Abstract Background Long waiting times for healthcare services are a priority issue in the Slovenian healthcare system. Over the past decade the system for monitoring waiting times has evolved and is currently linked to the eReferral system, which allows detailed monitoring of data in particular related to secondary care services, such as outpatient specialist visits. Our aim was to explore the differences in waiting times between Slovenian regions in the case of first orthopedic outpatient visits in order to identify potential causes or contributing factors. Methods The analysis was based on the data from the waiting list database on 1 January 2024. The database includes information on region of residence of the patient and the region where the provider is located. Data were available on the number of persons on the waiting list and on the average expected waiting time for them. Waiting times relate to each of three urgency levels, which are indicated on the referral (very fast, fast and ordinary). Results Average expected waiting times for first orthopedic outpatient visits differed considerably among residents of different regions, ranging from 159 day to 265 days (60% more). The regional differences were even larger if only “very fast” and “ordinary” referrals were considered. The share of appointments in each urgency referral level also varied considerably, for example the share of patients with a “very fast” referral ranged between 15,7% and 37,6%, depending on the patient region of residence. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the region of residence of patients and the region where the provider is located was 0,78. Conclusions Waiting times and referral patterns for first orthopedic outpatient visits for patients from different regions vary considerably. Despite a free choice of provider and public data on expected waiting times, the differences correlate closely with the geographic distribution of providers. Key messages • Waiting times for outpatient visits in orthopedics differ by Slovenian region, despite free choice of provider. • The assessment of inequalities is made more difficult by varying share of different urgency levels of referrals.