Comparison of services provided by urban commercial,community-governed and traditional primary care practices in New Zealand

Abstract

Objectives: New Zealand has experienced restructuring and reform of primary health care since the 1980s, including the introduction of commercial clinics and increasing numbers of practices run by community-governed organizations. Our aim was to compare commercial, community-governed and traditional practices in five key domains: access; coordination and continuity of care; communication and patient centredness; population health and preventive health; and chronic disease management.

Methods: A nationally representative, multistage probability sample of private general practitioners, stratified by geographical location and practice type, was drawn. Representative samples of urban commercial clinics and of practices governed by community organizations were obtained for the same period (2001–02). All doctors were asked to provide data on themselves, their practice, and to report on a 25% sample of patients in two periods of one week.

Results: Among the three practice types, commercial clinics differed most in their organization; they charged higher fees and employed more staff, although their doctors were less experienced. Community-governed practices were visited by more people from lower socioeconomic groups. Commercial clinic patients were more likely to be younger and less likely to have an ongoing relationship with the clinic. They frequently attended for self-limiting problems related to injuries or respiratory problems. Investigations, follow-up and referral rates were similar between the three practice types. Treatment rates were higher at traditional and community-governed general practices.

Conclusion: Rather than replicating traditional practices, new practice types provide complementary services and established services in innovative ways. The challenge is to achieve an appropriate mix of diverse providers.