Sarah Friedman1,2, Jonathan G Shaw3,4, Alison B Hamilton5,6, Kavita Vinekar5,6, Donna L Washington5,6, Kristin Mattocks7,8, Elizabeth M Yano5,6,9, Ciaran S Phibbs3,4,10, Amanda M Johnson11, Fay Saechao3, Eric Berg3, Susan M Frayne3,4. 1. VA HSR&D Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA. Sfriedman@unr.edu. 2. School of Public Health, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV, USA. Sfriedman@unr.edu. 3. VA HSR&D Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 4. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 5. VA HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation & Policy, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 7. VA Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System, Leeds, MA, USA. 8. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. 9. Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 10. VA Health Economics Resource Center, Menlo Park, CA, USA. 11. VA Office of Women's Health, Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) refers patients to community providers for specialty services not available on-site. However, community-level specialist shortages may impede access to care. OBJECTIVE: Compare gynecologist supply in veterans' county of residence versus at their VA site. DESIGN: We identified women veteran VA patients from fiscal year (FY) 2017 administrative data and assessed availability of a VA gynecologist within 50 miles (hereafter called "local") of veterans' VA homesites (per national VA organizational survey data). For the same cohort, we then assessed community-level gynecologist availability; counties with < 2 gynecologists/10,000 women (per the Area Health Resource File) were "inadequate-supply" counties. We examined the proportion of women veterans with local VA gynecologist availability in counties with inadequate versus adequate gynecologist supply, stratified by individual and VA homesite characteristics. Chi-square tests assessed statistical differences. PARTICIPANTS: All women veteran FY2017 VA primary care users nationally. MAIN MEASURES: Availability of a VA gynecologist within 50 miles of a veteran's VA homesite; county-level "inadequate-supply" of gynecologists. KEY RESULTS: Among 407,482 women, 9% were in gynecologist supply deserts (i.e., lacking local VA gynecologist and living in an inadequate-supply county). The sub-populations with the highest proportions in gynecologist supply deserts were rural residents (24%), those who got their primary care at non-VAMC satellite clinics (13%), those who got their care at a site without a women's clinic (13%), and those with American Indian or Alaska Native (12%), or white (12%) race. Among those in inadequate-supply counties, 59.9% had gynecologists at their local VA; however, 40.1% lacked a local VA gynecologist. CONCLUSIONS: Most veterans living in inadequate-supply counties had local VA gynecology care, reflecting VA's critical role as a safety net provider. However, for those in gynecologist supply deserts, expanded transportation options, modified staffing models, or tele-gynecology hubs may offer solutions to extend VA gynecology capacity.
BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) refers patients to community providers for specialty services not available on-site. However, community-level specialist shortages may impede access to care. OBJECTIVE: Compare gynecologist supply in veterans' county of residence versus at their VA site. DESIGN: We identified women veteran VA patients from fiscal year (FY) 2017 administrative data and assessed availability of a VA gynecologist within 50 miles (hereafter called "local") of veterans' VA homesites (per national VA organizational survey data). For the same cohort, we then assessed community-level gynecologist availability; counties with < 2 gynecologists/10,000 women (per the Area Health Resource File) were "inadequate-supply" counties. We examined the proportion of women veterans with local VA gynecologist availability in counties with inadequate versus adequate gynecologist supply, stratified by individual and VA homesite characteristics. Chi-square tests assessed statistical differences. PARTICIPANTS: All women veteran FY2017 VA primary care users nationally. MAIN MEASURES: Availability of a VA gynecologist within 50 miles of a veteran's VA homesite; county-level "inadequate-supply" of gynecologists. KEY RESULTS: Among 407,482 women, 9% were in gynecologist supply deserts (i.e., lacking local VA gynecologist and living in an inadequate-supply county). The sub-populations with the highest proportions in gynecologist supply deserts were rural residents (24%), those who got their primary care at non-VAMC satellite clinics (13%), those who got their care at a site without a women's clinic (13%), and those with American Indian or Alaska Native (12%), or white (12%) race. Among those in inadequate-supply counties, 59.9% had gynecologists at their local VA; however, 40.1% lacked a local VA gynecologist. CONCLUSIONS: Most veterans living in inadequate-supply counties had local VA gynecology care, reflecting VA's critical role as a safety net provider. However, for those in gynecologist supply deserts, expanded transportation options, modified staffing models, or tele-gynecology hubs may offer solutions to extend VA gynecology capacity.
Authors: William F Rayburn; Jeffrey C Klagholz; Cristina Murray-Krezan; Lana E Dowell; Albert L Strunk Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Kristin M Mattocks; Kristin Cunningham; A Rani Elwy; Erin P Finley; Clinton Greenstone; Michelle A Mengeling; Steven D Pizer; Megan E Vanneman; Michael Weiner; Lori A Bastian Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kristina M Cordasco; Jessica L Zuchowski; Alison B Hamilton; Susan Kirsh; Laure Veet; Joann O Saavedra; Lisa Altman; Herschel Knapp; Mark Canning; Donna L Washington Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Michael E Ohl; Margaret Carrell; Andrew Thurman; Mark Vander Weg; Teresa Hudson; Michelle Mengeling; Mary Vaughan-Sarrazin Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Suzannah K Creech; Justin K Benzer; Tracie Ebalu; Christopher M Murphy; Casey T Taft Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 2.655