The Fund supports networks of state health policy decision makers to help identify, inspire, and inform policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund supports two state leadership programs for legislative and executive branch state government officials committed to improving population health.
The Fund identifies and shares policy ideas and analysis to advance state health leadership, strong primary care, and sustainable health care costs.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. And read the latest blogs from our thought leaders, including Fund President Christopher F. Koller.
The Fund publishes The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports, issues briefs, and case studies on topics important to health policy leaders.
The Milbank Memorial Fund is is a foundation that works to improve population health and health equity.
August 27, 2025
Quarterly Article
LISA V. RUBENSTEIN
SYDNE J. NEWBERRY
ISHITA GHAI
ANEESA MOTALA
IDAMAY CURTIS
PAUL G. SHEKELLE
TODD H. WAGNER
L. DIEM TRAN
STEPHEN D. FIHN
KARIN M. NELSON
Aug 27, 2025
June 2025
Back to The Milbank Quarterly
Policy Points:
Context: Current primary care productivity measures do not account for investment in interprofessional primary care teams in relation to primary care goals and thus are insufficient for assessing and improving primary care efficiency and productivity. We explored alternative productivity measurement methods.
Methods: We conducted a scoping review of English language literature between 2008 and 2023 to identify articles that assessed primary care practice productivity and efficiency. We reviewed the full texts of articles to assess their analytic models including inputs, outputs, and context measures. Using scoping review results to inform content, we conducted a modified Delphi expert panel to discuss potential use cases, analytic approaches, and data elements for new primary care productivity measures. Panelists anonymously voted on recommendations for guiding near-term measure development and testing.
Findings: Evidence review identified 25 included studies. The majority (76%, 19/25) used an economic model-based productivity calculation, predominantly estimated using data envelopment analysis (DEA), with stochastic frontier analysis accounting for most of the remainder. Primary care staffing was the most common input, included in 84% of the 19 economic model studies. As outputs, over half (53%) of studies included measures of quality of care, whereas the same proportion included numbers of clinical activities. No studies used patient-reported experiences of care. Expert panelists recommended that initial measure development focus on primary care practice efficiency improvement, building the measure on routinely collected health system data, accounting for the clinical team’s full-time equivalent staffing, and incorporating quality of care. Panelists endorsed DEA while also acknowledging that other approaches had potential.
Conclusions: We identified measurement approaches that aligned with both economic and foundational primary care principles but none that were implemented for routine use. Opportunities exist to develop metrics that accurately reflect primary care structures, goals, and values.