##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.57187/5010

Review article

Vol. 156 No. 10 (2026)

Transforming primary care: funding and governance in the shift from physician-centred models to interprofessional teams – a scoping review

Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2026;156:5010
Published
29.10.2026

Summary

BACKGROUND: Primary care systems in high-income countries are undergoing transformation to meet rising healthcare demands, control costs and improve outcomes in ageing populations. While overarching goals are well articulated, the practical steps and governance mechanisms required to implement these reforms – particularly shifts from general practitioner-centred to interprofessional team-based models – remain poorly understood.

STUDY AIMS: This scoping review investigated how governance and funding models supporting and maintaining primary care transformation have been implemented in high-income countries. It identified key reform steps, explored barriers and facilitators, and analysed successful models across system (macro) and practice levels.

METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using international literature from high-income countries, including grey literature. Titles (n = 1586) and full texts (n = 358) were screened by two reviewers. Data were extracted from 90 eligible studies, selected for contextual comparability, reform maturity and implementation continuity. Included sources span policy documents, academic studies and comparative analyses.

RESULTS: The review mapped five new primary care models across four countries (US, Canada, Netherlands, France), supplemented by data from Belgium and Australia. Reform initiatives typically began in the mid-2000s and are still ongoing. Common features include: a shift from fee-for-service to blended or value-based payments (capitation, bonuses); the development of interprofessional teams with salaried non-physician members; introduction of shared leadership, clear role definitions and electronic health record (EHR)-linked incentives. Models vary widely: for example, the US Patient-Centered Medical Homes involve multipayer systems with fee-for-service plus bonuses. Ontario’s Family Health Teams use capitation and public funding, while Quebec remains fee-for-service-heavy, with teams initially restricted to nurses. The Netherlands and France implemented mixed top-down and bottom-up strategies, with regionally organised care groups and advanced EHR infrastructure. Despite policy support, interprofessional primary care team implementation is hampered by physician dominance, insufficient EHR integration and fragmented accountability. Only a minority of reforms have undergone systematic evaluation, and long-term sustainability remains uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS: Blended top-down and bottom-up approaches appear most effective for primary care transformation, offering consistency in implementation and local flexibility. Effective reforms combine blended payment models, strong EHR systems and interprofessional training. Physician engagement and a balanced approach to accountability are essential. Future priorities include mixed funding, rigorous evaluation of the effects on healthcare access and quality, team cohesion, cost control and supportive governance at both policy and practice levels. A widely agreed conceptual framework will be helpful for designing and implementing evaluations and cross-national comparisons.

References

  1. 1. Martsolf GR, Kandrack R, Gabbay RA, Friedberg MW. Cost of Transformation among Primary Care Practices Participating in a Medical Home Pilot. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(7):723–31.
  2. 2. Committee on Implementing High-Quality Primary Care, Board on Health Care Services, Health and Medicine Division, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Implementing High-Quality Primary Care. National Academies Press; 2021. doi:10.17226/25983
  3. 3. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457–502.
  4. 4. Hansen J, Groenewegen PP, Boerma WG, Kringos DS. Living In A Country With A Strong Primary Care System Is Beneficial To People With Chronic Conditions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(9):1531–7.
  5. 5. Kringos DS, Boerma W, van der Zee J, Groenewegen P. Europe's strong primary care systems are linked to better population health but also to higher health spending. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(4):686–94.
  6. 6. Rodriguez-Duarte MA, Fernainy P, Gauvin L, Layani G, Poitras ME, Breton M. Development of an organizational typology of interprofessional primary care teams in Quebec, Canada: A multivariate analysis. Health Policy. 2025;152:105202.
  7. 7. True G, Stewart GL, Lampman M, Pelak M, Solimeo SL. Teamwork and delegation in medical homes: primary care staff perspectives in the Veterans Health Administration. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(Suppl 2):S632–9.
  8. 8. Hester JJ. Designing Vermont's pay-for-population health system. Prev Chronic Dis. 2010;7(6):A122.
  9. 9. Levesque JF, Haggerty JL, Hogg W, Burge F, Wong ST, Katz A. Barriers and Facilitators for Primary Care Reform in Canada: Results from a Deliberative Synthesis across Five Provinces. Healthc Policy. 2015;11(2):44–57.
  10. 10. Glazier RH, Klein-Geltink J, Kopp A, Sibley LM. Capitation and enhanced fee-for-service models for primary care reform: a population-based evaluation. Cmaj. 2009;180(11):E72–81.
  11. 11. Archer J, Rogalsky J, Guerra E, Brown T, Robinson L. The impact of healthcare funding on interprofessional collaboration and integrated service delivery in primary and allied healthcare: a scoping review. J Interprof Care. 2025;39(2):296–313.
  12. 12. Basu S, Phillips RS, Song Z, Bitton A, Landon BE. High Levels Of Capitation Payments Needed To Shift Primary Care Toward Proactive Team And Nonvisit Care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(9):1599–605.
  13. 13. Henderson DAG, Donaghy E, Dozier M, Guthrie B, Huang H, Pickersgill M. Understanding primary care transformation and implications for ageing populations and health inequalities: a systematic scoping review of new models of primary health care in OECD countries and China. BMC Med. 2023;21(1):319.
  14. 14. Tan S, Farmer J, Roerig M, Allin S. Primary Care Governance and Financing: Models and approaches. 2023. Available from: https://naohealthobservatory.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/NAO-Rapid-Review-37_EN.pdf
  15. 15. Aggarwal M, Williams AP. Tinkering at the margins: evaluating the pace and direction of primary care reform in Ontario, Canada. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20(1):128.
  16. 16. Operational Framework for Primary Health Care: Transforming Vision Into Action. 2020. Available from: https://www.healthsystemsmatter.com/files/TopicWiseReports/Primary-health-care/Operational%20Framework%20for%20PHC_WHO%202020.pdf
  17. 17. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.
  18. 18. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.
  19. 19. Pollock D, Peters MDJ, Khalil H, McInerney P, Alexander L, Tricco AC. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2023;21(3):520–32.
  20. 20. Schutz Leuthold M, Schwarz J, Marti J, Perraudin C, Hudon C, Peytremann-Bridevaux I. Protocol for an implementation and realist evaluation of a new organisational model for primary care practices in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland. BMJ Open. 2020;10(12):e040154.
  21. 21. Schütz Leuthold M, Schwarz J, El Hakmaoui F, Scuderi R, Senn N, Cohidon C. Integrating nursing activities into general practices in Switzerland: a mixed-methods study. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2025;26:e84.
  22. 22. Covidence [Internet]. Available from: https://www.covidence.org/
  23. 23. Miller R, Weir C, Gulati S. Transforming primary care: scoping review of research and practice. J Integr Care (Brighton). 2018;26(3):176–88.
  24. 24. Auschra C. Barriers to the Integration of Care in Inter-Organisational Settings: A Literature Review. Int J Integr Care. 2018;18(1):5.
  25. 25. Ryan AM, Shortell SM, Ramsay PP, Casalino LP. Salary and Quality Compensation for Physician Practices Participating in Accountable Care Organizations. Ann Fam Med. 2015;13(4):321–4.
  26. 26. Peikes D, Dale S, Ghosh A, Taylor EF, Swankoski K, O'Malley AS. The Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: Effects On Spending, Quality, Patients, And Physicians. Health Aff (Millwood). 2018;37(6):890–9.
  27. 27. Fryer AK, Doty MM, Audet AM. Sharing resources: opportunities for smaller primary care practices to increase their capacity for patient care. Findings from the 2009 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2011;4:1–15.
  28. 28. Stewart EE, Nutting PA, Crabtree BF, Stange KC, Miller WL, Jaén CR. Implementing the patient-centered medical home: observation and description of the national demonstration project. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(Suppl 1):S21–32; s92.
  29. 29. Fields D, Leshen E, Patel K. Analysis & commentary. Driving quality gains and cost savings through adoption of medical homes. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(5):819–26.
  30. 30. Almalki ZS, Karami NA, Almsoudi IA, Alhasoun RK, Mahdi AT, Alabsi EA. Patient-centered medical home care access among adults with chronic conditions: National Estimates from the medical expenditure panel survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):744.
  31. 31. Centers NAoCH. Available from: https://www.nachc.org/resource/americas-health-centers-by-the-numbers/
  32. 32. Hing E, Kurtzman E, Lau DT, Taplin C, Bindman AB. Characteristics of Primary Care Physicians in Patient-centered Medical Home Practices: United States, 2013. Natl Health Stat Report. 2017;101:1–9.
  33. 33. Miller WL, Crabtree BF, Nutting PA, Stange KC, Jaén CR. Primary care practice development: a relationship-centered approach. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(Suppl 1):S68–79; s92.
  34. 34. Bleser WK, Miller-Day M, Naughton D, Bricker PL, Cronholm PF, Gabbay RA. Strategies for achieving whole-practice engagement and buy-in to the patient-centered medical home. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(1):37–45.
  35. 35. Alexander JA, Cohen GR, Wise CG, Green LA. The policy context of patient centered medical homes: perspectives of primary care providers. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(1):147–53.
  36. 36. Philip S, Govier D, Pantely S. Patient-centered medical home. Developing the business case from a practice perspective. 2019.
  37. 37. Goldfield N, Averill R, Vertrees J, Fuller R, Mesches D, Moore G. Reforming the primary care physician payment system: eliminating E & M codes and creating the financial incentives for an "advanced medical home". J Ambul Care Manage. 2008;31(1):24–31.
  38. 38. Share DA, Mason MH. Michigan's Physician Group Incentive Program offers a regional model for incremental 'fee for value' payment reform. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(9):1993–2001.
  39. 39. Xiang X, Owen R, Langi F, Yamaki K, Mitchell D, Heller T. Impacts of an Integrated Medicaid Managed Care Program for Adults with Behavioral Health Conditions: The Experience of Illinois. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2019;46(1):44–53.
  40. 40. Hurwitz D, Yeracaris P, Campbell S, Coleman MA. Rhode Island's investment in primary care transformation: A case study. Fam Syst Health. 2019;37(4):328–35.
  41. 41. Takach M, Townley C, Yalowich R, Kinsler S. Making multipayer reform work: what can be learned from medical home initiatives. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(4):662–72.
  42. 42. Watkins LD. Aligning Payers and Practices to Transform Primary Care: A Report from the Multi-State Collaborative. The Milbank Quarterly. 2014.
  43. 43. Goldberg DG, Mick SS, Kuzel AJ, Feng LB, Love LE. Why do some primary care practices engage in practice improvement efforts whereas others do not?. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(2 Pt 1):398–416.
  44. 44. Feder JL. A health plan spurs transformation of primary care practices into better-paid medical homes. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(3):397–9.
  45. 45. Patel UB, Rathjen C, Rubin E. Horizon's patient-centered medical home program shows practices need much more than payment changes to transform. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(9):2018–27.
  46. 46. Zastrow R, Van Gilder T, Quadracci LJ. Practice profile. An employer-directed health plan that seeks to reenergize primary care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(5):976–8.
  47. 47. Edwards ST, Bitton A, Hong J, Landon BE. Patient-centered medical home initiatives expanded in 2009-13: providers, patients, and payment incentives increased. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(10):1823–31.
  48. 48. Qureshi N, Quigley DD, Hays RD. Nationwide Qualitative Study of Practice Leader Perspectives on What It Takes to Transform into a Patient-Centered Medical Home. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(12):3501–9.
  49. 49. Martin D, Miller AP, Quesnel-Vallée A, Caron NR, Vissandjée B, Marchildon GP. Canada's universal health-care system: achieving its potential. Lancet. 2018;391(10131):1718–35.
  50. 50. Grant A, Giacomantonio R, Lackie K, MacKenzie A, Jeffers E, Kontak J. Identifying strategies to support implementation of interprofessional primary care teams in Nova Scotia: Results of a survey and knowledge sharing event. BMC Prim Care. 2024;25(1):162.
  51. 51. McBrien KA, Manns B. Approach to economic evaluation in primary care: review of a useful tool for primary care reform. Can Fam Physician. 2013;59(6):619–27.
  52. 52. Leslie M, Khayatzadeh-Mahani A, Birdsell J, Forest PG, Henderson R, Gray RP. An implementation history of primary health care transformation: Alberta's primary care networks and the people, time and culture of change. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):258.
  53. 53. Suter E, Mallinson S, Misfeldt R, Boakye O, Nasmith L, Wong ST. Advancing team-based primary health care: a comparative analysis of policies in western Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):493.
  54. 54. Strumpf E, Levesque JF, Coyle N, Hutchison B, Barnes M, Wedel RJ. Innovative and diverse strategies toward primary health care reform: lessons learned from the Canadian experience. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(Suppl 1):S27–33.
  55. 55. Glazier RH, Green ME, Frymire E, Kopp A, Hogg W, Premji K. Do Incentive Payments Reward The Wrong Providers? A Study Of Primary Care Reform In Ontario, Canada. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019;38(4):624–32.
  56. 56. Rosser WW, Colwill JM, Kasperski J, Wilson L. Patient-centered medical homes in Ontario. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(3):e7.
  57. 57. Ashcroft R. Ontario's Family Health Teams: Politics Within the Model. Canadian Social Work Review. 2015;32(1-2):117–32.
  58. 58. Green ME, Hogg W, Gray D, Manuel D, Koller M, Maaten S. Financial and work satisfaction: impacts of participation in primary care reform on physicians in ontario. Healthc Policy. 2009;5(2):e161–76.
  59. 59. Lukey A, Johnston S, Montesanti S, Donnelly C, Wankah P, Breton M. Facilitating Integration Through Team-Based Primary Healthcare: A Cross-Case Policy Analysis of Four Canadian Provinces. Int J Integr Care. 2021;21(4):12.
  60. 60. Rosser WW, Colwill JM, Kasperski J, Wilson L. Progress of Ontario's Family Health Team model: a patient-centered medical home. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(2):165–71.
  61. 61. Hutchison B, Levesque JF, Strumpf E, Coyle N. Primary health care in Canada: systems in motion. Milbank Q. 2011;89(2):256–88.
  62. 62. Beaulieu MDD, J.-L., D'Amour D, Goudreau J, Haggerty J, Hudon E, et al. L'implantation des Groupes de médecine de famille : le défi de la réorganisation de la pratique et de la collaboration interprofessionnelle. 2006.
  63. 63. Breton M, Levesque JF, Pineault R, Hogg W. Primary Care Reform: Can Quebec's Family Medicine Group Model Benefit from the Experience of Ontario's Family Health Teams?. Healthc Policy. 2011;7(2):e122–35.
  64. 64. Breton M, Lévesque JF, Pineault R, Hogg W. L'implantation du modèle des groupes de médecine de famille au Québec : potentiel et limites pour l'accroissement de la performance des soins de santé primaires. Prat Organ Soins. 2011;42(2):101–9.
  65. 65. Gauthier A. Evaluation de l'implantation et des effets des premiers groupes de médecine de famille au Québec. 2008.
  66. 66. Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux Q. Programme de financement et de soutien professionnel pour les groupes de médecine de famille (GMF). 2024.
  67. 67. Pineault R, Borgès Da Silva R, Provost S, Breton M, Tousignant P, Fournier M. Evolution of Experience of Care of Patients with and without Chronic Diseases following a Québec Primary Healthcare Reform. Int J Chronic Dis. 2016;2016:2497637.
  68. 68. Breton M, Deslauriers V, Lamoureux-Lamarche C, Smithman MA, Sauvé C, Beauséjour M. Organizational innovations related to Primary Care Access Points (GAP) for unattached patients in Quebec: a multi-case qualitative study. BMC Prim Care. 2024;25(1):363.
  69. 69. May J, Cooper R, Magin P, Critchley A. Integrated models or mayhem? Lessons learnt from three integrated primary health care entities in regional New South Wales. Aust Health Rev. 2008;32(4):595–604.
  70. 70. Metusela C, Dijkmans-Hadley B, Mullan J, Gow A, Bonney A. Implementation of a patient centred medical home (PCMH) initiative in general practices in New South Wales, Australia. BMC Fam Pract. 2021;22(1):120.
  71. 71. True A, Janamian T, Dawda P, Johnson T, Smith G. Lessons from the implementation of the Health Care Homes program. Med J Aust. 2022;216(Suppl 10):S19–s21.
  72. 72. Tran DT, Falster MO, Pearse J, Mazevska D, McElduff P, Pearson S. The Australian Health Care Homes trial: quality of care and patient outcomes. A propensity score-matched cohort study.. Med J Aust. 2024;220(7):372–8.
  73. 73. Faber MJ, Burgers JS, Westert GP. A sustainable primary care system: lessons from the Netherlands.. J Ambul Care Manage. 2012;35(3):174–81.
  74. 74. van Dijk CE, Verheij RA, te Brake H, Spreeuwenberg P, Groenewegen PP, de Bakker DH. Changes in the remuneration system for general practitioners: effects on contact type and consultation length.. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(1):83–91.
  75. 75. Struijs JN, Baan CA. Integrating care through bundled payments--lessons from The Netherlands.. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(11):990–1.
  76. 76. van Weel C, Schers H, Timmermans A. Health care in the Netherlands.. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(Suppl 1):S12–7.
  77. 77. Vanhommerig JW, Verheij RA, Hek K, Ramerman L, Hooiveld M, Veldhuijzen NJ. Data Resource Profile: Nivel Primary Care Database (Nivel-PCD), The Netherlands.. Int J Epidemiol. 2025;54(2).
  78. 78. Occitanie URdPdSML. Maisons de Santé Pluriprofessionnelles. Guide pratique à destination des 12'000 médecins libéraux d'Occitanie.. 2020.
  79. 79. Moyal A. Une liberté sous contraintes?: rationalisation des pratiques des professionnels libéraux de soins primaires en maisons de santé pluriprofessionnelles en France.. Sociologie. 2021:381.
  80. 80. Kustosz I. Contextualiser les maisons de santé pluriprofessionnelles dans leur cadre institutionnel: un objet pour plusieurs projets. [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01463900
  81. 81. Ray MB, Y, Sicotte C. Les maisons de santé pluriprofessionnelles : un modèle organisationnel au carrefour de multiples logiques.. Revue française des affaires sociales. 2020.
  82. 82. Schlegel V. Des médecins entrepreneurs de la transformation des soins primaires. Une analyse des conditions d'engagement des porteurs libéraux dans les expérimentations Ipep et Peps. Questions d'économie de la santé. 2022;273.
  83. 83. Maisonneuve H, Besson A, Follet M, Fuentes E, Stimulak D, Tudrej B. Story of a multi-professional health center in Lyon, France. Individuals, a group, serving complex patients.. Rev Med Suisse. 2023;19(826):892–7.
  84. 84. Mousquès JB, Y.. L'évaluation de la performance des maisons, pôles et centres de santé dans le cadre des Expérimentations des nouveaux modes de rémunération (ENMR) sur la période 2009-2012. Les rapports de l'IRDES. 2014;559.
  85. 85. Gridel H. Les maisons de santé pluri-professionnelles en plein essor: état des lieux en Ile-de-France. 2017.
  86. 86. Fournier C. Concevoir une maison de santé pluriprofessionnelle : paradoxes et enseignements d'une innovation en actes. Sciences sociales et santé. 2014;32(2):67–95.
  87. 87. Biechler Fournier C. Les maisons de santé pluriprofessionnelles, une opportunité pour transformer les pratiques de soins de premier recours: place et rôle des pratiques préventives et éducatives dans des organisations innovantes. 2015.
  88. 88. Moyal A. Implementing Primary Care Reform in France: Bargaining, Policy Adaptation, and the Maisons de Santé Pluriprofessionnelles. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2024;49(6):1015–50.
  89. 89. pluripro C. 2025. Available from: https://www.concourspluripro.fr/exercice-pluriprofessionnel/msp/2251-maisons-de-sante-9637-infirmieres-8255-medecins-generalistes
  90. 90. Vervialle A. Les maisons et pôles de santé pluridisciplinaires: une réponse aux besoins de renouvellement des soins de premier recours?. 2011.
  91. 91. Vezinat N. La promotion conjointe des maisons de santé pluriprofessionnelles : une « communauté d'intérêt » entre association professionnelle et autorités sanitaires. Revue française des affaires sociales. 2020;(1).
  92. 92. Van de Voorde CL, M., Detollenaere J, Bouckaert N, Jonckheer P. Financement forfaitaire des maisons médicales en Belgique - partie 1: besoins en données. 2024.
  93. 93. Jamart HB, J.-L.. New deal pour la médecine générale, new deal pour les maisons médicales?. Santé conjuguée. 2023;103:22–4.
  94. 94. Dubois F. Les 40 ans du forfait. Santé conjuguée. 2024;108:9–10.
  95. 95. Jamart H, Van Durme T, Belche JL. Summary Community Health Centers in Belgium: thinking health out of the box. Rev Med Suisse. 2023;19(826):900–5.
  96. 96. Naccarella L, Southern D, Furler J, Scott A, Prosser L, Young D. Primary care funding and organisational policy options and implications: a narrative review of evidence from five comparator countries. Med J Aust. 2008;188(S8):S73–6.
  97. 97. Russell GM, Miller WL, Gunn JM, Levesque JF, Harris MF, Hogg WE. Contextual levers for team-based primary care: lessons from reform interventions in five jurisdictions in three countries. Fam Pract. 2018;35(3):276–84.
  98. 98. Wranik WD, Haydt SM. Funding models and medical dominance in interdisciplinary primary care teams: qualitative evidence from three Canadian provinces. Hum Resour Health. 2018;16(1):38.
  99. 99. Wranik WD, Haydt SM, Katz A, Levy AR, Korchagina M, Edwards JM. Funding and remuneration of interdisciplinary primary care teams in Canada: a conceptual framework and application. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):351.
  100. 100. Black S, Fadaak R, Leslie M. Integrating nurse practitioners into primary care: policy considerations from a Canadian province. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21(1):254.
  101. 101. Grant K. Ontario's curious shift away from family health teams [Internet]. 2015. Available from: https://spon.ca/ontarios-curious-shift-away-from-family-health-teams/2015/02/16/
  102. 102. OECD Health Policy Studies. doi:10.1787/2074319x
  103. 103. Grant A, Kontak J, Jeffers E, Lawson B, MacKenzie A, Burge F. Barriers and enablers to implementing interprofessional primary care teams: a narrative review of the literature using the consolidated framework for implementation research. BMC Prim Care. 2024;25(1):25.
  104. 104. Rees CE, Monrouxe LV. Who are you and who do you want to be? Key considerations in developing professional identities in medicine. Med J Aust. 2018;209(5):202–3.
  105. 105. Struthers A, Metge C, Charette C, Harlos K, Bapuji SB, Beaudin P. Primary care renewal strategies in Manitoba: Family physicians' perceptions. Can Fam Physician. 2019;65(9):e397–e404.
  106. 106. Aggarwal M, Hutchison B, Kokorelias KM, Bilgic S, Glazier RH. The impact of remuneration, extrinsic and intrinsic incentives on interprofessional primary care teams: results from a rapid scoping review. BMC Prim Care. 2025;26(1):25.
  107. 107. Adler-Milstein J, Linden A, Bernstein S, Hollingsworth J, Ryan A. Longitudinal participation in delivery and payment reform programs among US Primary Care Organizations. Health Serv Res. 2022;57(1):47–55.
  108. 108. de Vries EF, Drewes HW, Struijs JN, Heijink R, Baan CA. Barriers to payment reform: Experiences from nine Dutch population health management sites. Health Policy. 2019;123(11):1100–7.
  109. 109. West J, Johnson G, Jha AK. Trends in acquisitions of physician practices and subsequent clinical integration: A mixed methods study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2017;23(6):1444–50.
  110. 110. Ney EB, Berger E, Fry S. Primary care 2030: Innovative models transform the landscape. 2022. Available from: https://www.bain.com/contentassets/a16de3e07c0d462e8cbf967a5fe41ec3/bain_brief_primary-care-2030.pdf
  111. 111. Amazon I. Prime One Offers Medical Care [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://health.amazon.com/prime
  112. 112. Werner RM, Emanuel E, Pham HH, Navate AS. The future of value-based payment: A road map to 2030. 2021. Available from: https://d197nivf0nbma8.cloudfront.net/uploads/archive/pdf/PennLDI-Future-of-Value-Based-Payment-WhitePaper.pdf
  113. 113. Kreindler SA, Metge C, Struthers A, Harlos K, Charette C, Bapuji S. Primary care reform in Manitoba, Canada, 2011-15: Balancing accountability and acceptability. Health Policy. 2019;123(6):532–7.
  114. 114. Senn N, Breton M, Ebert ST, Lamoureux-Lamarche C, Lévesque JF. Assessing primary care organization and performance: Literature synthesis and proposition of a consolidated framework. Health Policy. 2021;125(2):160–7.

Most read articles by the same author(s)