Assessment of Differences in Clinical Activity and Medicare Payments Among Female and Male Radiation Oncologists

Disease Site Specialization in the Academic Radiation Oncology Workforce: Evidence of Gender Differences

PURPOSE

Because some stakeholders within medicine seek to diversify and attain greater workforce equity, it is critical to understand gender-based divisions within specialization. Radiation oncology (RO) has one of the smallest proportions of women representation of all specialties, and to our knowledge, no prior studies have investigated gender differences in all the disease site specializations within RO. Thus, we analyzed the relationship between gender and disease site(s) treated in academic RO (ARO).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Faculty gender and disease site(s) treated by faculty from ARO departments were collected via publicly available department websites in January 2020. X2 analyses were conducted to assess differences between the proportions of women faculty treating each disease site.

RESULTS

Of 1337 ARO faculty, 408 (30.5%) were identified as women. Breast, gynecology, and pediatrics had the largest proportions of women faculty (all >40%; P < .001). A majority (53%; P < .001) of women ARO faculty treated breast. Genitourinary, thoracic, and head and neck had the smallest proportions of women faculty (all <25%; P < .001). Women ARO faculty were twice as likely to treat breast and gynecologic malignancies compared with men faculty (risk ratio [RR] with 95% CI, 2.01 [1.75-2.50]; P < .001 and RR [95% CI], 2.06 [1.72-2.79]; P <.001, respectively). Men ARO faculty were 3 times more likely to treat genitourinary cancer compared with women faculty (RR [95% CI], 0.40 [0.34-0.48]; P < .001). There was no difference in the mean number of disease sites treated between women and men ARO faculty (2.63 vs 2.53; P = .29).

CONCLUSIONS

Gender differences in disease site specialization were observed in ARO. Future research into the drivers of disease site selection should be explored.

Gender-Based Variations in Medicare Reimbursements Among Different Surgical Subspecialties

Importance

Gender inequities and limited representation are an obstacle to surgical workforce diversification. There has been limited examination of gender-based disparities in billing practices among surgeons.

Objective

To evaluate variations in practice metrics and billing practices among female and male surgeons and identify factors associated with gender disparities in Medicare reimbursements.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cross-sectional study used publicly available Medicare Fee-for-Service Provider Utilization and Payment data from January to December 31, 2021, to identify demographics, annual services provided, and financial payments and charges for general surgeons, surgical oncologists, and colorectal surgeons. Data were analyzed from November 2023 to February 2024.

Exposure

The primary exposure of interest was surgeon gender (ie, female or male).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The annual total submitted charges and payments submitted in 2021 by female and male surgeons were assessed. Additionally, the total number and types of services provided each year and the number of beneficiaries treated were examined. Multivariable linear regression models were used to evaluate the association of surgeon gender with payments, number of services, and beneficiaries.

Results

A total of 20 549 general surgeons (5036 [24.5%] female; 15 513 [75.5%] male), 1065 surgical oncologists (450 [42.3%] female; 615 [57.7%] male), and 1601 colorectal surgeons (432 [27.0%] female; 1169 [73.0%] male) were included. Across all surgical subspecialties, female surgeons billed fewer mean (SE) Medicare charges (general surgeons: 30.1% difference; $224 934.80 [$3846.97] vs $321 868.50 [$3933.57]; surgical oncologists: 27.5% difference; $277 901.70 [$22 857.37] vs $382 882.90 [$19 566.06]; colorectal surgeons: 21.7% difference; $274 091.70 [$10 468.48] vs $350 146.10 [$8741.66]; all P < .001) and received significantly lower mean (SE) reimbursements (general surgeons: 29.0% difference; $51 787.61 [$917.91] vs $72 903.12 [$890.35]; surgical oncologists: 23.6% difference; $57 945.18 [$3853.28] vs $75 778.22 [$2622.75]; colorectal surgeons: 24.5% difference; $63 117.01 [$2248.10] vs $83 598.53 [$1934.77]; all P < .001). On multivariable analysis, a reimbursement gap remained across all 3 surgical subspecialties (general surgeons: -$14 963.46 [95% CI, -$18 822.27 to -$11 104.64] [P < .001]; surgical oncologists: -$8354.69 [95% CI, -$15 018.12 to -$1691.25] [P = .01]; colorectal surgeons: -$4346.73 [95% CI, -$7660.15 to -$1033.32] [P = .01]).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study, there was considerable gender-based variation in practice patterns and reimbursement among different surgical subspecialties serving the Medicare population. Differences in mean payment per service were associated with variations in billing and coding strategies among female and male surgeons.

Gender based disparities in Medicare physician reimbursement persist across years and specialty

Introduction

The gender pay gap is wide in medicine but the extent of this disparity across specialties and over time have not been elucidated. Here we evaluate differences in Medicare reimbursement between men and women physicians over time and by specialty, controlling for physician and practice characteristics.

Methods

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Payment Data was used to determine total reimbursements and number of services submitted by physicians practicing in the US between 2013 and 2019. Data from the American Community Survey (ACS) were used to determine average income, unemployment rates, poverty rates, income, and educational attainment levels by zip code for each physician's practice location.

Results

Among the 3,831,504 physicians included in this analysis from 2013-2019, 2,712,545 (70.8%) were men and 1,118,859 (29.2%) were women. Overall, men received more in Medicare reimbursements ($58,815 ± $104,772 vs. $32,205 ± $60,556, p<0.001) and billed more services (864 ± 1,780 vs. 505 ± 1,007, p<0.001) compared to women. The median Medicare reimbursement for men decreased from 2013 to 2019 from $59,710 to $57,874, while the median Medicare reimbursement for women increased from $30,575 to $33,456. Men were reimbursed more than women across all specialties with the greatest disparity in procedure-heavy specialties. The specialties with the highest difference in median Medicare reimbursement between men and women were ophthalmology ($99,452), dermatology ($84,844), cardiology ($64,112), nephrology ($62,352), and pulmonary medicine ($47,399). In linear regression models controlling for calendar year, years of experience, total number of services, and ACS zip-code-level variables, men received a higher amount of Medicare reimbursement in all specialties, as compared to women (p<0.01 for all). The percentage of top earning men (range: 65.0%-99.5%) surpassed the proportion of men in each specialty (range: 46.1%-94.6%), except public health and preventive medicine.

Conclusions and Relevance

Women physicians continue to receive lower total Medicare reimbursements than men physicians, particularly in procedure-heavy specialties. Lower clinical volume and fewer procedural services among women physicians partially contribute to the disparities in reimbursement.

Gender Differences in Medicare Practice and Payments to Neurosurgeons

Importance

Despite efforts to promote diversity within the neurosurgical workforce, individuals from underrepresented groups face significant challenges.

Objective

To compare practice metrics and earning potential between female and male neurosurgeons and investigate factors associated with gender disparity in Medicare reimbursement.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cross-sectional study used publicly accessible Medicare data on reimbursements to female and male neurosurgeons for procedural and evaluation and management services delivered in both inpatient and outpatient settings between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed from December 9, 2021, to December 5, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the mean annual payments received and charges submitted by female and male neurosurgeons for services rendered between 2013 and 2020. Secondary outcomes included the total number and types of services rendered each year and the number of beneficiaries treated. Univariate and multivariable analyses quantified differences in payment, practice volume, and composition.

Results

A total of 6052 neurosurgeons (5540 men [91.54%]; 512 women [8.46%]) served the Medicare fee-for-service patient population. Female neurosurgeons billed for lesser Medicare charges (mean [SE], $395 851.62 [$19 449.39] vs $766 006.80 [$11 751.66]; P < .001) and were reimbursed substantially less (mean [SE], $69 520.89 [$2701.30] vs $124 324.64 [$1467.93]; P < .001). Multivariable regression controlling for practice volume metrics revealed a persistent reimbursement gap (-$24 885.29 [95% CI, -$27 964.72 to -$21 805.85]; P < .001). Females were reimbursed $24.61 less per service than males even after matching services by code (P = .02).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found significant gender-based variation in practice patterns and reimbursement among neurosurgeons serving the Medicare fee-for-service population. Female surgeons were reimbursed less than male surgeons when both performed the same primary procedure. Lower mean reimbursement per service may represent divergence in billing and coding practices among females and males that could be the focus of future research or educational initiatives.

The impact of changes in a physician fee schedule on medical expenditures, fees, and volume of services. Evidence from a national fee schedule reform in Australia

We examine the impact of changes to a national physician fee schedule on total medical expenditures, the volume of services, and fees charged. In our context, changes to the fee schedule were designed to promote value-based health care, and so included different types of changes to subsidised medical services, including changes to fees. Using claims data from a sample of doctors linked to a physician survey, we use difference-in-difference methods with a staggered adoption design to compare medical services which were affected with those which were not. We show that medical expenditures and the volume of affected services fell, though there is uncertainty about the magnitude of the fall. For GPs, we find evidence of increases in expenditures and fees and an increase in fees for some services provided by specialists.

The physician gender pay gap in Maryland: current state and future directions

BACKGROUND

Over the last few decades, more attention has been paid to the physician gender pay gap and more interventions have been attempted. This paper discusses the physician gender pay gap between 2017 and 2021 in Maryland.

METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey was distributed to over 10,000 physicians in the Maryland Medical Society, featuring questions regarding employment characteristics, compensation, impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and educational debt. Using descriptive and regression analyses, we explored cross-sectional associations between gender and employment characteristics.

RESULTS

Male physicians reported a significantly higher average 2020 pre-tax income ($333,732 per year) than female physicians ($225,473 per year, p < 0.001), amounting to a nearly 50% difference in raw income, consistent with a previously reported pay gap in 2016. Women physicians earned 31.5% less than their male colleagues in 2020 and were projected to earn 28.7% less in 2021. Female physicians were also more likely to have educational debt (33.6% vs.12.9%, p < 0.001) and also more likely to have a high burden of debt, with 36% owing over $200,000 in education loans, compared to 14.7% of men (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The physician gender pay gap in Maryland has remained relatively stable over four years, including the period of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Oncologists' responsibility, comfort, and knowledge managing hyperglycemia in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy: a cross sectional study

PURPOSE

To assess oncologists' responsibility, comfort, and knowledge managing hyperglycemia in patients undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire collected oncologists' perceptions about professionals responsible for managing hyperglycemia during chemotherapy; comfort (score range 12-120); and knowledge (score range 0-16). Descriptive statistics were calculated including Student t-tests and one-way ANOVA for mean score differences. Multivariable linear regression identified predictors of comfort and knowledge scores.

RESULTS

Respondents (N = 229) were 67.7% men, 91.3% White and mean age 52.1 years. Oncologists perceived endocrinologists/diabetologists and primary care physicians as those responsible for managing hyperglycemia during chemotherapy, and most frequently referred to these clinicians. Reasons for referral included lack of time to manage hyperglycemia (62.4%), belief that patients would benefit from referral to an alternative provider clinician (54.1%), and not perceiving hyperglycemia management in their scope of practice (52.4%). The top-3 barriers to patient referral were long wait times for primary care (69.9%) and endocrinology (68.1%) visits, and patient's provider outside of the oncologist's institution (52.8%). The top-3 barriers to treating hyperglycemia were lack of knowledge about when to start insulin, how to adjust insulin, and what insulin type works best. Women (ß = 1.67, 95% CI: 0.16, 3.18) and oncologists in suburban areas (ß = 6.98, 95% CI: 2.53, 11.44) had higher comfort scores than their respective counterparts; oncologists working in practices with > 10 oncologists had lower comfort scores (ß = -2.75, 95% CI: -4.96, -0.53) than those in practices with ≤ 10. No significant predictors were identified for knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Oncologists expected endocrinology or primary care clinicians to manage hyperglycemia during chemotherapy, but long wait times were among the top barriers cited when referring patients. New models that provide prompt and coordinated care are needed.

Gender Differences in Clinical Practice and Medicare Reimbursement Among Mohs Surgeons

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate Medicare reimbursement and clinical activity between male and female dermatologic surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment data from 2018 was performed for all dermatologists performing MMS. Provider gender, place of service, number of services, and average payment per service was recorded for all relevant procedure codes.

RESULTS

Women represented 31.5% of the 2,581 surgeons who performed MMS in 2018. Women were paid significantly less than men (mean difference, -$73,033). On average, women performed 123 fewer cases than their male counterparts. When surgeons were stratified by productivity, remuneration was the same.

CONCLUSION

Remuneration from CMS was disparate between male and female dermatologic surgeons, which may be attributed to submission of fewer charges by women. Further efforts are necessary to better evaluate and address causes for this discrepancy, because greater parity of opportunity and pay would greatly benefit this subspecialty of dermatology.

How the Gender Wage Gap for Primary Care Physicians Differs by Compensation Approach : A Microsimulation Study

BACKGROUND

The physician gender wage gap may be due, in part, to productivity-based compensation models that undervalue female practice patterns.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how primary care physician (PCP) compensation by gender differs when applying existing productivity-based and alternative compensation models.

DESIGN

Microsimulation.

SETTING

2016 to 2019 national clinical registry of 1222 primary care practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Male and female PCPs matched on specialty, years since medical school graduation, practice site, and sessions worked.

MEASUREMENTS

Net annual, full-time-equivalent compensation for male versus female PCPs, under productivity-based fee-for-service, panel size-based capitation without or with risk adjustment, and hybrid payment models. Microsimulation inputs included patient and visit characteristics and overhead expenses.

RESULTS

Among 1435 matched male (n = 881) and female (n = 554) PCPs, female PCP panels included patients who were, on average, younger, had lower diagnosis-based risk scores, were more often female, and were more often uninsured or insured by Medicaid rather than by Medicare. Under productivity-based payment, female PCPs earned a median of $58 829 (interquartile range [IQR], $39 553 to $120 353; 21%) less than male PCPs. This gap was similar under capitation ($58 723 [IQR, $42 141 to $140 192]). It was larger under capitation risk-adjusted for age alone ($74 695 [IQR, $42 884 to $152 423]), for diagnosis-based scores alone ($114 792 [IQR, $49 080 to $215 326] and $89 974 [IQR, $26 175 to $173 760]), and for age-, sex-, and diagnosis-based scores ($83 438 [IQR, $28 927 to $129 414] and $66 195 [IQR, $11 899 to $96 566]). The gap was smaller and nonsignificant under capitation risk-adjusted for age and sex ($36 631 [IQR, $12 743 to $73 898]).

LIMITATION

Panel attribution based on office visits.

CONCLUSION

The gender wage gap varied by compensation model, with capitation risk-adjusted for patient age and sex resulting in a smaller gap. Future models might better align with primary care effort and outcomes.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Gender Differences in Medicare Payments Among Cardiologists

Importance

Women cardiologists receive lower salaries than men; however, it is unknown whether US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement also differs by gender and contributes to the lower salaries.

Objective

To determine whether gender differences exist in the reimbursements, charges, and reimbursement per charge from CMS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional analysis used the CMS database to obtain 2016 reimbursement data for US cardiologists. These included reimbursements to cardiologists, charges submitted, and unique billing codes. Gender differences in reimbursement for evaluation and management and procedural charges from both inpatient and outpatient settings were also assessed. Analysis took place between April 2019 and December 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes included median CMS payments received and median charges submitted in the inpatient and outpatient settings in 2016.

Results

In 2016, 17 524 cardiologists (2312 women [13%] and 15 212 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the inpatient setting, and 16 929 cardiologists (2151 women [13%] and 14 778 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the outpatient setting. Men received higher median payments in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], $62 897 [$30 904-$104 267] vs $45 288 [$21 371-$73 191]; P < .001) and outpatient (median [interquartile range], $91 053 [$34 820-$196 165] vs $51 975 [$15 622-$120 175]; P < .001) practice settings. Men submitted more median charges in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], 1190 [569-2093] charges vs 959 [569-2093] charges; P < .001) and outpatient settings (median [interquartile range], 1685 [644-3328] charges vs 870 [273-1988] charges; P < .001). In a multivariable-adjusted linear regression analysis, women received less CMS payments compared with men (log-scale β = -0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02) after adjustment for number of charges, number of unique billing codes, complexity of patient panel, years since graduation of physicians, and physician subspecialty. Payment by billing codes, both inpatient and outpatient, did not differ by gender.

Conclusions and Relevance

There may be potential differences in CMS payments between men and women cardiologists, which appear to stem from gender differences in the number and types of charges submitted. The mechanisms behind these differences merit further research, both to understand why such gender differences exist and also to facilitate reductions in pay disparities.

Characterizing Medicare Reimbursements and Clinical Activity Among Female Otolaryngologists

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate geographic and temporal trends in Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) billing and reimbursements across female otolaryngologists (ORL).

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of the 2017 Medicare Physician and Other Suppliers Aggregate File. We analyzed differences in the number of services, patients, reimbursements, unique Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes used, and services billed per patient among female ORLs.

RESULTS

Female ORLs accounted for 15.2% of the 8453 Medicare-reimbursed ORLs. Female ORLs who graduated between 2000 and 2010 were reimbursed a median of $58 031.9 (IQR: $32 286.5-$91 512.2) and performed a median of 702 (IQR: 359.5-1221.5) services, significantly less than those who graduated between 1990 and 1999 (median: $67 508.9; IQR: 37 018.0-110 471.5; P < .001; median: 1055.5; IQR: 497.3-1944; P < .001). Female ORLs who graduated between 2000 and 2010 saw a median of 232 patients (IQR: 130.5-368), significantly less than those who graduated between 1990 and 1999 (median: 308; IQR: 168.3-496; P < .001) patients, significantly more than those. Female ORLs in urban settings performed a median of 795 (IQR: 364-1494.3) services and billed for a median of 42 (IQR: 28-58) unique codes, significantly fewer than their counterparts in rural settings (median: 1096; IQR: 600-2192.5; P = .002; median: 54; IQR: 31.5-64.5; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare reimbursements and billing patterns across female ORLs varied by graduation decade and geography. Female ORLs further along in their careers may be reimbursed more with greater clinical volume and productivity. Those practicing in urban settings may have practices with decreased procedural diversity and lower clinical volume compared to their counterparts in rural areas.

National variation in the delivery of radiation oncology procedures in the non-facility-based setting

PURPOSE

Though utilization of medical procedures has been shown to vary considerably across the United States, similar efforts to characterize variation in the delivery of radiation therapy (RT) procedures have not been forthcoming. Our aim was to characterize variation in the delivery of common RT procedures in the Medicare population. We hypothesized that delivery would vary significantly based on provider characteristics.

METHODS

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was linked to the CMS Physician Compare (PC) database by physician NPI to identify and sum all treatment delivery charges submitted by individual radiation oncologists in the non-facility-based (NFB) setting in 2016. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was carried out to determine provider characteristics (gender, practice rurality, practice region, and years since graduation) that predicted for the delivery of 3D conformal RT (3DCRT), intensity modulated RT (IMRT), stereotactic body RT (SBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), low dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, and high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy delivery in the Medicare patient population. The overall significance of categorical variables in the multivariable logistic regression model was assessed by the likelihood ratio test (LRT).

RESULTS

In total, 1,802 physicians from the NFB practice setting were analyzed. Male gender predicted for greater LDR brachytherapy delivery (OR 8.19, 95% CI 2.58-26.05, p < 0.001), but not greater delivery of other technologies. Metropolitan practice was the only predictor for greater HDR brachytherapy utilization (OR 12.95, 95% CI 1.81-92.60, p = 0.01). Practice region was predictive of the delivery of 3DCRT, SRS and SBRT (p < 0.01, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). With the Northeast as the reference region, 3DCRT was more likely to be delivered by providers in the South (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.09-1.62, p < 0.01) and the West (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11-1.71, p < 0.01). At the same time, SRS use was less likely in the Midwest (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.91, p < 0.01), South (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40-0.61, p < 0.001), and West (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.34-0.55, p < 0.001). SBRT, on the other hand, was more commonly utilized in the Midwest (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.13-6.13, p = 0.03), South (OR 3.44, 95% CI 1.58-7.49, p < 0.01), and West (OR 4.87, 95% CI 2.21-10.72, p < 0.001). HDR brachytherapy use was also more likely in the Midwest (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.11-3.49, p = 0.02) and West (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.08-3.24, p = 0.03). While the degree held by the billing physician did not predict for delivery of a given procedure, greater years since graduation was related to decreased likelihood of SBRT use (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99, p < 0.001) and increased likelihood of LDR brachytherapy use (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial geographic variation in the use of specific RT technologies was identified. The degree to which this variation reflects effective care, preference-sensitive care, or supply-sensitive care warrants further investigation.

Digital scribe utility and barriers to implementation in clinical practice: a scoping review

Electronic health records (EHRs) allow for meaningful usage of healthcare data. Their adoption provides clinicians with a central location to access and share data, write notes, order labs and prescriptions, and bill for patient visits. However, as non-clinical requirements have increased, time spent using EHRs eclipsed time spent on direct patient care. Several solutions have been proposed to minimize the time spent using EHRs, though each have limitations. Digital scribe technology uses voice-to-text software to convert ambient listening to meaningful medical notes and may eliminate the physical task of documentation, allowing physicians to spend less time on EHR engagement and more time with patients. However, adoption of digital scribe technology poses many barriers for physicians. In this study, we perform a scoping review of the literature to identify barriers to digital scribe implementation and provide solutions to address these barriers. We performed a literature review of digital scribe technology and voice-to-text conversion and information extraction as a scope for future research. Fifteen articles met inclusion criteria. Of the articles included, four were comparative studies, three were reviews, three were original investigations, two were perspective pieces, one was a cost-effectiveness study, one was a keynote address, and one was an observational study. The published articles on digital scribe technology and voice-to-text conversion highlight digital scribe technology as a solution to the inefficient interaction with EHRs. Benefits of digital scribe technologies included enhancing clinician ability to navigate charts, write notes, use decision support tools, and improve the quality of time spent with patients. Digital scribe technologies can improve clinic efficiency and increase patient access to care while simultaneously reducing physician burnout. Implementation barriers include upfront costs, integration with existing technology, and time-intensive training. Technological barriers include adaptability to linguistic differences, compatibility across different clinical encounters, and integration of medical jargon into the note. Broader risks include automation bias and risks to data privacy. Overcoming significant barriers to implementation will facilitate more widespread adoption.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12553-021-00568-0.

Evaluating Bias in Speaker Introductions at the American Society for Radiation Oncology Annual Meeting

PURPOSE

Introducing a physician without a professional title may reinforce bias in medicine by influencing perceived credibility. We evaluated differences in the use of professional titles in introductions of speakers at recent American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meetings.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We reviewed recordings from the 2017 to 2019 ASTRO Annual Meetings and included complete introductions of speakers with a doctoral degree. Professional introduction was defined as "Doctor" or "Professor" followed by the speaker's full or last name. We collected use of professional introduction, introducer gender, speaker gender, and speaker professional and demographic variables. Identified speakers were sent surveys to collect self-reported demographic data. Analysis was performed using χ2 tests and multivariable logistic regression (MVA).

RESULTS

Of 3267 presentations reviewed, 1226 (38%) met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 805 (66%) speakers and 710 (58%) introducers were men. Professional introductions were used in 74% (2017), 71% (2018), and 69% (2019) of the presentations. There was no difference in the use of professional introductions for male and female speakers (71% vs 73%; P = .550). On MVA, male introducers were associated with decreased use of professional address (odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.49; P < .001). At the 2019 conference, professional introduction was less likely to be used (2019 vs 2017: OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.96; P = 0.026). Those who self-identified as Asian/Pacific Islander were twice as likely to receive a professional introduction compared with those who identified as white (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.07-3.64; P = .033).

CONCLUSION

Male introducers were significantly less likely to introduce any speaker, regardless of gender, by their professional title, and overall use of professional introductions decreased from 2017 to 2019. Furthermore, no difference in professional introduction use by speaker gender was identified at the recent ASTRO meetings. Implementing speaker guidelines could increase the use of professional introductions and raise awareness of unconscious bias at future ASTRO meetings.

Provider-Level Variation in Treatment Planning of Radiation Oncology Procedures in the United States

PURPOSE

Variation in the use of radiation oncology procedures and technologies is poorly characterized. We sought to identify associations between the treatment planning codes used to bill for radiotherapy procedures and the demographic characteristics of the radiation oncologists submitting them.

METHODS

The Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was linked to the Physician Compare database by using the physician National Provider Identifier for the year 2016. Analysis was stratified by practice setting, considering both the freestanding non-facility-based (NFB) setting and the facility-based (FB) setting. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine provider characteristics (gender, practice rurality, and years since graduation) that predicted for the use of 3D-conformal RT (3DCRT) planning, intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) planning, and brachytherapy planning in the Medicare population.

RESULTS

Three thousand twenty-nine physicians were linked for analysis. In both the FB and NFB settings together, male gender predicted for decreased likelihood of 3DCRT planning (OR, 0.70, 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.80, P < .001) and increased likelihood of IMRT planning (OR, 1.35, 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.54, P < .001). Brachytherapy planning was also more likely with increasing years since medical school graduation (OR, 1.03, 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04, P < .001) in the combined FB and NFB settings. These significant associations persisted when examining the NFB and FB settings individually. In both settings overall, brachytherapy planning was more likely in male providers (OR, 1.75, 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.76, P = .02) and also more likely for providers practicing in metropolitan regions compared with those practicing in rural areas (OR, 3.01, 95% CI, 1.23 to 7.39, P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Male gender predicts for utilization of IMRT planning, whereas female gender predicts for utilization of 3DCRT planning. Future research is warranted to better understand the role that provider gender and rurality play in the selection of radiation planning techniques for Medicare patients.

Physician Work Hours and the Gender Pay Gap - Evidence from Primary Care

BACKGROUND

The gender gap in physician pay is often attributed in part to women working fewer hours than men, but evidence to date is limited by self-report and a lack of detail regarding clinical revenue and gender differences in practice style.

METHODS

Using national all-payer claims and data from electronic health records, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 24.4 million primary care office visits in 2017 and performed comparisons between female and male physicians in the same practices. Our primary independent variable was physician gender; outcomes included visit revenue, visit counts, days worked, and observed visit time (interval between the initiation and the termination of a visit). We created multivariable regression models at the year, day, and visit level after adjustment for characteristics of the primary care physicians (PCPs), patients, and types of visit and for practice fixed effects.

RESULTS

In 2017, female PCPs generated 10.9% less revenue from office visits than their male counterparts (-$39,143.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], -53,523.0 to -24,763.4) and conducted 10.8% fewer visits (-330.5 visits; 95% CI, -406.6 to -254.3) over 2.6% fewer clinical days (-5.3 days; 95% CI, -7.7 to -3.0), after adjustment for age, academic degree, specialty, and number of sessions worked per week, yet spent 2.6% more observed time in visits that year than their male counterparts (1201.3 minutes; 95% CI, 184.7 to 2218.0). Per visit, after adjustment for PCP, patient, and visit characteristics, female PCPs generated equal revenue but spent 15.7% more time with a patient (2.4 minutes; 95% CI, 2.1 to 2.6). These results were consistent in subgroup analyses according to the gender and health status of the patients and the type and complexity of the visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Female PCPs generated less visit revenue than male colleagues in the same practices owing to a lower volume of visits, yet spent more time in direct patient care per visit, per day, and per year. (Funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.).

Assessment of Gender Differences in Clinical Productivity and Medicare Payments Among Otolaryngologists in 2017

Importance

Women comprise an increasing proportion of the otolaryngology workforce. Prior studies have demonstrated gender-based disparity in physician practice and income in other clinical specialties; however, research has not comprehensively examined whether gender-based income disparities exist within the field of otolaryngology.

Objective

To determine whether diversity of practice, clinical productivity, and Medicare payment differ between male and female otolaryngologists and whether any identified variation is associated with practice setting.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of publicly available Medicare data summarizing payments to otolaryngologists from January 1 through December 31, 2017. Male and female otolaryngologists participating in Medicare in facility-based (FB; hospital-based) and non-facility-based settings (NFB; eg, physician office) for outpatient otolaryngologic care were included.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Number of unique billing codes (diversity of practice) per physician, number of services provided per physician (physician productivity), and Medicare payment per physician. Outcomes were stratified by practice setting (FB vs NFB).

Results

A total of 8456 otolaryngologists (1289 [15.2%] women; 7167 [84.8%] men) received Medicare payments in 2017. Per physician, women billed fewer unique codes (mean difference, -2.10; 95% CI, -2.46 to -1.75; P < .001), provided fewer services (mean difference, -640; 95% CI, -784 to -496; P < .001), and received less Medicare payment than men (mean difference, -$30 246 (95% CI, -$35 738 to -$24 756; P < .001). When stratified by practice setting, women in NFB settings billed 1.65 fewer unique codes (95% CI, -2.01 to -1.29; P < .001) and provided 633 fewer services (95% CI, -791 to -475; P < .001). In contrast, there was no significant gender-based difference in number of unique codes billed (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.217 to 0.347; P = .81) or number of services provided (mean difference, 5.1; 95% CI, -55.8 to 45.6; P = .85) in the FB setting. Women received less Medicare payment in both settings compared with men (NFB: mean difference, -$27 746; 95% CI, -$33 502 to -$21 989; P < .001; vs FB: mean difference, -$4002; 95% CI, -$7393 to -$612; P = .02), although the absolute difference was lower in the FB setting.

Conclusions and Relevance

Female sex is associated with decreased diversity of practice, lower clinical productivity, and decreased Medicare payment among otolaryngologists. Gender-based inequity is more pronounced in NFB settings compared with FB settings. Further efforts are necessary to better evaluate and address gender disparities within otolaryngology.

Pathways for Recruiting and Retaining Women and Underrepresented Minority Clinicians and Physician Scientists Into the Radiation Oncology Workforce: A Summary of the 2019 ASTRO/NCI Diversity Symposium Session at the ASTRO Annual Meeting

Diversifying the radiation oncology workforce is an urgent and unmet need. During the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 2019 Annual Meeting, ASTRO's Committee on Health Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (CHEDI) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) collaborated on the ASTRO-NCI Diversity Symposium, entitled "Pathways for Recruiting and Retaining Women and Underrepresented Minority Clinicians and Physician Scientists Into the Radiation Oncology Workforce." Herein, we summarize the presented data and personal anecdotes with the goal of raising awareness of ongoing and future initiatives to improve recruitment and retention of underrepesented groups to radiation oncology. Common themes include the pivotal role of mentorship and standardized institutional practices – such as protected time and pay parity – as critical to achieving a more diverse and inclusive workplace.