Literature DB >> 10437329

Are there need-based geographical differences between international medical graduates and U.S. medical graduates in rural U.S. counties?

S S Mick1, S Y Lee.   

Abstract

The objectives of this study are to compare the rural location of international medical graduates (IMGs) and U.S. medical graduates (USMGs) by specialty (primary care vs. specialty care) according to geographical measures of need. This study utilized a cross-sectional survey using the 1997 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile for all active post-resident allopathic physicians and the Area Resource File (ARF) (Bureau of Health Professions, 1996) for all active post-resident osteopathic physicians in 1995 in the rural U.S. physician work force (N = 69,065). Allopathic physician ZIP code location was matched to county data using the ARF. The key measure was the difference in proportions between USMGs and IMGs in each state's rural counties characterized by need: high infant mortality, low socioeconomic status, high proportion of nonwhite population, high proportion of population 65 years and older, and low physician-to-population ratio. Primary care and specialty care rural physicians were studied separately. A disproportion of IMGs were located in needy rural counties of more states than were USMGs. Further, IMG disproportions were generally larger than USMG disproportions when they existed. Disproportions of IMGs tended to be located more often in the central and south census regions. Disproportions of specialty care IMGs were more frequent and of greater magnitude than those of primary care IMGs. Variations in the relative and absolute numbers of IMGs and USMGs among the states was wide. Services delivered by active post-resident primary care and specialty care IMGs appeared to be disproportionate to their overall number compared with USMGs in numerous needy rural counties. The extent of the IMG "safety net" presence differed, however, by the criteria used. Still, proposed limits on IMG entry into U.S. residency training may create long-term problems of access to rural physician services absent policies to induce USMGs or midlevel practitioners to locate in such areas. State-by-state assessments of the potential impact of IMG restrictions are called for because of the wide state-level variation that existed in comparative IMG-USMG distributions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10437329     DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.1999.tb00596.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Rural Health        ISSN: 0890-765X            Impact factor:   4.333


  6 in total

1.  International and US medical graduates in US cities.

Authors:  S S Mick; S Y Lee
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.671

Review 2.  Predictors of Primary Care Physician Practice Location in Underserved Urban or Rural Areas in the United States: A Systematic Literature Review.

Authors:  Amelia Goodfellow; Jesus G Ulloa; Patrick T Dowling; Efrain Talamantes; Somil Chheda; Curtis Bone; Gerardo Moreno
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 6.893

3.  International Medical Graduates in the US Physician Workforce and Graduate Medical Education: Current and Historical Trends.

Authors:  Awad A Ahmed; Wei-Ting Hwang; Charles R Thomas; Curtiland Deville
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2018-04

4.  Geographic variation in health insurance benefits in Qianjiang District, China: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Yue Wu; Liang Zhang; Xuejiao Liu; Ting Ye; Yongfei Wang
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2018-02-05

5.  Physician emigration from sub-Saharan Africa to the United States: analysis of the 2011 AMA physician masterfile.

Authors:  Akhenaten Benjamin Siankam Tankwanchi; Cağlar Ozden; Sten H Vermund
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 11.069

6.  Migrant physicians' conceptions of working in rural and remote areas in Sweden: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Linda Sturesson; Magnus Öhlander; Gunnar Nilsson; Terese Stenfors
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.