<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with primarycare</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/primarycare</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'primarycare' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:41 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:41 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>What&apos;s wrong with primary care in the US?</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/76667/Whats%2Dwrong%2Dwith%2Dprimary%2Dcare%2Din%2Dthe%2DUS</link>
		<description> What&apos;s wrong with primary care in the US? With a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/primary.care.doctors.study/index.html&quot;&gt;new survey&lt;/a&gt; suggesting that nearly half of all primary care physicians would leave medicine if they had a viable alternative, and with American medical schools &lt;a href=&quot;http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/378492_fewerdocs10.html&quot;&gt;not generating nearly enough new doctors&lt;/a&gt; going into primary care, in &lt;a href=&quot;http://content.nejm.org/current.shtml&quot;&gt;this&lt;/a&gt;, their first issue to hit doctors&apos; desks since the election, the New England Journal of Medicine has devoted their entire editorial section to exploring yet another challenge that threatens the stability of the US health care system. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nejm.org/perspective/primary-care-video/&quot;&gt;Video&lt;/a&gt; of the roundtable discussion. &lt;a href=&quot;http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/20/2085&quot;&gt;Individual&lt;/a&gt; essays, &lt;a href=&quot;http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/20/2086&quot;&gt;at times touching&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/20/2086-a&quot;&gt;at times hopeful&lt;/a&gt;, from &lt;a href=&quot;http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/20/2087&quot;&gt;various primary care perspectives&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/20/2087-a&quot;&gt; in the US&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/20/2087-b&quot;&gt;and Britain&lt;/a&gt;. Comments under the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nejm.org/perspective/primary-care-video/&quot;&gt;video link&lt;/a&gt; are particularly interesting. With its eye on the election, the otherwise fairly dry New England Journal has been &lt;a href=&quot;http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/18/1867&quot;&gt;increasingly&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/17/1749&quot;&gt;political&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/16/1645&quot;&gt;as&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/16/1648&quot;&gt;of&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/15/e17&quot;&gt;late&lt;/a&gt;.

&lt;small&gt;I know, I already GMOFB, but I think the NEJM is doing a fantastic job of hosting a nuanced discussion of complex issues and this seems post worthy to me.&lt;/small&gt; </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2008:site.76667</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:01:41 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>healthcare</category>
		<category>medicine</category>
		<category>politics</category>
		<category>primarycare</category>
		<dc:creator>Slarty Bartfast</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


