OBJECTIVE: Access to rheumatology care can expedite diagnosis and treatment of rheumatic diseases and reduce disparities. We surveyed community health center (CHC) medical directors to evaluate rheumatology care in underserved areas and potential strategies for improvement. METHODS: We identified 77 Massachusetts CHCs that provide adult medical services and sent a 40-item survey to their physician medical directors. Survey questions assessed the centers' prevalence of rheumatic diseases, prescribing practices of immunosuppressive medications, and possible interventions to improve care. We compared CHC characteristics and rheumatology-specific items and then stratified our data by the response to whether improved access to rheumatology care was needed. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Thirty-six CHC physician medical directors returned surveys (47% response rate). Fifty-five percent indicated a need for better access to rheumatology care. Eighty-six percent of CHC physicians would not start a patient with rheumatoid arthritis on a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; 94% would not start a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus on an immunosuppressant. When we compared CHCs that reported needing better access to rheumatology care to those that did not, the former described a significantly greater percentage of patients with private insurance or Medicaid who required outside rheumatology referrals (P < 0.05). Language differences and insurance status were highlighted as barriers to obtaining rheumatology care. Sixteen directors (57%) ranked the patient navigator-a layperson to assist with care coordination-as their first-choice intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Community health center medical directors expressed a need for better access to rheumatology services. A patient navigator for rheumatic diseases was proposed to help improve care and reduce health disparities.

BACKGROUND: Health plans, self-insured employers, health plans, and provider organizations are currently introducing financial incentives that reward physicians for delivering high-quality medical care. Yet a review of existing research reveals virtually no empirical studies of the effect of direct, internal quality incentives on physician performance. Key-informant interviews with leaders of provider organizations should shed new light on evolving quality incentives within organizations. METHODS: Structured key-informant interviews with administrators and medical directors in 22 medical groups and 9 hospitals affiliated with 10 large, integrated health systems were conducted from July 2003 through January 2004. FINDINGS: Views on the role of financial incentives varied widely and were related to a number of other factors, including institutional culture, community context, organizational strategy and structure, organizational stability, quality measurement, nature and size of incentives, and the sustainability of interventions. DISCUSSION: These findings have implications for the acceptability and structure of financial incentives for quality directed to health care provider organizations. A set of considerations for the design and implementation of quality incentives relate to the incentives' scope, controllability, transparency, size, and orientation (individual or team), as well as the relationship between the extrinsic financial incentives and professionals' intrinsic motivation.