Paula W Feng1, Aneesha Ahluwalia1, Hao Feng2, Ron A Adelman3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Department of Dermatology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. Electronic address: ron.adelman@yale.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe temporal and geographic trends in the US eye care workforce. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We obtained data from the 2017 Area Health Resources File. The main outcomes were ophthalmologist and optometrist density, as defined as the number of providers per 100,000 individuals, the ratio of ophthalmologists ≥55 years of age to those <55 years of age, and county characteristics associated with the availability of an ophthalmologist. RESULTS: From 1995 to 2017, the national ophthalmologist density decreased from 6.30 to 5.68 ophthalmologists per 100,000 individuals. Although rural counties experienced a mean annual increase in ophthalmologist density by 2.26%, they still had a lower mean ophthalmologist density (0.58/100,000 individuals) compared with nonmetropolitan (2.19/100,000 individuals) and metropolitan counties (6.29/100,000 individuals) in 2017. The ratio of older to younger ophthalmologists increased from 0.37 in 1995 to 0.82 in 2017, with the greatest ratio increase occurring in rural counties (0.29 to 1.90). The presence of an ophthalmologist was significantly associated with a greater proportion of individuals with a college degree and health insurance, and more developed health care infrastructure. From 1990 to 2017, the density of optometrists increased from 11.06 to 16.16 optometrists per 100,000 individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last 2 decades, the national density of ophthalmologists has decreased and the workforce has aged. In contrast, the density of optometrists has increased. Rural counties continue to have a disproportionately lower supply of eye care providers, although some growth has occurred. Given the rising ratio of optometrists to ophthalmologists, it is of interest for future work to determine how the optometrist workforce can best complement potential shortages of ophthalmologists.
PURPOSE: To describe temporal and geographic trends in the US eye care workforce. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We obtained data from the 2017 Area Health Resources File. The main outcomes were ophthalmologist and optometrist density, as defined as the number of providers per 100,000 individuals, the ratio of ophthalmologists ≥55 years of age to those <55 years of age, and county characteristics associated with the availability of an ophthalmologist. RESULTS: From 1995 to 2017, the national ophthalmologist density decreased from 6.30 to 5.68 ophthalmologists per 100,000 individuals. Although rural counties experienced a mean annual increase in ophthalmologist density by 2.26%, they still had a lower mean ophthalmologist density (0.58/100,000 individuals) compared with nonmetropolitan (2.19/100,000 individuals) and metropolitan counties (6.29/100,000 individuals) in 2017. The ratio of older to younger ophthalmologists increased from 0.37 in 1995 to 0.82 in 2017, with the greatest ratio increase occurring in rural counties (0.29 to 1.90). The presence of an ophthalmologist was significantly associated with a greater proportion of individuals with a college degree and health insurance, and more developed health care infrastructure. From 1990 to 2017, the density of optometrists increased from 11.06 to 16.16 optometrists per 100,000 individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last 2 decades, the national density of ophthalmologists has decreased and the workforce has aged. In contrast, the density of optometrists has increased. Rural counties continue to have a disproportionately lower supply of eye care providers, although some growth has occurred. Given the rising ratio of optometrists to ophthalmologists, it is of interest for future work to determine how the optometrist workforce can best complement potential shortages of ophthalmologists.
Authors: Noha A Sherif; Emily Y Chew; Michael F Chiang; Michelle Hribar; James Gao; Kerry E Goetz Journal: Curr Opin Ophthalmol Date: 2022-07-16 Impact factor: 4.299
Authors: Penny Allen; Belinda Jessup; Santosh Khanal; Victoria Baker-Smith; Kehinde Obamiro; Tony Barnett Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Facundo G Sanchez; Stuart K Gardiner; Shaban Demirel; Jack P Rees; Steven L Mansberger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-10 Impact factor: 3.752