Michael R Daly1, Jennifer M Mellor2, Marco Millones3. 1. Department of Policy Analysis and Management, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 2. Department of Economics, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 3. Department of Geography, University of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine whether geographic information systems (GIS)-based physician-to-population ratios (PPRs) yield determinations of geographic primary care shortage areas that differ from those based on bounded-area PPRs like those used in the Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) designation process. METHODS: We used geocoded data on primary care physician (PCP) locations and census block population counts from 1 US state to construct 2 shortage area indicators. The first is a bounded-area shortage indicator defined without GIS methods; the second is a GIS-based measure that measures the populations' spatial proximity to PCP locations. We examined agreement and disagreement between bounded shortage areas and GIS-based shortage areas. FINDINGS: Bounded shortage area indicators and GIS-based shortage area indicators agree for the census blocks where the vast majority of our study populations reside. Specifically, 95% and 98% of the populations in our full and urban samples, respectively, reside in census blocks where the 2 indicators agree. Although agreement is generally high in rural areas (ie, 87% of the rural population reside in census blocks where the 2 indicators agree), agreement is significantly lower compared to urban areas. One source of disagreement suggests that bounded-area measures may "overlook" some shortages in rural areas; however, other aspects of the HPSA designation process likely mitigate this concern. Another source of disagreement arises from the border-crossing problem, and it is more prevalent. CONCLUSIONS: The GIS-based PPRs we employed would yield shortage area determinations that are similar to those based on bounded-area PPRs defined for Primary Care Service Areas. Disagreement rates were lower than previous studies have found.
PURPOSE: To examine whether geographic information systems (GIS)-based physician-to-population ratios (PPRs) yield determinations of geographic primary care shortage areas that differ from those based on bounded-area PPRs like those used in the Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) designation process. METHODS: We used geocoded data on primary care physician (PCP) locations and census block population counts from 1 US state to construct 2 shortage area indicators. The first is a bounded-area shortage indicator defined without GIS methods; the second is a GIS-based measure that measures the populations' spatial proximity to PCP locations. We examined agreement and disagreement between bounded shortage areas and GIS-based shortage areas. FINDINGS: Bounded shortage area indicators and GIS-based shortage area indicators agree for the census blocks where the vast majority of our study populations reside. Specifically, 95% and 98% of the populations in our full and urban samples, respectively, reside in census blocks where the 2 indicators agree. Although agreement is generally high in rural areas (ie, 87% of the rural population reside in census blocks where the 2 indicators agree), agreement is significantly lower compared to urban areas. One source of disagreement suggests that bounded-area measures may "overlook" some shortages in rural areas; however, other aspects of the HPSA designation process likely mitigate this concern. Another source of disagreement arises from the border-crossing problem, and it is more prevalent. CONCLUSIONS: The GIS-based PPRs we employed would yield shortage area determinations that are similar to those based on bounded-area PPRs defined for Primary Care Service Areas. Disagreement rates were lower than previous studies have found.