• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

information for practice

news, new scholarship & more from around the world


advanced search
  • gary.holden@nyu.edu
  • @ Info4Practice
  • Archive
  • About
  • Help
  • Browse Key Journals
  • RSS Feeds

Disparities in Geographic Access to Medical Oncologists

Abstract

Objective

To identify disparities in geographic access to medical oncologists at time of diagnosis.

Data sources/Study setting

2014-2016 Pennsylvania Cancer Registry (PCR), 2019 CMS Base Provider Enrollment File (BPEF), 2018 CMS Physician Compare, 2010 Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes (RUCA) and 2015 Area Deprivation Index (ADI).

Study Design

Spatial regressions were used to estimate associations between geographic access to medical oncologists, measured with an enhanced two-step floating catchment area measure, and demographic characteristics.

Data collection/Extraction methods

Medical oncologists were identified in the 2019 CMS BPEF and merged with 2018 CMS Physician Compare. Provider addresses were converted to longitude-latitude using OpenCage Geocoder. Newly diagnosed cancer patients in each census tract were identified in the 2014-16 PCR. Census tracts were classified based on rurality and socioeconomic status using the 2010 RUCA Codes and the 2015 ADI.

Principal findings

Large towns and rural areas were associated with spatial access ratios (SPARs) that were 6.29 lower (95% CI -16.14 to 3.57) and 14.76 lower (95% CI -25.14 to -4.37) respectively relative to urban areas. Being in the fourth ADI quartile (highest disadvantage) was associated with a 12.41 lower SPAR (95% CI -19.50 t -5.33) relative to the first quartile. The observed difference in a census tract’s non-White population from the 25th (1.3%) to the 75th percentile (13.7%) was associated with a 13.64 higher SPAR (Coefficient=1.10, 95% CI 11.89 to 15.29; P<0.01), roughly equivalent to the disadvantage associated with living in the fourth ADI quartile, where non-White populations are concentrated.

Conclusions

Rurality and low socioeconomic status were associated with lower geographic access to oncologists. The negative association between area deprivation and geographic access is of greater magnitude than the positive association between larger non-White populations and access. Policies aimed at increasing geographic access to care should be cognizant of both rurality and socioeconomic status.

Read the full article ›

Posted in: Journal Article Abstracts on 05/01/2022 | Link to this post on IFP |
Share

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Category RSS Feeds

  • Calls & Consultations
  • Clinical Trials
  • Funding
  • Grey Literature
  • Guidelines Plus
  • History
  • Infographics
  • Journal Article Abstracts
  • Meta-analyses - Systematic Reviews
  • Monographs & Edited Collections
  • News
  • Open Access Journal Articles
  • Podcasts
  • Video

© 1993-2025 Dr. Gary Holden. All rights reserved.

gary.holden@nyu.edu
@Info4Practice