Comparing urban and rural physicians

Assessment of Changes in Rural and Urban Primary Care Workforce in the United States From 2009 to 2017

IMPORTANCE

Access to primary care clinicians, including primary care physicians and nonphysician clinicians (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) is necessary to improving population health. However, rural-urban trends in primary care access in the US are not well studied.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the rural-urban trends in the primary care workforce from 2009 to 2017 across all counties in the US.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study of US counties, county rural-urban status was defined according to the national rural-urban classification scheme for counties used by the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in the county-level distribution of primary care clinicians from 2009 to 2017 were examined. Data were analyzed from November 12, 2019, to February 10, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Density of primary care clinicians measured as the number of primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants per 3500 population in each county. The average annual percentage change (APC) of the means of the density of primary care clinicians over time was calculated, and generalized estimating equations were used to adjust for county-level sociodemographic variables obtained from the American Community Survey.

RESULTS

The study included data from 3143 US counties (1167 [37%] urban and 1976 [63%] rural). The number of primary care clinicians per 3500 people increased significantly in rural counties (2009 median density: 2.04; interquartile range [IQR], 1.43-2.76; and 2017 median density: 2.29; IQR, 1.57-3.23; P < .001) and urban counties (2009 median density: 2.26; IQR. 1.52-3.23; and 2017 median density: 2.66; IQR, 1.72-4.02; P < .001). The APC of the mean density of primary care physicians in rural counties was 1.70% (95% CI, 0.84%-2.57%), nurse practitioners was 8.37% (95% CI, 7.11%-9.63%), and physician assistants was 5.14% (95% CI, 3.91%-6.37%); the APC of the mean density of primary care physicians in urban counties was 2.40% (95% CI, 1.19%-3.61%), nurse practitioners was 8.64% (95% CI, 7.72%-9.55%), and physician assistants was 6.42% (95% CI, 5.34%-7.50%). Results from the generalized estimating equations model showed that the density of primary care clinicians in urban counties increased faster than in rural counties (β = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.05; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although the density of primary care clinicians increased in both rural and urban counties during the 2009-2017 period, the increase was more pronounced in urban than in rural counties. Closing rural-urban gaps in access to primary care clinicians may require increasingly intensive efforts targeting rural areas.

Availability of New Medicaid Patient Appointments and the Role of Rural Health Clinics

OBJECTIVE

To examine the willingness to accept new Medicaid patients among certified rural health clinics (RHCs) and other nonsafety net rural providers.

DATA SOURCES

Experimental (audit) data from a 10-state study of primary care practices, county-level information from the Area Health Resource File, and RHC information from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

STUDY DESIGN

We generate appointment rates for rural and nonrural areas by patient-payer type (private, Medicaid, self-pay) to then motivate our focus on within-rural variation by clinic type (RHC vs. non-RHC). Multivariate linear models test for statistical differences and assess the estimates' sensitivity to the inclusion of control variables.

DATA COLLECTION

The primary data are from a large field study.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Approximately 80 percent of Medicaid callers receive an appointment in rural areas-a rate more than 20 percentage points greater than nonrural areas. Importantly, within rural areas, RHCs offer appointments to prospective Medicaid patients nearly 95 percent of the time, while the rural (nonsafety net) non-RHC Medicaid rate is less than 75 percent. Measured differences are robust to covariate adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that RHC status, with its alternative payment model, is strongly associated with new Medicaid patient acceptance. Altering RHC financial incentives may have consequences for rural Medicaid enrollees.

Urban/rural differences in health insurance coverage among people with multiple sclerosis

PURPOSE

To present urban/rural analyses of health insurance coverage among people with multiple sclerosis (MS). This research also combined all survey respondents from each urban/rural area into one group of people with MS in health maintenance organizations (HMOs)/managed care and another group of people with MS who have other health insurance plans to compare any differences in coverage.

METHODS

We interviewed 1,518 people with MS living in all 50 states. Survey results were analyzed using SPSS.

RESULTS

Most people with MS in each urban/rural area had health insurance coverage (92-95%), with significant urban/rural differences observed in HMO/managed care enrollments. We found no urban/rural differences among people with MS in HMOs/managed care, or among people with MS with other health insurance plans, in satisfaction with coverage of routine care and MS-focused care, or with perceptions of how coverage enables utilization of health services. However, we found that people with MS in HMOs/managed care were more satisfied than people with MS with other health insurance with their coverage of routine care and perceived that their coverage enabled greater utilization of routine care and needed medications.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant differences in satisfaction with MS-focused care or with perceptions of how well coverage enables utilization of MS-focused care or needed assistive devices between people with MS in HMOs/managed care and people with MS who have other health insurance.

Access and quality: does rural America lag behind?

Numerous state and federal programs and policies aim to improve rural health care. This study compares access to and quality of medical care in urban and rural areas from the perspective of physicians and patients, using a broad set of indicators taken from the 2000-2001 Community Tracking Study (CTS) Physician and Household Surveys. Across most dimensions examined, access and quality in rural areas-even rural counties not adjacent to metropolitan areas-were either equivalent or superior to that provided in urban areas. However, rural residents have greater difficulty obtaining mental health services and generally face greater financial barriers to care.

Rural and urban physicians: does the content of their Medicare practices differ?

Rural and urban areas have significant differences in the availability of medical technology, medical practice structures and patient populations. This study uses 1994 Medicare claims data to examine whether these differences are associated with variation in the content of practice between physicians practicing in rural and urban areas. This study compared the number of patients, outpatient visits, and inpatient visits per physician in the different specialties, diagnosis clusters, patient age and sex, and procedure frequency and type for board-certified rural and urban physicians in 12 ambulatory medical specialties. Overall, 14.4 percent of physicians in the 12 specialties practiced exclusively in rural Washington, with great variation by specialty. Rural physicians were older and less likely to be female than urban physicians. Rural physicians saw larger numbers of elderly patients and had higher volumes of outpatient visits than their urban counterparts. For all specialty groups except general surgeons and obstetrician-gynecologists, the diagnostic scope of practice was specialty-specific and similar for rural and urban physicians. Rural general surgeons had more visits for gastrointestinal disorders, while rural obstetrician-gynecologists had more visits out of their specialty domain (e.g., hypertension, diabetes) than their urban counterparts. The scope of procedures for rural and urban physicians in most specialties showed more similarities than differences. While the fund of knowledge and outpatient procedural training needed by most rural and urban practitioners to care for the elderly is similar, rural general surgeons and obstetrician-gynecologists need training outside their traditional specialty areas to optimally care for their patients.

Underutilization of antithrombotic therapy in elderly rural patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Antithrombotic agents are underutilized in elderly patients with atrial fibrillation. In a peer-review audit of antithrombotic use in Missouri, rural patients were given antithrombotic therapy less often than rural patients for unclear reasons.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The charts of 597 hospitalized Medicare patients discharged between October 1, 1993, and December 31, 1994, from urban and rural hospitals in Missouri were reviewed. In addition to antithrombotic therapy prescribed at the time of discharge, patient and physician information, relative contraindications to antithrombotic therapy, and risk factors for stroke were identified. Rural and urban patients were similar in terms of age, sex, and risk factors for stroke. At least one stroke risk factor was noted in 87% of rural patients and in 84% of urban patients. Urban patients were more likely to have a relative contraindication to antithrombotic therapy compared with rural patients (66% vs 54%, P =.04) but received antithrombotic therapy more often (58% vs 47%, P =.02). Cardiologists prescribed antithrombotic therapy significantly more often than noncardiologists (69% vs 52%, P =.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly rural patients with atrial fibrillation receive antithrombotic therapy less frequently than urban patients despite having a similar high-risk profile and fewer relative contraindications. Primary care physicians prescribe antithrombotic therapy less often than cardiologists, which is one of the reasons for this underutilization.