Travel distance and national access to gender-affirming surgery.

BACKGROUND: Gender-affirming surgery is unequally distributed across the United States due to resource allocation, state-based regulations, and the availability of trained physicians. Many individuals seeking gender-affirming surgery travel vast distances to receive care. This study aims to quantify the distances that individuals travel to receive gender-affirming surgery based on procedure type and patient home-of-record location. METHODS: Patients in the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart who underwent gender-affirming surgery were identified via Current Procedural Terminology codes. Data on patient demographics, procedural care, and location of patient and provider were collected. To be included, a patient had to meet diagnostic criteria to receive gender-affirming surgery and have a recorded surgical procedure reimbursed as part of gender-affirming surgery per the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services guidelines. Patients residing or receiving care outside the continental United States were excluded. Distances between the ZIP Code of each patient's home of record and the location where the gender-affirming surgery was performed were calculated via the Google Maps Distance Matrix API. Distance traveled for gender-affirming surgery by patient state and gender-affirming surgery procedure were determined. Multivariate linear regression analysis determined predictors of distance traveled for gender-affirming surgery, whereas multivariate logistic regression identified variables associated with an increased likelihood of out-of-state travel to gender-affirming surgery. RESULTS: Across 86 million longitudinal patient records, the study population included 2,743 records corresponding to 1,735 patients who received gender-affirming surgery between January 2003 and June 2020. The median distance traveled for gender-affirming surgery was 191 miles (mean: 391.5), and 36.0% of patients traveled out of their state of residence. Every patient from West Virginia, Wyoming, South Dakota, Mississippi, and Delaware traveled out of state for gender-affirming surgery. Patients with homes of record in California (18.4%), Massachusetts (20.7%), and Oregon (19.0%) were the least likely to travel out-of-state for gender-affirming surgery out of states with more than 10 gender-affirming surgery encounters. The main predictors for out-of-state travel included both feminizing and masculinizing genital surgery, as well as an insurance coverage with increased provider options. Additionally, patients traveled shorter distances for gender-affirming surgery after the post-2014 Affordable Care Act expansion compared to pre-2014. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving gender-affirming surgery in the United States travel great distances for their care, often receiving their care from out-of-state providers. Restrictive guidelines imposed by state laws on both the access to and provision of gender-affirming surgery compound the myriad of common difficulties that patients face. It is imperative to discuss potential factors that may mitigate these barriers for those who require gender-affirming surgery.

The Geographical Impact of Plastic Surgery Residency to Fellowship and Residency/Fellowship to First Job Placement.

INTRODUCTION: The location of trainees' plastic surgery residency or fellowship has implications on their subsequent careers, which can inform future trainees and faculty decisions, and may affect access to care nationwide. This study explores historic geographic trends of the location where trainees complete residency or fellowship and where they pursue a fellowship program or first job. METHODS: Graduates from US integrated plastic surgery residency or fellowship programs from 2015 to 2021 were identified along with their proximity to fellowship or first job. Location was categorized based on whether the graduate's fellowship/first job location to residency/fellowship was within 100 miles, the same state, the same geographic region, the United States, or international. A χ2 value was calculated to determine the significance of relative geographical location after training. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-five graduates that attended fellowship were included, representing 76.5% (65/85) of integrated plastic surgery residency programs. There were 47.7% (n = 174) that stayed within the same geographic region and 3.6% (n = 13) pursued training internationally. The location of the residency or fellowship program appears to have an influence on the location of the graduate's fellowship or first job. CONCLUSION: Graduates who completed integrated residency or fellowship in a certain geographic location were more likely to stay in that area for their fellowship or first job. This may be explained by graduates continuing training with their original program, the established network, and personal factors such as family and friends.