The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to population health.
March 2011 (Volume 89)
March 2011 | Ateev Mehrotra, Christopher B. Forrest, Caroline Y. Lin
Context: In the United States, more than a third of patients are referred to a specialist each year, and specialist visits constitute more than half of outpatient visits. Despite the frequency of referrals and the importance of the specialty-referral process, the process itself has been a long-standing source of frustration among both primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. These frustrations, along with a desire to lower costs, have led to numerous strategies to improve the specialty-referral process, such as using gatekeepers and referral guidelines.
Methods: This article reviews the literature on the specialty-referral process in order to better understand what is known about current problems with the referral process and what solutions have been proposed. The article first provides a conceptual framework and then reviews prior literature on the referral decision, care coordination including information transfer, and access to specialty care.
Findings: PCPs vary in their threshold for referring a patient, which results in both the underuse and the overuse of specialists. Many referrals do not include a transfer of information, either to or from the specialist; and when they do, it often contains insufficient data for medical decision making. Care across the primary-specialty interface is poorly integrated; PCPs often do not know whether a patient actually went to the specialist, or what the specialist recommended. PCPs and specialists also frequently disagree on the specialist’s role during the referral episode (e.g., single consultation or continuing co-management).
Conclusions: There are breakdowns and inefficiencies in all components of the specialty-referral process. Despite many promising mechanisms to improve the referral process, rigorous evaluations of these improvements are needed.
Author(s): Ateev Mehrotra; Christopher B. Forrest; Caroline Y. Lin
Keywords: medical specialties; referral and consultation; review
Read on Wiley Online Library
Read on JSTOR
Volume 89, Issue 1 (pages 39–68)
Published in 2011
Expansion of Coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Primary Care Utilization
Counterheroism, Common Knowledge, and Ergonomics: Concepts from Aviation That Could Improve Patient Safety