General-practitioner-centered health care: current results from the implementation of the German model

General-practitioner-centered health care: current results from the implementation of the German model | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article General-practitioner-centered health care: current results from the implementation of the German model Ruediger Leutgeb, Gerhard Emmanuel Fuchs, Attila Altiner, Gunter Laux This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8660406/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 09 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 13 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Primary care-centered healthcare models, particularly those led by general practitioners (GPs), are increasingly adopted to address global healthcare challenges including rising costs, fragmented services, and chronic disease burdens. In Germany, the “Hausarztzentrierte Versorgung” (English: General Practitioner-Centered Health Care, GPCHC) program aims to reinforce the role of GPs as care coordinators. Within this study we evaluated data from the implemented German GPCHC model in Baden-Württemberg, a German federal State with about 11 Mio inhabitants and compared outcomes with international benchmarks for strong primary care. The analysis is based on administrative health insurance data of almost two million individuals. We compared patients enrolled in GPCHC with patients receiving regular primary care in 2022 in terms of key indicators of healthcare utilization (GP contacts, uncoordinated consultations with a non-GP-specialist, all-cause hospitalizations, potentially avoidable hospitalizations (PAHs), and prescription of me-too drugs. For patients enrolled in the GPCHC program, consistently favorable outcomes were observed with respect to these key indicators. These findings align with international evidence from strong primary care systems in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Nordic countries. The proposed model presents a scalable framework for strengthening primary care delivery in complex healthcare systems. Health sciences/Health care Health sciences/Medical research Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Introduction General practitioner-centered health care (GPCHC) is increasingly recognized as a foundational approach for addressing the structural challenges of modern health systems. Conceptually grounded in the ten building blocks of high-performing primary care—such as empanelment, team-based care, population health management, and continuity. GPCHC models are designed to enhance care integration, responsiveness, and sustainability [1]. Over the past 15 years, a growing body of international research has established strong associations between GPCHC models and improved health system performance, particularly in the context of rising costs, care fragmentation, and the global burden of chronic disease [2–4]. Countries with well-developed GP-centered systems consistently report lower rates of potentially avoidable hospitalizations (PAHs), better chronic disease control, and higher levels of patient satisfaction [5]. The findings of the QUALICOPC study, which evaluated primary care in thirty-four countries, further underscore these relationships [5]. Systems with institutionalized gatekeeping mechanisms—such as the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom—demonstrated high continuity of care, broad scope of services, and superior patient-reported experiences. In the Netherlands, near-universal general practitioner (GP) enrollment and comprehensive care provision were linked to improved coordination and reduced specialist overutilization. Denmark demonstrated high levels of equity and accessibility of after-hours care, while the UK showed solid performance in the areas of patient-centeredness and chronic disease management. These patterns align with international evidence suggesting that robust primary care systems are inversely correlated with health inequities and preventable hospital admissions [6–11]. In contrast, Germany, where GPCHC was traditionally voluntary and heterogeneous, has seen significant structural development in recent years. The German Association of General Practitioners (“Deutscher Hausärzteverband”) has implemented a nationwide rollout of the GPCHC model, contributing to the gradual resolution of care fragmentation and improving integration across primary care settings [12]. Recent German cohort studies further support the effectiveness of GPCHC models in improving patient outcomes. An evaluation based on routine data from AOK Baden-Württemberg showed significant reductions in all-cause hospitalizations among participants of structured GPCHC care programs [13]. A large-scale survival analysis revealed lower mortality rates over five years for patients enrolled in GPCHC, particularly among chronically ill and elderly populations [14]. Additionally it was observed that GPCHC was associated with lower rates of PAHs for nursing home patients [15]. Longitudinal studies also documented sustained reductions in preventable hospital admissions and improved continuity of care during the COVID-19 pandemic [16]. Moreover, recent pharmacoepidemiologic research linked GP-centered models with a lower prescription prevalence of fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) in elderly patients, highlighting the system’s role in medication safety [17]. These findings emphasize the relevance of structured GPCHC for clinical effectiveness, resource efficiency, and patient safety in the German health system. Building on this evidence base, the present analysis integrates the most recent GPCHC findings with longitudinal data to show robustness and places them within the comparative framework of international high-performing primary care models. We especially focused on GP contacts, uncoordinated consultations with a non-GP-specialist, all-cause hospitalizations, PAHs, and prescription of me-too drugs. Methods Study Design. This observational study utilized routinely collected administrative data from a major statutory health insurer in Germany. The data were originally gathered for the purpose of reimbursing healthcare providers. The insurer, AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg, covers more than 40% of the population in the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg (overall about 11 million individuals). The study focused on a one-year observation period spanning from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022. The longitudinal analyses focused on a 12-year observation period spanning from January 1 st , 2011, to December 31 st , 2022. Study Population . Participants were selected according to predefined inclusion criteria: Age of 18 years or older Residency in Baden-Wuerttemberg during the study year At least one general practitioner (GP) consultation within the observation period Continuous health insurance coverage with AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg No enrollment in other healthcare agreements (e.g., integrated care contracts) No gaps in insurance registration Exclusion criteria comprised death or withdrawal from the GP-centered healthcare (GPCHC) program during the study period. GPCHC participants were directly linked to their designated GP. In contrast, control group patients were retrospectively assigned to the GP whom they consulted in at least 50% of their visits. Control patients for whom no such assignment was possible (approximately 5.9%) were excluded from the analysis. The most frequently consulted physician was considered the patient's GP. Programme. The GPCHC programme, established under Paragraph 73b of the German Social Code Book Five (SGB V), is intended to enhance the role of primary care. General practitioners (GPs) participating in the programme receive approximately 40% higher reimbursement per enrolled patient, with no maximum limit. Patients, however, do not receive any direct financial incentives for participation. The programme is characterized by several core elements: Timely Access to Services: Participating practices ensure the availability of appropriate infrastructure, regular consultation hours, and modern IT systems, resulting in reduced waiting times and exemption from out-of-pocket costs for medications. Holistic Primary Care: GPs are qualified in essential areas of primary care and are required to engage in ongoing professional training. Electronic Decision Support Tools: A traffic light–based system supports prescribing practices by promoting cost-effective and evidence-informed medication choices. Structured Management of Chronic Diseases: The programme provides organized care pathways for chronic conditions such as diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and coronary heart disease. GP-Guided Access to Specialist Services: In line with gatekeeping principles, referrals to specialists require GP coordination and oversight. Enhanced Care Coordination: Communication and information exchange between providers are improved, particularly in the referral process. Quality Improvement Through Data Feedback: Participating GPs engage in quality circles, receiving data-driven feedback on prescribing behavior along with regular updates on evidence-based guidelines. Key Indicators of Healthcare Utilization. GP contacts, uncoordinated consultations with a non-GP-specialist, and all-cause hospitalizations were directly available within the routine data set. PAHs were derived from the primary diagnosis leading to the hospital admission. The PAH calculus is described in detail elsewhere [15]. The prescription of me-too drugs was determined by the “Pharmazentralnummer” (PZN) of prescribed drugs. The PZN serves as a unique identifier for a specific pharmaceutical preparation. Me-too drugs These five key indicators have been examined since the inception of the GPCHC evaluation. Data Analysis. Descriptive analyses were conducted for patient characteristics in the GPCHC and control cohort (Regular Care). In order to assess the association between GPCHC and the key indicators, we used multivariable Poisson regression models for our count data. Potential clustering effects of patients within GP practices were addressed using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEEs). GEEs models were also used for our longitudinal 12-years-models in order to regard autocorrelation of individuals over time. Patient age, gender, nationality, comorbidities, nursing care level, and nursing home residency were included into our multivariable models in order to adjust for those variables. The models' goodness of fit was evaluated using the quasi-likelihood under the independence model criterion (QIC), with the most fitting models preferred. Results with P-values below 0.01 were considered statistically significant. In order to adjust for multiple testing, we applied the conservative Bonferroni Method. Data storage and extraction were performed using MySQL Community Server x64 (Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA, USA). Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA). Ethics approval and consent to participate. Ethics approval was provided by the Heidelberg University Ethics Committee (No. S-359/2013). All patients provided written informed consent for participation in the GPCHC programme. Patients in the regular care cohort were extracted from an anonymized database of AOK claims data. We confirm that all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Results Overall 1,929,957 patients were included in our cross sectional analyses for 2022. For the longitudinal analyses 3,834,372 patient years were drawn upon from 2011 to 2022 (12 years). A patient-year is defined as the observation of one patient for a period of one calendar year. Demographics. Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of the GPCHC and the Regular Care group for the observation year 2022. The mean age of GPCHC individuals in 2022 was approximately 55 years, compared to about 52 years in the Regular Care group. The gender distribution was nearly identical in both groups (approximately 54% female and 46% male). The burden of disease (morbidity), measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index, was higher in the GPCHC group (1.37) than in the Regular Care group (1.01). This higher disease burden among GPCHC individuals must be regarded as clinically relevant. The mean duration of GPCHC participation among the study population was 8.7 years. Table 1. Cross Sectional Results. Table 2 presents the results of the cross-sectional analyses for the year 2022. Columns 2 and 3 report unadjusted mean values for GPCHC and Regular Care individuals. Columns 4 and 5 display the adjusted absolute and relative differences of GPCHC individuals compared to Regular Care individuals, as well as the type I statistical error (p-value). Table 2. For all five key indicators, the results are statistically significant (p < 0.0001) in favor of GPCHC individuals. The percentage differences are particularly pronounced for GP contacts (+47.46%), uncoordinated consultations with a non-GP specialist (−38.85%), and prescription of me-too drugs (−24.82%). However, the observed percentage differences for all-cause hospitalizations (−8.61%) and potentially avoidable hospitalizations (−2.46%) must also be considered systemically relevant in light of the high costs associated with inpatient care. Longitudinal Results. Our cross sectional observations were confirmed by longitudinal data for the period 2011 to 2022. In the longitudinal analysis of “GP contacts,” the relative difference persisted between 21% and 37% across all study years (Figure 1). Across the entire observation period, CPCHC individuals consistently exhibited fewer “uncoordinated specialist consultations.” The difference of 35.8% in favor of the CPCHC group in 2013 increased to more than 45% in the following year and reached 51.7% in 2022 (Figure 2). Considering the longitudinal data on GP contacts and uncoordinated specialist consultations for 2022, CPCHC individuals had, on average, more than three additional GP contacts compared with Regular Care individuals, while at the same time exhibiting markedly more than one fewer uncoordinated specialist consultation. Given the large number of insured individuals included over the observation period, these differences can be regarded as highly relevant for overall healthcare provision. With respect to “all-cause hospitalizations” (per 100 individuals) the longitudinal analysis revealed percentage differences ranging from −15.5% to −10.8% in favor of GPCHC individuals (Figure 3). Compared with the cross-sectional analysis, larger differences were observed. With respect to potentially avoidable hospitalizations (per 100 hospitalized individuals), the longitudinal analysis showed statistically significant lower admission rates for GPCHC individuals (Figure 4). On average, the absolute difference was close to 1, corresponding to roughly one additional avoided hospitalization per 100 individuals compared with the Regular Care group. With respect to the share of “prescriptions of me-too drugs” among all prescriptions issued by general practitioners, the longitudinal analysis revealed substantially fewer “me-too drug” prescriptions for HZV individuals. The relative difference ranged between 30.5% and 37.5% (Figure 5). Although the absolute differences are not large, when considered in the context of a very large insured population, these differences are of clear health-economic relevance. Discussion Our 2025 evaluation of the GPCHC program in Baden-Württemberg reaffirms the model’s effectiveness in improving key health outcomes. Compared to non-enrolled individuals, GPCHC participants benefit from enhanced care coordination, reduced hospital utilization, and more appropriate medication use. Cross-sectional analyses showed significant benefits for several indicators, which were confirmed by longitudinal data for the period 2011 to 2022. A consistent pattern of favorable associations emerged over time, with a sustained or even increasing magnitude of positive differences in clinical and utilization outcomes. Particularly cost-relevant outcomes -such as those associated with pharmacotherapy and inpatient care- demonstrated pronounced longitudinal effects. The reduction in PAHs and medication-related risks (17) underscores the model’s contribution to system efficiency and patient safety. These findings are consistent with international evidence indicating that longitudinal, coordinated primary care -such as in GPCHC- can reduce the burden of inappropriate polypharmacy, particularly among patients with chronic conditions (18–20). Integrated primary care models have also demonstrated improvements in clinical indicators, including better control of hypertension, diabetes, and reduced stroke incidence (19,21). Furthermore, structured medication reviews implemented within primary care settings have proven effective in enhancing medication safety in polypharmacy contexts (22). Such international comparisons further validate the German GPCHC model: countries with well-established primary care systems -such as the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the Nordic states- consistently report reduced avoidable hospitalizations, higher continuity of care, and improved patient satisfaction within gatekeeping and team-based frameworks (4, 5, 8, 23). The five-year survival advantage observed in GPCHC cohorts’ mirrors findings from UK-based models of patient-centered medical homes (11,24). Additionally, improved medication safety and lower prescription rates of fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) among GPCHC participants align with global evidence highlighting the importance of continuity and interdisciplinary care in the management of elderly and multimorbid populations (17,25). Collectively, these results highlight the potential of structured primary care programs not only to maintain but also to expand their impact in settings marked by rising chronic disease burden and healthcare complexity. Spending on health and, more specifically, on primary care varies significantly across countries with GP-centered systems. For example, the Netherlands allocates 14–16% of its total health budget to primary care, with overall health expenditure amounting to 10.7% of GDP. Denmark and Sweden maintain similar ratios, with Denmark investing 15% in primary care and 10.1% of GDP in total health spending. These levels of investment are associated with improved continuity, effective chronic care coordination, and high patient satisfaction (24,26). The United Kingdom, despite pressures on the NHS, maintains primary care spending at about 12–14% and total health expenditure at 12% of GDP, supporting robust performance in chronic disease management and integrated care (27). Germany also spends around 12.8% of its GDP on healthcare but has traditionally allocated only 6–8% to primary care (28). However, this situation is evolving. The GPCHC model now covers over three million people in Baden-Württemberg and more than ten million nationwide (29). Although Germany still lags some comparator countries in terms of investment in primary care, the progress observed in the context of GPCHC emphasizes its potential. Expanding the scope of care, harmonizing funding priorities and strengthening structural reforms could help to move Germany towards a more integrated and efficient primary care system. In the United States, patient-centered medical home (PCMH) models mirror structural elements of the German GPCHC program, emphasizing team-based care, data-driven chronic disease management, and care continuity. A five-year evaluation by Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island reported a 5% reduction in total healthcare costs, a 16% lower hospitalization and ED visit rate among chronically ill patients, and 30% fewer readmissions by year five in PCMH settings compared to traditional care models [30]. Similarly, a Maryland study found that PCMH enrollment among high-cost privately insured adults led to a 34% reduction in the likelihood of remaining in the highest cost category, with improved continuity of care and reduced hospitalizations [31,32]. These findings aligned with earlier evaluations show that PCMH implementation can achieve measurable reductions in hospital utilization, improved outcomes in chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension, and overall cost containment [33-36]. While early results showed some variability, more recent longitudinal evidence highlights that mature PCMH implementations deliver sustained system-level improvements. Taken together, this growing U.S. literature confirms that structured, GP-equivalent primary care models -when properly implemented- can reduce emergency and inpatient care, improve chronic disease management, and support cost-effective care delivery. The international convergence of evidence underscores the value of continued investment in robust primary care infrastructure. Despite the use of comprehensive administrative data and rigorous risk adjustment, the observational design of this study precludes definitive causal inference. Residual confounding cannot be fully excluded, particularly due to potential selection effects, such as patient self-enrollment based on care-seeking preferences or differences in physician engagement and motivation. However, the robustness of findings across multiple outcomes, time periods, and analytic methods strengthens the credibility of the results. When situated within the international context, GPCHC outcomes mirror those reported in countries with strong primary care systems—such as the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom—where gatekeeping, team-based care, and higher primary care investment contribute to reduced inequities and improved population health. Similar trends are also evident in the United States, where patient-centered medical home models have demonstrated reductions in hospitalizations and emergency visits, better chronic disease management, and cost savings when consistently implemented. While Germany continues to allocate a comparatively lower share of its healthcare spending to primary care, the positive outcomes achieved within the GPCHC framework demonstrate that targeted structural reforms can yield substantial benefits even under constrained investment conditions. The findings reaffirm global evidence linking greater investment in primary care with better clinical outcomes, fewer avoidable hospital admissions, and more equitable service access. In this regard, the GPCHC model offers not only successful regional implementation but also a scalable and transferable framework for primary care reform in high-income healthcare systems facing demographic change, chronic disease burdens, and financial pressures. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate. Ethics approval was provided by the Heidelberg University Ethics Committee (No. S-359/2013). All patients provided written informed consent for participation in the GPCHC programme. Patients in the regular care cohort were extracted from an anonymized database of AOK claims data. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Funding The study is part of a larger evaluation, which was funded by AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg, which is partner in implementation of the strong primary care model. The evaluators are scientifically independent. Acknowledgements The data usage grant from the AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg for this study is thankfully acknowledged. Author Contribution R.L. framed the topic and wrote the manuscript. G.F. and A.A. interpreted results. G.L. managed data and performed statistical analysis. G. F. performed figure generation. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Acknowledgement The data usage grant from the AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg for this study is thankfully acknowledged. Data Availability The AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg can be contacted for access to the claims data. Data are available on reasonable request. References Bodenheimer, T., Ghorob, A., Willard-Grace, R. & Grumbach, K. The 10 building blocks of high-performing primary care. Ann. Fam Med. 12 (2), 166–171 (2014). Starfield, B., Shi, L. & Macinko, J. Contribution of Primary Care to Health Systems and Health. Health Aff . 24 (2), 457–502 (2005). Macinko, J., Starfield, B. & Erbacher, K. The Contribution of Primary Care Systems to Health Outcomes within OECD Countries. Health Serv. Res. 44 (1), 194–212 (2009). Kringos, D. S., Boerma, W. G. W., Hutchinson, A., van der Zee, J. & Groenewegen, P. P. The strength of primary care in Europe: An international comparative study. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 63 (616), e742–e750 (2013). Schäfer, W. et al. QUALICOPC Study – Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe. BMC Fam Pract. 16 , 61 (2015). Pereira Gray, D. J., Sidaway-Lee, K., White, E., Thorne, A. & Evans, P. H. Continuity of care with doctors – A matter of life and death? BMJ Open. 8 , e021161 (2018). Schäfer, W. L., Groenewegen, P. P., Hansen, J. & Boerma, W. G. Strong primary care is associated with better health outcomes and lower health system costs: An update of the QUALICOPC study findings. Health Policy . 127 (3), 345–355. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.01.004 (2023). Kringos, D. S., Boerma, W. G. W., Hutchinson, A. & Saltman, R. B. (eds) Building primary care in a changing Europe [Internet]. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; PMID: 29035488. (2015). OECD. Realizing the Potential of Primary Health Care. OECD Health Policy Studies (OECD Publishing, 2020). 10.1787/a92adee4-en World Health Organization. Primary health care: Closing the gap on health inequities. Geneva: WHO. (2022). Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240063970 Fujisawa, R. & Klazinga, N. Measuring quality in primary care: OECD Health Working Papers No. 135. Paris: OECD Publishing; (2021). 10.1787/893c4c4e-en Deutscher Hausärzteverband. Hausarztzentrierte Versorgung bundesweit etabliert – Strukturierte Versorgung ausgebaut. Accessed (2024). https://www.hausaerzteverband.de Wensing, M., Koll, P., Szecsenyi, J., Stock, C. & Laux, G. Effects of a program to strengthen general practice care on hospitalisation rates: A comparative observational study. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care . 36 (1), 16–25 (2018). Wensing, M., Szecsenyi, J., Kaufmann-Kolle, P. & Laux, G. Strong primary care and patients’ survival. Sci. Rep. 9 , 10845 (2019). Leutgeb, R., Berger, S. J., Szecsenyi, J. & Laux, G. Potentially avoidable hospitalisations of German nursing home patients? A cross-sectional study on utilisation patterns and potential consequences for healthcare. BMJ Open. 9 (1), e025269. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025269 (2019). Laux, G. & Leutgeb, R. Continuity of care in a pandemic: Evaluation of GP-centered care during COVID-19. BMJ Open. Qual. 13 , e002356 (2024). Laux, G., Kaufmann-Kolle, P., Szecsenyi, J., Altiner, A. & Leutgeb, R. Fall-risk-increasing drugs in older patients: The role of guidelines and GP-centered health care in Germany. Age Ageing . 52 (4), afad045 (2023). Larrañaga, I. et al. Longitudinality in Primary Care and Polypharmacy. A systematic review. Semergen 49 (6), 101994. 10.1016/j.semerg.2023.101994 (2023). Qianjiang Chronic Care Study Group. Impact of primary care and public health integration on control of hypertension, diabetes, stroke: a multicentre prospective observational study in China. BMJ Open. 14 , e081698. 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081698 (2024). Williams, A. et al. Does Having a Usual Primary Care Provider Reduce Polypharmacy in Chronic Disease Patients? Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 47 (2), 256–265. 10.1007/s11096-024-01260-1 (2025). Smith, J. et al. Team-based primary care models and chronic disease outcomes: scoping review. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care . 42 (1), 112 (2024). Green, D. et al. Structured medication reviews for patients with polypharmacy in North-West London: system evaluation. J. Prim. Care Community Health . 16 , 2150132725123256. 10.1177/2150132725123256 (2025). John, J. R., Jani, H., Peters, K., Agho, K. & Tannous, W. K. The effectiveness of patient-centred medical home-based models of care versus standard primary care in chronic disease management: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health . 17 (6886), 1–85. 10.3390/ijerph17186886 (2020). Rosenthal, T. C. The medical home: Growing Evidence to support a new approach to primary care. J. Am. Board. Fam Med. 21 (5), 427–440 (2008). Zhang, Y. et al. Use of fall-risk-increasing drugs and risk of falls: A prospective cohort study among older community-dwelling adults. BMC Geriatr. 24 (1), 155. 10.1186/s12877-024-05557-2 (2024). Bazemore, A. et al. Primary care spending as a share of total health spending. JAMA 327 (17), 1704–1706 (2022). Charlesworth, A. & Watt, T. The future of primary care: creating teams for tomorrow (The Health Foundation, 2021). Schneider, U., Hilbert, J., Götz, K. & Steinhaeuser, J. Ausgaben für die hausärztliche Versorgung – Ein Vergleich internationaler Systeme. ZEFQ 146 , 28–34 (2023). Hausärztinnen-und Hausärzteverband. Baden-Württemberg Available from: https://www.haevbw.de/entscheidung-praxis Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative. New study shows patient-centered medical homes improve health, lower costs. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island. (2024). Available from: https://archive.thepcc.org/resource/new-study-shows-patient-centered-medical-homes-improve-health-lower-costs Markovitz, A. A., Alexander, J. A., Lantz, P. M. & Paustian, M. L. Patient-centered medical home implementation and use of preventive services: the role of practice socioeconomic context. JAMA Intern. Med. 175 (4), 598–606 (2015). Hong, C. S., Ortiz, J. & McWilliams, J. M. Primary care spending and utilization among high-cost privately insured adults. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 38 (1), 59–66 (2023). Friedberg, M. W. & Schneider, E. C. Primary care: a critical review of the evidence on quality and costs of health care. Health Aff . 29 (5), 766–772 (2010). Friedberg, M. W. Association between participation in a multiplayer medical home Intervention and changes in quality, utilization, and costs of care. JAMA 311 (8), 815–825. 10.1001/jama.2014.353 (2014). Hoff, T., Weller, W. & DePuccio, M. The Patient-Centered Medical Home: A Review of Recent Research. Med. Care Res. Rev. 69 (6), 619–644 (2012). Bitton, A. Strong primary health care in the United States – Closer than we might think. J. Am. Board. Fam Med. 37 (3), 537–539 (2024). Tables Table 1. Patient demographics Observation Year 2022 Patients included (n=1,929,957) GPCHC Patients (n=1,255,445) Regular Care Patients (n=674,512) Age ± SD (in 2022) 55.20 ± 18.97 52.33 ± 19.48 Gender male female 45.92% 54.08% 46.32% 53.68% Nationality German other 78.97% 21.03% 76.88% 23.12% Insurance Status Policyholder Dependent Retiree 58.84% 6.59% 34.56% 62.87% 7.12% 29.02% Morbidity ± SD based on Charlson-Index 1.37 ± 2.05 1.01 ± 1.76 Duration of GPCHC enrollment Quarters ± SD 34.60 ± 16.43 - Table 2. Cross sectional results (2022) Observation Year 2022 Patients included (n=1,929,957) CPCHC Patients Ø ± SD n=1.255.445 Regular Care Patients Ø ± SD n=674.512 Adjusted Difference (SE) [95%-CI] CPCHC vs. Regular Care Difference in % Significance – adjusted – ** CPCHC vs. Regular Care GP-contacts Average number per patient 13.27 ±10.86 8.43 ± 12.22 +5.08 (0.047) [4.985; 5.169] +25.47% p<0.0001 Uncoordinated consultations with a non-GP-specialist Average number per patient 1.95 ± 6.06 3.29 ± 9.04 -1.48 (0.114) [-1.708; -1.263] -38.85% p<0.0001 All-cause hospitalizations Average number per patient 0.224 ± 0.671 0.216 ± 0.661 -0.021 (0.004) [-0.023;-0.019] -8.61% p<0.0001 Potentially avoidable hospitalizations Average number per 100 patients 14.34 ± 32.46 14.01 ± 32.16 -0.506 (0.001) [-0.771; -0.240] -2.46% p<0.0001 Prescription of me-too drugs Prescriptions at the GP, share in % 1.56 ± 6.80 2.11 ± 8.65 -0.666 (0.014) [-0.693; -0.639] -24.82% p<0.0001 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 09 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 11 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 11 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 09 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 05 Feb, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 05 Feb, 2026 Editor invited by journal 28 Jan, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 27 Jan, 2026 First submitted to journal 27 Jan, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8660406","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":587625917,"identity":"78ba84a7-1a60-4c2f-bff7-35ec0314a034","order_by":0,"name":"Ruediger Leutgeb","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Heidelberg University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ruediger","middleName":"","lastName":"Leutgeb","suffix":""},{"id":587625918,"identity":"9f3c0a7a-2c0d-4474-a3b4-022ec874cd55","order_by":1,"name":"Gerhard Emmanuel Fuchs","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Heidelberg University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gerhard","middleName":"Emmanuel","lastName":"Fuchs","suffix":""},{"id":587625919,"identity":"edea6fcd-014e-4451-9376-7c1f46614aba","order_by":2,"name":"Attila Altiner","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Heidelberg University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Attila","middleName":"","lastName":"Altiner","suffix":""},{"id":587625920,"identity":"4fd2cc80-412c-4ccf-890a-81e837d172c8","order_by":3,"name":"Gunter Laux","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Heidelberg University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gunter","middleName":"","lastName":"Laux","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-21 13:46:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8660406/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8660406/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-43163-x","type":"published","date":"2026-03-09T15:58:18+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102337112,"identity":"98a117bc-9c7b-4f7a-badb-9e13036da2b4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 16:11:52","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":157113,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8660406/v1/78c2ffca953f6d42f2fd9e9b.png"},{"id":102336837,"identity":"f604c842-b0c5-4988-9a98-5fd0d237bf98","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 16:11:11","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":154026,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8660406/v1/acdcb79cda1498bb42a3aadc.png"},{"id":102336870,"identity":"78e880bb-d905-4b1a-9309-95b3d9d1ea15","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 16:11:15","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":154762,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8660406/v1/bafdf5e0f8c66faaeba02c65.png"},{"id":102337007,"identity":"c92e88fb-2a45-410d-a117-dbeda55e0e27","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 16:11:43","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":165025,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8660406/v1/0c05534d3cf368fbfc48976d.png"},{"id":102336871,"identity":"44b07070-a182-4d1d-b918-c6c02a406d4e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-10 16:11:18","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":160931,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8660406/v1/e39fe201e2401944909e097e.png"},{"id":104739337,"identity":"6f94ec6a-536b-4c35-8f40-778aa5055708","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-16 16:03:08","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1130000,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8660406/v1/59e5c19f-3d91-4173-951b-8ba294731911.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"General-practitioner-centered health care: current results from the implementation of the German model","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eGeneral practitioner-centered health care (GPCHC) is increasingly recognized as a foundational approach for addressing the structural challenges of modern health systems. Conceptually grounded in the ten building blocks of high-performing primary care—such as empanelment, team-based care, population health management, and continuity. GPCHC models are designed to enhance care integration, responsiveness, and sustainability [1].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOver the past 15 years, a growing body of international research has established strong associations between GPCHC models and improved health system performance, particularly in the context of rising costs, care fragmentation, and the global burden of chronic disease [2–4]. Countries with well-developed GP-centered systems consistently report lower rates of potentially avoidable hospitalizations (PAHs), better chronic disease control, and higher levels of patient satisfaction [5].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings of the QUALICOPC study, which evaluated primary care in thirty-four countries, further underscore these relationships [5]. Systems with institutionalized gatekeeping mechanisms—such as the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom—demonstrated high continuity of care, broad scope of services, and superior patient-reported experiences. In the Netherlands, near-universal general practitioner (GP) enrollment and comprehensive care provision were linked to improved coordination and reduced specialist overutilization. Denmark demonstrated high levels of equity and accessibility of after-hours care, while the UK showed solid performance in the areas of patient-centeredness and chronic disease management. These patterns align with international evidence suggesting that robust primary care systems are inversely correlated with health inequities and preventable hospital admissions [6–11].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, Germany, where GPCHC was traditionally voluntary and heterogeneous, has seen significant structural development in recent years. The German Association of General Practitioners (“Deutscher Hausärzteverband”) has implemented a nationwide rollout of the GPCHC model, contributing to the gradual resolution of care fragmentation and improving integration across primary care settings [12].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent German cohort studies further support the effectiveness of GPCHC models in improving patient outcomes. An evaluation based on routine data from AOK Baden-Württemberg showed significant reductions in all-cause hospitalizations among participants of structured GPCHC care programs [13]. A large-scale survival analysis revealed lower mortality rates over five years for patients enrolled in GPCHC, particularly among chronically ill and elderly populations [14]. Additionally it was observed that GPCHC was associated with lower rates of PAHs for nursing home patients [15].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLongitudinal studies also documented sustained reductions in preventable hospital admissions and improved continuity of care during the COVID-19 pandemic [16]. Moreover, recent pharmacoepidemiologic research linked GP-centered models with a lower prescription prevalence of fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) in elderly patients, highlighting the system’s role in medication safety [17].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings emphasize the relevance of structured GPCHC for clinical effectiveness, resource efficiency, and patient safety in the German health system.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on this evidence base, the present analysis integrates the most recent GPCHC findings with longitudinal data to show robustness and places them within the comparative framework of international high-performing primary care models. We especially focused on GP contacts, uncoordinated consultations with a non-GP-specialist, all-cause hospitalizations, PAHs, and prescription of me-too drugs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy Design.\u003c/em\u003e This observational study utilized routinely collected administrative data from a major statutory health insurer in Germany. The data were originally gathered for the purpose of reimbursing healthcare providers. The insurer, AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg, covers more than 40% of the population in the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg (overall about 11 million individuals). The study focused on a one-year observation period spanning from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2022. The longitudinal analyses focused on a 12-year observation period spanning from January 1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e, 2011, to December 31\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e , 2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy Population\u003c/em\u003e. Participants were selected according to predefined inclusion criteria:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAge of 18 years or older\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eResidency in Baden-Wuerttemberg during the study year\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAt least one general practitioner (GP) consultation within the observation period\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eContinuous health insurance coverage with AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNo enrollment in other healthcare agreements (e.g., integrated care contracts)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNo gaps in insurance registration\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExclusion criteria comprised death or withdrawal from the GP-centered healthcare (GPCHC) program during the study period. GPCHC participants were directly linked to their designated GP. In contrast, control group patients were retrospectively assigned to the GP whom they consulted in at least 50% of their visits. Control patients for whom no such assignment was possible (approximately 5.9%) were excluded from the analysis. The most frequently consulted physician was considered the patient\u0026apos;s GP.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProgramme.\u003c/em\u003e The GPCHC programme, established under Paragraph 73b of the German Social Code Book Five (SGB V), is intended to enhance the role of primary care. General practitioners (GPs) participating in the programme receive approximately 40% higher reimbursement per enrolled patient, with no maximum limit. Patients, however, do not receive any direct financial incentives for participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe programme is characterized by several core elements:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTimely Access to Services: Participating practices ensure the availability of appropriate infrastructure, regular consultation hours, and modern IT systems, resulting in reduced waiting times and exemption from out-of-pocket costs for medications.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHolistic Primary Care: GPs are qualified in essential areas of primary care and are required to engage in ongoing professional training.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eElectronic Decision Support Tools: A traffic light\u0026ndash;based system supports prescribing practices by promoting cost-effective and evidence-informed medication choices.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStructured Management of Chronic Diseases: The programme provides organized care pathways for chronic conditions such as diabetes, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and coronary heart disease.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGP-Guided Access to Specialist Services: In line with gatekeeping principles, referrals to specialists require GP coordination and oversight.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnhanced Care Coordination: Communication and information exchange between providers are improved, particularly in the referral process.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQuality Improvement Through Data Feedback: Participating GPs engage in quality circles, receiving data-driven feedback on prescribing behavior along with regular updates on evidence-based guidelines.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKey Indicators of Healthcare Utilization.\u003c/em\u003e GP contacts, uncoordinated consultations with a non-GP-specialist, and all-cause hospitalizations were directly available within the routine data set. PAHs were derived from the primary diagnosis leading to the hospital admission. The PAH calculus is described in detail elsewhere [15]. The prescription of me-too drugs was determined by the \u0026ldquo;Pharmazentralnummer\u0026rdquo; (PZN) of prescribed drugs. The PZN serves as a unique identifier for a specific pharmaceutical preparation. Me-too drugs\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese five key indicators have been examined since the inception of the GPCHC evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData Analysis.\u003c/em\u003e Descriptive analyses were conducted for patient characteristics in the GPCHC and control cohort (Regular Care). In order to assess the association between GPCHC and the key indicators, we used multivariable Poisson regression models for our count data. Potential clustering effects of patients within GP practices were addressed using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEEs). GEEs models were also used for our longitudinal 12-years-models in order to regard autocorrelation of individuals over time. Patient age, gender, nationality, comorbidities, nursing care level, and nursing home residency were included into our multivariable models in order to adjust for those variables. The models\u0026apos; goodness of fit was evaluated using the quasi-likelihood under the independence model criterion (QIC), with the most fitting models preferred. Results with P-values below 0.01 were considered statistically significant. In order to adjust for multiple testing, we applied the conservative Bonferroni Method.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData storage and extraction were performed using MySQL Community Server x64 (Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA, USA). Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate.\u003c/em\u003e Ethics approval was provided by the Heidelberg University Ethics Committee (No. S-359/2013). All patients provided written informed consent for participation in the GPCHC programme. Patients in the regular care cohort were extracted from an anonymized database of AOK claims data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe confirm that all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eOverall 1,929,957 patients were included in our cross sectional analyses for 2022. For the longitudinal analyses 3,834,372 patient years were drawn upon from 2011 to 2022 (12 years). A patient-year is defined as the observation of one patient for a period of one calendar year.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographics.\u003c/em\u003e Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of the GPCHC and the Regular Care group for the observation year 2022. The mean age of GPCHC individuals in 2022 was approximately 55 years, compared to about 52 years in the Regular Care group. The gender distribution was nearly identical in both groups (approximately 54% female and 46% male). The burden of disease (morbidity), measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index, was higher in the GPCHC group (1.37) than in the Regular Care group (1.01). This higher disease burden among GPCHC individuals must be regarded as clinically relevant. The mean duration of GPCHC participation among the study population was 8.7 years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCross Sectional Results.\u003c/em\u003e Table 2 presents the results of the cross-sectional analyses for the year 2022. Columns 2 and 3 report unadjusted mean values for GPCHC and Regular Care individuals. Columns 4 and 5 display the adjusted absolute and relative differences of GPCHC individuals compared to Regular Care individuals, as well as the type I statistical error (p-value).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor all five key indicators, the results are statistically significant (p \u0026lt; 0.0001) in favor of GPCHC individuals. The percentage differences are particularly pronounced for GP contacts (+47.46%), uncoordinated consultations with a non-GP specialist (\u0026minus;38.85%), and prescription of me-too drugs (\u0026minus;24.82%). However, the observed percentage differences for all-cause hospitalizations (\u0026minus;8.61%) and potentially avoidable hospitalizations (\u0026minus;2.46%) must also be considered systemically relevant in light of the high costs associated with inpatient care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLongitudinal Results.\u003c/em\u003e Our cross sectional observations were confirmed by longitudinal data for the period 2011 to 2022. In the longitudinal analysis of \u0026ldquo;GP contacts,\u0026rdquo; the relative difference persisted between 21% and 37% across all study years (Figure 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross the entire observation period, CPCHC individuals consistently exhibited fewer \u0026ldquo;uncoordinated specialist consultations.\u0026rdquo; The difference of 35.8% in favor of the CPCHC group in 2013 increased to more than 45% in the following year and reached 51.7% in 2022 (Figure 2). Considering the longitudinal data on GP contacts and uncoordinated specialist consultations for 2022, CPCHC individuals had, on average, more than three additional GP contacts compared with Regular Care individuals, while at the same time exhibiting markedly more than one fewer uncoordinated specialist consultation. Given the large number of insured individuals included over the observation period, these differences can be regarded as highly relevant for overall healthcare provision.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to \u0026ldquo;all-cause hospitalizations\u0026rdquo; (per 100 individuals) the longitudinal analysis revealed percentage differences ranging from \u0026minus;15.5% to \u0026minus;10.8% in favor of GPCHC individuals (Figure 3). Compared with the cross-sectional analysis, larger differences were observed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to potentially avoidable hospitalizations (per 100 hospitalized individuals), the longitudinal analysis showed statistically significant lower admission rates for GPCHC individuals (Figure 4). On average, the absolute difference was close to 1, corresponding to roughly one additional avoided hospitalization per 100 individuals compared with the Regular Care group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to the share of \u0026ldquo;prescriptions of me-too drugs\u0026rdquo; among all prescriptions issued by general practitioners, the longitudinal analysis revealed substantially fewer \u0026ldquo;me-too drug\u0026rdquo; prescriptions for HZV individuals. The relative difference ranged between 30.5% and 37.5% (Figure 5).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the absolute differences are not large, when considered in the context of a very large insured population, these differences are of clear health-economic relevance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur 2025 evaluation of the GPCHC program in Baden-Württemberg reaffirms the model’s effectiveness in improving key health outcomes. Compared to non-enrolled individuals, GPCHC participants benefit from enhanced care coordination, reduced hospital utilization, and more appropriate medication use. Cross-sectional analyses showed significant benefits for several indicators, which were confirmed by longitudinal data for the period 2011 to 2022. A consistent pattern of favorable associations emerged over time, with a sustained or even increasing magnitude of positive differences in clinical and utilization outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticularly cost-relevant outcomes -such as those associated with pharmacotherapy and inpatient care- demonstrated pronounced longitudinal effects. The reduction in PAHs and medication-related risks (17) underscores the model’s contribution to system efficiency and patient safety.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings are consistent with international evidence indicating that longitudinal, coordinated primary care -such as in GPCHC- can reduce the burden of inappropriate polypharmacy, particularly among patients with chronic conditions (18–20). Integrated primary care models have also demonstrated improvements in clinical indicators, including better control of hypertension, diabetes, and reduced stroke incidence (19,21). Furthermore, structured medication reviews implemented within primary care settings have proven effective in enhancing medication safety in polypharmacy contexts (22). Such international comparisons further validate the German GPCHC model: countries with well-established primary care systems -such as the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the Nordic states- consistently report reduced avoidable hospitalizations, higher continuity of care, and improved patient satisfaction within gatekeeping and team-based frameworks (4, 5, 8, 23). The five-year survival advantage observed in GPCHC cohorts’ mirrors findings from UK-based models of patient-centered medical homes (11,24). Additionally, improved medication safety and lower prescription rates of fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) among GPCHC participants align with global evidence highlighting the importance of continuity and interdisciplinary care in the management of elderly and multimorbid populations (17,25).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCollectively, these results highlight the potential of structured primary care programs not only to maintain but also to expand their impact in settings marked by rising chronic disease burden and healthcare complexity. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpending on health and, more specifically, on primary care varies significantly across countries with GP-centered systems. For example, the Netherlands allocates 14–16% of its total health budget to primary care, with overall health expenditure amounting to 10.7% of GDP. Denmark and Sweden maintain similar ratios, with Denmark investing 15% in primary care and 10.1% of GDP in total health spending. These levels of investment are associated with improved continuity, effective chronic care coordination, and high patient satisfaction (24,26).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe United Kingdom, despite pressures on the NHS, maintains primary care spending at about 12–14% and total health expenditure at 12% of GDP, supporting robust performance in chronic disease management and integrated care (27).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGermany also spends around 12.8% of its GDP on healthcare but has traditionally allocated only 6–8% to primary care (28). However, this situation is evolving. The GPCHC model now covers over three million people in Baden-Württemberg and more than ten million nationwide (29). \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough Germany still lags some comparator countries in terms of investment in primary care, the progress observed in the context of GPCHC emphasizes its potential. Expanding the scope of care, harmonizing funding priorities and strengthening structural reforms could help to move Germany towards a more integrated and efficient primary care system.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the United States, patient-centered medical home (PCMH) models mirror structural elements of the German GPCHC program, emphasizing team-based care, data-driven chronic disease management, and care continuity. A five-year evaluation by Blue Cross \u0026amp; Blue Shield of Rhode Island reported a 5% reduction in total healthcare costs, a 16% lower hospitalization and ED visit rate among chronically ill patients, and 30% fewer readmissions by year five in PCMH settings compared to traditional care models [30]. Similarly, a Maryland study found that PCMH enrollment among high-cost privately insured adults led to a 34% reduction in the likelihood of remaining in the highest cost category, with improved continuity of care and reduced hospitalizations [31,32]. These findings aligned with earlier evaluations show that PCMH implementation can achieve measurable reductions in hospital utilization, improved outcomes in chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension, and overall cost containment [33-36]. While early results showed some variability, more recent longitudinal evidence highlights that mature PCMH implementations deliver sustained system-level improvements. Taken together, this growing U.S. literature confirms that structured, GP-equivalent primary care models -when properly implemented- can reduce emergency and inpatient care, improve chronic disease management, and support cost-effective care delivery. The international convergence of evidence underscores the value of continued investment in robust primary care infrastructure. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the use of comprehensive administrative data and rigorous risk adjustment, the observational design of this study precludes definitive causal inference. Residual confounding cannot be fully excluded, particularly due to potential selection effects, such as patient self-enrollment based on care-seeking preferences or differences in physician engagement and motivation. However, the robustness of findings across multiple outcomes, time periods, and analytic methods strengthens the credibility of the results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen situated within the international context, GPCHC outcomes mirror those reported in countries with strong primary care systems—such as the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom—where gatekeeping, team-based care, and higher primary care investment contribute to reduced inequities and improved population health. Similar trends are also evident in the United States, where patient-centered medical home models have demonstrated reductions in hospitalizations and emergency visits, better chronic disease management, and cost savings when consistently implemented.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile Germany continues to allocate a comparatively lower share of its healthcare spending to primary care, the positive outcomes achieved within the GPCHC framework demonstrate that targeted structural reforms can yield substantial benefits even under constrained investment conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings reaffirm global evidence linking greater investment in primary care with better clinical outcomes, fewer avoidable hospital admissions, and more equitable service access. In this regard, the GPCHC model offers not only successful regional implementation but also a scalable and transferable framework for primary care reform in high-income healthcare systems facing demographic change, chronic disease burdens, and financial pressures.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate.\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthics approval was provided by the Heidelberg University Ethics Committee (No. S-359/2013). All patients provided written informed consent for participation in the GPCHC programme. Patients in the regular care cohort were extracted from an anonymized database of AOK claims data.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study is part of a larger evaluation, which was funded by AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg, which is partner in implementation of the strong primary care model. The evaluators are scientifically independent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data usage grant from the AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg for this study is thankfully acknowledged.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eR.L. framed the topic and wrote the manuscript. G.F. and A.A. interpreted results. G.L. managed data and performed statistical analysis. G. F. performed figure generation. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data usage grant from the AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg for this study is thankfully acknowledged.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg can be contacted for access to the claims data. Data are available on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBodenheimer, T., Ghorob, A., Willard-Grace, R. \u0026amp; Grumbach, K. The 10 building blocks of high-performing primary care. \u003cem\u003eAnn. Fam Med.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e12\u003c/b\u003e (2), 166\u0026ndash;171 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStarfield, B., Shi, L. \u0026amp; Macinko, J. Contribution of Primary Care to Health Systems and Health. \u003cem\u003eHealth Aff\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e24\u003c/b\u003e (2), 457\u0026ndash;502 (2005).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacinko, J., Starfield, B. \u0026amp; Erbacher, K. The Contribution of Primary Care Systems to Health Outcomes within OECD Countries. \u003cem\u003eHealth Serv. Res.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e44\u003c/b\u003e (1), 194\u0026ndash;212 (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKringos, D. S., Boerma, W. G. W., Hutchinson, A., van der Zee, J. \u0026amp; Groenewegen, P. P. The strength of primary care in Europe: An international comparative study. \u003cem\u003eBr. J. Gen. Pract.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e63\u003c/b\u003e (616), e742\u0026ndash;e750 (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSch\u0026auml;fer, W. et al. QUALICOPC Study \u0026ndash; Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe. \u003cem\u003eBMC Fam Pract.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e16\u003c/b\u003e, 61 (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePereira Gray, D. J., Sidaway-Lee, K., White, E., Thorne, A. \u0026amp; Evans, P. H. Continuity of care with doctors \u0026ndash; A matter of life and death? \u003cem\u003eBMJ Open.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e, e021161 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSch\u0026auml;fer, W. L., Groenewegen, P. P., Hansen, J. \u0026amp; Boerma, W. G. Strong primary care is associated with better health outcomes and lower health system costs: An update of the QUALICOPC study findings. \u003cem\u003eHealth Policy\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e127\u003c/b\u003e (3), 345\u0026ndash;355. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.01.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.01.004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKringos, D. S., Boerma, W. G. W., Hutchinson, A. \u0026amp; Saltman, R. B. (eds) Building primary care in a changing Europe [Internet]. Copenhagen (Denmark): European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; PMID: 29035488. (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD. \u003cem\u003eRealizing the Potential of Primary Health Care. OECD Health Policy Studies\u003c/em\u003e (OECD Publishing, 2020). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1787/a92adee4-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/a92adee4-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWorld Health Organization. Primary health care: Closing the gap on health inequities. Geneva: WHO. (2022). Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240063970\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240063970\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFujisawa, R. \u0026amp; Klazinga, N. Measuring quality in primary care: OECD Health Working Papers No. 135. Paris: OECD Publishing; (2021). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1787/893c4c4e-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/893c4c4e-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeutscher Haus\u0026auml;rzteverband. Hausarztzentrierte Versorgung bundesweit etabliert \u0026ndash; Strukturierte Versorgung ausgebaut. Accessed (2024). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.hausaerzteverband.de\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.hausaerzteverband.de\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWensing, M., Koll, P., Szecsenyi, J., Stock, C. \u0026amp; Laux, G. Effects of a program to strengthen general practice care on hospitalisation rates: A comparative observational study. \u003cem\u003eScand. J. Prim. Health Care\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e36\u003c/b\u003e (1), 16\u0026ndash;25 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWensing, M., Szecsenyi, J., Kaufmann-Kolle, P. \u0026amp; Laux, G. Strong primary care and patients\u0026rsquo; survival. \u003cem\u003eSci. Rep.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e, 10845 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeutgeb, R., Berger, S. J., Szecsenyi, J. \u0026amp; Laux, G. Potentially avoidable hospitalisations of German nursing home patients? A cross-sectional study on utilisation patterns and potential consequences for healthcare. \u003cem\u003eBMJ Open.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e9\u003c/b\u003e (1), e025269. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025269\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025269\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaux, G. \u0026amp; Leutgeb, R. Continuity of care in a pandemic: Evaluation of GP-centered care during COVID-19. \u003cem\u003eBMJ Open. Qual.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e13\u003c/b\u003e, e002356 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLaux, G., Kaufmann-Kolle, P., Szecsenyi, J., Altiner, A. \u0026amp; Leutgeb, R. Fall-risk-increasing drugs in older patients: The role of guidelines and GP-centered health care in Germany. \u003cem\u003eAge Ageing\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e52\u003c/b\u003e (4), afad045 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLarra\u0026ntilde;aga, I. et al. Longitudinality in Primary Care and Polypharmacy. A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eSemergen\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e49\u003c/b\u003e (6), 101994. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.semerg.2023.101994\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.semerg.2023.101994\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQianjiang Chronic Care Study Group. Impact of primary care and public health integration on control of hypertension, diabetes, stroke: a multicentre prospective observational study in China. \u003cem\u003eBMJ Open.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e14\u003c/b\u003e, e081698. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081698\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081698\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilliams, A. et al. Does Having a Usual Primary Care Provider Reduce Polypharmacy in Chronic Disease Patients? \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Clin. Pharm.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e47\u003c/b\u003e (2), 256\u0026ndash;265. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s11096-024-01260-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11096-024-01260-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith, J. et al. Team-based primary care models and chronic disease outcomes: scoping review. \u003cem\u003eScand. J. Prim. Health Care\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e42\u003c/b\u003e (1), 112 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGreen, D. et al. Structured medication reviews for patients with polypharmacy in North-West London: system evaluation. \u003cem\u003eJ. Prim. Care Community Health\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e16\u003c/b\u003e, 2150132725123256. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1177/2150132725123256\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/2150132725123256\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2025).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohn, J. R., Jani, H., Peters, K., Agho, K. \u0026amp; Tannous, W. K. The effectiveness of patient-centred medical home-based models of care versus standard primary care in chronic disease management: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e17\u003c/b\u003e (6886), 1\u0026ndash;85. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/ijerph17186886\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph17186886\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRosenthal, T. C. The medical home: Growing Evidence to support a new approach to primary care. \u003cem\u003eJ. Am. Board. Fam Med.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e21\u003c/b\u003e (5), 427\u0026ndash;440 (2008).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang, Y. et al. Use of fall-risk-increasing drugs and risk of falls: A prospective cohort study among older community-dwelling adults. \u003cem\u003eBMC Geriatr.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e24\u003c/b\u003e (1), 155. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s12877-024-05557-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12877-024-05557-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBazemore, A. et al. Primary care spending as a share of total health spending. \u003cem\u003eJAMA\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e327\u003c/b\u003e (17), 1704\u0026ndash;1706 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCharlesworth, A. \u0026amp; Watt, T. \u003cem\u003eThe future of primary care: creating teams for tomorrow\u003c/em\u003e (The Health Foundation, 2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchneider, U., Hilbert, J., G\u0026ouml;tz, K. \u0026amp; Steinhaeuser, J. Ausgaben f\u0026uuml;r die haus\u0026auml;rztliche Versorgung \u0026ndash; Ein Vergleich internationaler Systeme. \u003cem\u003eZEFQ\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e146\u003c/b\u003e, 28\u0026ndash;34 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaus\u0026auml;rztinnen-und Haus\u0026auml;rzteverband. Baden-W\u0026uuml;rttemberg Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.haevbw.de/entscheidung-praxis\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.haevbw.de/entscheidung-praxis\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePatient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative. New study shows patient-centered medical homes improve health, lower costs. Blue Cross \u0026amp; Blue Shield of Rhode Island. (2024). Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://archive.thepcc.org/resource/new-study-shows-patient-centered-medical-homes-improve-health-lower-costs\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://archive.thepcc.org/resource/new-study-shows-patient-centered-medical-homes-improve-health-lower-costs\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarkovitz, A. A., Alexander, J. A., Lantz, P. M. \u0026amp; Paustian, M. L. Patient-centered medical home implementation and use of preventive services: the role of practice socioeconomic context. \u003cem\u003eJAMA Intern. Med.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e175\u003c/b\u003e (4), 598\u0026ndash;606 (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHong, C. S., Ortiz, J. \u0026amp; McWilliams, J. M. Primary care spending and utilization among high-cost privately insured adults. \u003cem\u003eJ. Gen. Intern. Med.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e38\u003c/b\u003e (1), 59\u0026ndash;66 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFriedberg, M. W. \u0026amp; Schneider, E. C. Primary care: a critical review of the evidence on quality and costs of health care. \u003cem\u003eHealth Aff\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e29\u003c/b\u003e (5), 766\u0026ndash;772 (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFriedberg, M. W. Association between participation in a multiplayer medical home Intervention and changes in quality, utilization, and costs of care. \u003cem\u003eJAMA\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e311\u003c/b\u003e (8), 815\u0026ndash;825. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1001/jama.2014.353\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1001/jama.2014.353\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoff, T., Weller, W. \u0026amp; DePuccio, M. The Patient-Centered Medical Home: A Review of Recent Research. \u003cem\u003eMed. Care Res. Rev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e69\u003c/b\u003e (6), 619\u0026ndash;644 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBitton, A. Strong primary health care in the United States \u0026ndash; Closer than we might think. \u003cem\u003eJ. Am. Board. Fam Med.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e37\u003c/b\u003e (3), 537\u0026ndash;539 (2024).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e Patient demographics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"666\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 451px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObservation Year 2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePatients included (n=1,929,957)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGPCHC Patients\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=1,255,445)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegular Care Patients\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(n=674,512)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge \u0026plusmn; SD (in 2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55.20 \u0026plusmn; 18.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.33 \u0026plusmn; 19.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; male\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; female\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.92%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54.08%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.32%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.68%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNationality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; German\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; other\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e78.97%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.03%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e76.88%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.12%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInsurance Status\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; Policyholder\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; Dependent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; Retiree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58.84%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.59%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.56%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.87%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.12%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.02%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMorbidity \u0026plusmn; SD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ebased on Charlson-Index\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.37 \u0026plusmn; 2.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.01 \u0026plusmn; 1.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDuration of GPCHC enrollment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQuarters \u0026plusmn; SD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 227px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.60 \u0026plusmn; 16.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 224px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u003c/strong\u003e Cross sectional results (2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"687\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 195px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 491px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObservation Year 2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePatients included (n=1,929,957)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCPCHC Patients\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026Oslash; \u0026plusmn; SD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=1.255.445\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegular Care Patients\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026Oslash; \u0026plusmn; SD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003en=674.512\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusted\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(SE)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[95%-CI]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCPCHC vs. Regular Care\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDifference in %\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash; adjusted \u0026ndash;\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCPCHC vs. Regular Care\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 195px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGP-contacts\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage number per patient\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.27\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn;10.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn; 12.22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+5.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.047)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[4.985; 5.169]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e+25.47%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026lt;0.0001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 195px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUncoordinated consultations with a non-GP-specialist\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage number per patient\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.95\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn; 6.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn; 9.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.114)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-1.708; -1.263]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-38.85%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026lt;0.0001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 195px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAll-cause hospitalizations\u0026nbsp;Average number per patient\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.224\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn; 0.671\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.216\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn; 0.661\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.021\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.004)\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.023;-0.019]\u003csup\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-8.61%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026lt;0.0001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 195px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePotentially avoidable hospitalizations\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAverage number per 100 patients\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.34\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn; 32.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.01\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn; 32.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.506\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.001)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.771; -0.240]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-2.46%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026lt;0.0001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 195px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrescription of me-too drugs\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrescriptions at the GP, share in %\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 144px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.56\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn; 6.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 120px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.11\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026plusmn; 8.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.666\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(0.014)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e[-0.693; -0.639]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-24.82%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026lt;0.0001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8660406/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8660406/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003ePrimary care-centered healthcare models, particularly those led by general practitioners (GPs), are increasingly adopted to address global healthcare challenges including rising costs, fragmented services, and chronic disease burdens. In Germany, the \u0026ldquo;Hausarztzentrierte Versorgung\u0026rdquo; (English: General Practitioner-Centered Health Care, GPCHC) program aims to reinforce the role of GPs as care coordinators.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Within this study we evaluated data from the implemented German GPCHC model in Baden-W\u0026uuml;rttemberg, a German federal State with about 11 Mio inhabitants and compared outcomes with international benchmarks for strong primary care.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis is based on administrative health insurance data of almost two million individuals. We compared patients enrolled in GPCHC with patients receiving regular primary care in 2022 in terms of key indicators of healthcare utilization (GP contacts, uncoordinated consultations with a non-GP-specialist, all-cause hospitalizations, potentially avoidable hospitalizations (PAHs), and prescription of me-too drugs. For patients enrolled in the GPCHC program, consistently favorable outcomes were observed with respect to these key indicators.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese findings align with international evidence from strong primary care systems in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Nordic countries. The proposed model presents a scalable framework for strengthening primary care delivery in complex healthcare systems.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"General-practitioner-centered health care: current results from the implementation of the German model","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-10 16:09:08","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8660406/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-02-11T11:06:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-11T09:27:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"7570113125759567595959685272789136951","date":"2026-02-10T09:28:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"167749199339041941041280042535419797679","date":"2026-02-10T08:48:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-09T12:53:58+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"332759182731291484714543167122109001531","date":"2026-02-09T11:58:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"162309133313319934935840491083735643468","date":"2026-02-05T10:28:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"55747904289760106096735069859037847466","date":"2026-02-05T07:53:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-05T07:36:30+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-05T07:34:13+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-28T10:43:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-01-27T14:03:45+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2026-01-27T13:47:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"223853ce-9138-4896-98ab-dbcc7fb34d36","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 10th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":62521232,"name":"Health sciences/Health care"},{"id":62521233,"name":"Health sciences/Medical research"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-16T16:01:32+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-8660406","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-43163-x","journal":{"identity":"scientific-reports","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Scientific Reports"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-09 15:58:18","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 9th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-10 16:09:08","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41598-026-43163-x","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-43163-x","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8660406","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8660406","identity":"rs-8660406","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}