tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3672496731205380327.post7351930630410399627..comments2024-03-26T20:43:17.849-04:00Comments on freeforall--a health policy discussion: Negotiated Rulemaking CommitteeDon Taylorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16141749812035072101noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3672496731205380327.post-40863115068006165942011-01-21T21:32:09.524-05:002011-01-21T21:32:09.524-05:00A huge issue will also be the incorporation of non...A huge issue will also be the incorporation of non-physician primary care providers (whether, if yes, how/what weight). I don't see how they cannot be included given how important NPs especially are to primary care provision. It may be that you need to account for docs and non docs separately....it could be a problem to have one but not the other in an area. Good thoughts about PCSAs. Also, we have been talking about the states that have state specific mandated health care service areas.Don Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16141749812035072101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3672496731205380327.post-61803822246576440202011-01-18T18:09:06.461-05:002011-01-18T18:09:06.461-05:00PCSAs would be a good place to start, but they, in...PCSAs would be a good place to start, but they, in turn, start with the "kernel" of the doctor or doctors. That will tend to diminish the identification of underservice as any undefined but underserved areas will be cut up by competing PCSAs. The geographic underservice will be "allocated" to the PCSAs that touch on or overlay the area with less than enough access. It might be a useful exercise to restrain the geographic dimensions of the PCSAs to see if any or how many areas emerge that have no center of physician activity. This would be a sort of "location-allocation" analysis to identify places with very low access. The remaining areas could be tested for low access with ratios and indices. Just a thought.T Rickettsnoreply@blogger.com