Deborah Simak, of University of Pittsburgh, School of Medi, say(s):
May 15, 2009

Thank you for conducting and reporting this study
It would be interesting to see the data specific to practices in general internal medicine and family medicine. Internal Medicine Residents cite all this paperwork/administrative burden as a main reason they don’t want primary care.(Low reimbursement being another key factor.)

Monitoring quality and cost measures with feedback to physicians is a critical success factor in quality improvement, but we need a much more efficient way to do this. Hopefully, cost-effectiveness of administrative processes will be part of the national health insurance discussion. A centralized repository of claims-based data would be much more useful--each state could receive its data, each health plan could receive (and pay for) relevant data; and each physician practice could receive performance data for its entire practice, rather than multiple (unmanageable) reports of skewed insurance-based samples. Data should be used to facilitate and measure improvement, not just at provider level, but at state and national level too. In addition, what a great research tool it could be...

Keep up the great work!

Robert Beltran, of Latino Med Policy Institute, say(s):
May 14, 2009

The article did not address if these administrative activities resulted in improved coordinated care, improved outcomes and higher patient satisfaction. 142 hr @ approx. $68,000 = $500/hr.

Small price if outcomes are improved, better care is delivered efficiently and effectively. Speaks to the need to better price physician services and comprehensive patient-centered care within a medical home.