Medicaid coverage and access to obstetrics and gynecology subspecialists: findings from a national mystery caller study in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that access to healthcare may influence the diagnosis and treatment of obstetrical and gynecologic pathologies. Audit studies, a single-blinded and patient-centered design, have been employed to measure access to care for health services. To date, no study has assessed the dimensions of access to obstetrics and gynecologic subspecialty care based on insurance type (Medicaid vs commercial). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the mean appointment wait time for a new patient visit to female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, gynecologic oncology, maternal-fetal medicine, and reproductive endocrinology and infertility when presenting with Medicaid vs commercial insurance. STUDY DESIGN: Each subspecialty medical society has a patient-facing physician directory of physicians across the United States. Of note, 800 unique physicians were randomly selected from the directories (200 per subspecialty). Of the 800 physicians, each physician was called twice. The caller presented with Medicaid or, in a separate call, with Blue Cross Blue Shield. The order in which the calls were placed was randomized. The caller asked for the soonest appointment available for respective medical conditions based on subspecialty: stress urinary incontinence, new-onset pelvic mass, preconceptual counseling after an autologous kidney transplant, and primary infertility. RESULTS: From 800 physicians initially contacted, 477 responded to at least 1 call in 49 states plus the District of Columbia. The mean appointment wait time was 20.3 business days (standard deviation, ±18.6). A significant difference was found in new patient appointment wait times by type of insurance, with 44% longer wait time for Medicaid (ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-1.54; P<.001). When the interaction between insurance type and subspecialty was added to the model, it was also highly significant (P<.01). More specifically, Medicaid patients in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery had a longer wait time than commercially insured patients. Patients seeking care in maternal-fetal medicine had the least difference, but Medicaid-insured patient wait times were still longer than commercial-insured patient wait times. CONCLUSION: Typically, a patient can expect to wait 20.3 days for a new patient appointment with a board-certified obstetrics and gynecology subspecialist. Callers presenting with Medicaid insurance experienced significantly longer new patient appointment wait times than callers with commercial insurance.

Access to Urogynecologic Care in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Mystery Caller Study.

IMPORTANCE: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) play an important role in providing care to underserved populations. However, little is known about the availability of urogynecology services at FQHCs. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the availability of appointments for urogynecology care and to determine the prevalence of FQHCs offering urogynecologic services. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 362 FQHCs across the United States were randomly selected from the Health Resources and Services Administration website, based on specific inclusion criteria. Researchers called the FQHCs and requested the earliest available appointment for pelvic organ prolapse. The availability of urogynecologic services such as pessary fittings, pelvic floor physical therapy, and urodynamic studies was also inquired. RESULTS: A total of 362 FQHCs located in 46 states and the District of Columbia were called. On average, the 362 FQHCs had been established for 19.9 (SD ±15) years, were located in urban areas, and served a median county population of 24,573. Of the 220 FQHCs successfully contacted, 81% (180/220) reported that they could provide care for a patient with pelvic organ prolapse at an appointment 29.1 business days (SD ±30 days) from the date of the call, on average. However, only a small percentage of these FQHCs offered in-office pessary fittings (11%), complex multichannel urodynamics testing (8.6%), or pelvic floor physical therapy (5%). CONCLUSION: The availability of treatments for pelvic floor disorders at FQHCs is limited. These findings highlight a potential disparity in access to urogynecology services for individuals with public insurance.