Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction/Female Pelvic Medicine: Female Incontinence: Therapy I (MP30)1 Apr 2020MP30-19 ACCESS TO ACADEMIC FEMALE PELVIC MEDICINE AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY PROVIDERS FOR NEW PATIENT VISITS: HOW LONG ARE WAIT TIMES? Wai Lee, Alice Cheung*, Chris Du, Stony Brook, Charles Loeb, Tal Cohen, Anjali Kapur, Steven Weissbart, and Jason Kim Wai LeeWai Lee More articles by this author , Alice Cheung*Alice Cheung* More articles by this author , Chris DuChris Du More articles by this author , Stony BrookStony Brook More articles by this author , Charles LoebCharles Loeb More articles by this author , Tal CohenTal Cohen More articles by this author , Anjali KapurAnjali Kapur More articles by this author , Steven WeissbartSteven Weissbart More articles by this author , and Jason KimJason Kim More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000869.019AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: A 2017 Merritt Hawkins study found that since 2014, wait times for Medicaid patients have increased by 30% in the fields of dermatology, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedic surgery, and family medicine in major urban centers around the country. Our objective was to identify factors that may impact wait times for Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) urologists and gynecologists at academic centers. METHODS: We reviewed all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited urology and gynecology residency programs. We identified FPMRS-trained providers by reviewing physician profiles on institutional websites. We used an IRB-approved script to make calls to ascertain the earliest available appointment for a fictional female patient complaining of “urine leakage”. Wait times for Medicaid and Medicare insurance were obtained in separate calls. Statewide Medicaid density was calculated from United States 2017 Census data. Programs without FPMRS faculty (18.7%, 81/434) were excluded. FPMRS providers that did not accept Medicaid (15.6%, 85/557) were also excluded. Negative binomial regression was performed using SPSS v24. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 362 FPMRS providers at 353 urology or gynecology programs. The average wait time for a patient with Medicaid was 39.8 days (STD 44.9 days) and 34.1 days (STD 30.9 days) for Medicare. Gynecologists had longer wait times when compared to urologists for both Medicaid (42.5 vs 32.0 days) and Medicare (35.1 vs 31.3 days). Female providers had longer wait times when compared to male providers for both Medicaid (47.2 vs 32.4 days) and Medicare (38.8 vs 29.6 days). On regression, specialty and insurance type were not significantly associated with longer wait times, while gender of the provider was significant (OR 0.45 [0.25,0.64], p<0.01). State Medicaid density was also not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that nearly 1 in 5 academic departments did not have an FPMRS-trained provider. Based on wait times alone, there is high demand to see FPMRS physicians at academic institutions when compared to general urology (Medicaid 35 days, Medicare 23 days), dermatology (32 days), orthopedics (11.4 days), and obstetrics/gynecology (26.4 days). While our study only represents access to care at academic facilities and does not account for other physician factors that can influence wait time, our findings reflect a challenging landscape where training additional FPMRS providers is pivotal to meet demand. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e445-e446 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Wai Lee More articles by this author Alice Cheung* More articles by this author Chris Du More articles by this author Stony Brook More articles by this author Charles Loeb More articles by this author Tal Cohen More articles by this author Anjali Kapur More articles by this author Steven Weissbart More articles by this author Jason Kim More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
More From: Journal of Urology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.