Background: Primary care reform in Ontario, Canada, included the initiation of a blended capitation model in [2001][2002] and an enhanced fee-for-service model in 2003. Both models involve patient rostering, incentives for preventive care and requirements for after-hours care. We evaluated practice characteristics and patterns of care under both models. Methods:Using administrative data, we identified physicians belonging to either the capitation or the enhanced fee-for-service group throughout the period from Sept. 1, 2005, to Aug. 31, 2006, and their enrolled patients. Practices were stratified by location (urban v. rural). We compared the groups in terms of practice characteristics and patterns of care, including comprehensiveness of care, continuity of care, after-hours care, visits to the emergency department and uptake of new patients.Results: Patients in the capitation and enhanced fee-forservice practices had similar demographic characteristics. Patients in capitation practices had lower morbidity and comorbidity indices. Comprehensiveness and continuity of care were similar between the 2 groups. Compared with patients in enhanced fee-for-service practices, those in capitation practices had less after-hours care (adjusted rate ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.75) and more visits to emergency departments (adjusted RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.15-1.25). Overall, physicians in the capitation group enrolled fewer new patients than did physicians in the enhanced fee-for-service group (37.0 v. 52.0 per physician); the same was true of new graduates (60.3 v. 72.1 per physician).Interpretation: Physicians enrolled in the capitation model had different practice characteristics than those in the enhanced fee-for-service model. These characteristics appeared to be pre-existing and not due to enrolment in a new model. Although the capitation model provides an alternative to fee-for-service practice, its characteristics should be the focus of future policy development and research.

Objective:To compare the emergency department (ED), primary, and psychiatric care visit rates associated with the presence and absence of a developmental disability (DD) and a mental illness.Method: This is a population-based study comparing Ontario adults, with and without DDs and mental illnesses, in terms of rates of primary, psychiatric, and ED care, from April 2007 to March 2009. Results:In Ontario, 45% of adults with a DD received a psychiatric diagnosis during a 2-year period, and 26% of those with a psychiatric diagnosis were classified as having a serious mental illness (SMI), compared with 8% of those with a psychiatric diagnosis but no DD. People with DDs had an increased likelihood of psychiatric and ED visits. Patients with SMIs and DDs had the highest rates of such visits. Conclusions:People with more severe impairments had the greatest likelihood of ED visits, despite access to outpatient services, suggesting that outpatient care (primary and psychiatric), as currently delivered, may not be adequate to meet their complex needs. Conclusions : Les personnes souffrant de déficiences plus graves avaient la plus grande probabilité de visites au SU, malgré l'accès à des services ambulatoires, ce qui suggère que les soins ambulatoires (de première ligne et psychiatriques), tels qu'ils sont dispensés actuellement, ne sont peut-être pas adéquats pour répondre à leurs besoins complexes.

BackgroundThe burden of cardiovascular disease in the Métis, Canada’s fastest growing Aboriginal group, is not well studied. We determined rates of five cardiovascular diseases and associated outcomes in Ontario Métis, compared to the general Ontario population.MethodsMétis persons were identified using the Métis Nation of Ontario Citizenship Registry. Métis citizens aged 20–105 were linked to Ontario health databases for the period of April 2006 to March 2011. Age- and sex-standardized prevalence and incidence of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), congestive heart failure (CHF), cerebrovascular disease (stroke), atrial fibrillation, and hypertension were compared between the Métis and the general population. Secondary outcome measures included one-year hospitalizations and mortality following the incident cardiovascular diagnosis, as well as quality-of-care measures.ResultsThere were 12,550 eligible Métis persons and 10,144,002 in the general population. The adjusted prevalence of each disease was higher (p<0.05) among the Métis compared to the general population: ACS 5.3% vs. 3.0%; CHF 5.1% vs. 3.9%; stroke 1.4% vs. 1.1%; atrial fibrillation 2.1% vs. 1.4%; hypertension 34.9% vs. 29.8%. Incident ACS, stroke, and atrial fibrillation were also higher (p<0.05) among the Métis: ACS 2.4% vs. 1.5%; stroke 0.8% vs. 0.6%; atrial fibrillation 0.6% vs. 0.3%. One-year all-cause and cardiovascular-related mortality were not significantly different. Hospitalizations were higher for Métis persons with CHF (OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.34–2.78) and hypertension (OR 2.27; 95% CI 1.88–2.74). Métis with CHF made more emergency department (ED) visits in the year after diagnosis compared to non-Métis with CHF, while Métis aged ≥65 with ACS were more likely to be on beta-blockers following diagnosis.ConclusionsThe burden of cardiovascular disease was markedly higher in the Métis compared to the general population: prevalence rates for five cardiovascular conditions were 25% to 77% higher. Métis persons with CHF had more frequent hospitalizations and ED visits following their diagnosis.

No abstract

BackgroundPrimary care reform in Ontario, Canada started with the introduction of new enrollment models, the two largest of which are Family Health Networks (FHNs), a capitation-based model, and Family Health Groups (FHGs), a blended fee-for-service model. The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in performance between FHNs and FHGs and to compare performance before and after physicians joined these new primary care groups.MethodsThis study used Ontario administrative claims data to compare performance measures in FHGs and FHNs. The study population included physicians who belonged to a FHN or FHG for at least two years. Patients were included in the analyses if they enrolled with a physician in the two years after the physician joined a FHN or FHG, and also if they saw the physician in a two year period prior to the physician joining a FHN or FHG. Performance was derived from the administrative data, and included measures of preventive screening for cancer (breast, cervical, colorectal) and chronic disease management (diabetes, heart failure, asthma).ResultsPerformance measures did not vary consistently between models. In some cases, performance approached current benchmarks (Pap smears, mammograms). In other cases it was improving in relation to previous measures (colorectal cancer screening). There were no changes in screening for cervical cancer or breast cancer after joining either a FHN or FHG. Colorectal cancer screening increased in both FHNs and FHGs. After enrolling in either a FHG or a FHN, prescribing performance measures for diabetes care improved. However, annual eye examinations decreased for younger people with diabetes after joining a FHG or FHN. There were no changes in performance measures for heart failure management or asthma care after enrolling in either a FHG or FHN.ConclusionsSome improvements in preventive screening and diabetes management which were seen amongst people after they enrolled may be attributed to incentive payments offered to physicians within FHGs and FHNs. However, these primary care delivery models need to be compared with other delivery models and fee for service practices in order to describe more specifically what aspects of model delivery and incentives affect care.