Geographic Disparities in Potential Accessibility to Gynecologic Oncologists in the United States From 2001 to 2020.

Abstract

To use a spatial modeling approach to capture potential disparities of gynecologic oncologist accessibility in the United States at the county level between 2001 and 2020. Physician registries identified the 2001-2020 gynecologic oncology workforce and were aggregated to each county. The at-risk cohort (women aged 18 years or older) was stratified by race and ethnicity and rurality demographics. We computed the distance from at-risk women to physicians. Relative access scores were computed by a spatial model for each contiguous county. Access scores were compared across urban or rural status and racial and ethnic groups. Between 2001 and 2020, the gynecologic oncologist workforce increased. By 2020, there were 1,178 active physicians and 98.3% practiced in urban areas (37.3% of all counties). Geographic disparities were identified, with 1.09 physicians per 100,000 women in urban areas compared with 0.1 physicians per 100,000 women in rural areas. In total, 2,862 counties (57.4 million at-risk women) lacked an active physician. Additionally, there was no increase in rural physicians, with only 1.7% practicing in rural areas in 2016-2020 relative to 2.2% in 2001-2005 (P=.35). Women in racial and ethnic minority populations, such as American Indian or Alaska Native and Hispanic women, exhibited the lowest level of access to physicians across all time periods. For example, 23.7% of American Indian or Alaska Native women did not have access to a physician within 100 miles between 2016 and 2020, which did not improve over time. Non-Hispanic Black women experienced an increase in relative accessibility, with a 26.2% increase by 2016-2020. However, Asian or Pacific Islander women exhibited significantly better access than non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native women across all time periods. Although the U.S. gynecologic oncologist workforce increased steadily over 20 years, this has not translated into evidence of improved access for many women from rural and underrepresented areas. However, health care utilization and cancer outcomes may not be influenced only by distance and availability. Policies and pipeline programs are needed to address these inequities in gynecologic cancer care.