiovascular Disease Care in Small Urban Practices
- Technical Assistance for Primary Care Practice Transformation: Free Help to Perform Unpaid Labor?
- Holding On and Letting Go: A Perspective from the Keystone IV Conference
- The Impact of Debt on Young Family Physicians: Unanswered Questions with Critical Implications
- Achieving PCMH Status May Not Be Meaningful for Small Practices
- The Paradox of Size: How Small, Independent Practices Can Thrive in Value-Based Care
- In This Issue: Size Matters