Where to start? A two stage residual inclusion approach to estimating influence of the initial provider on health care utilization and costs for low back pain in the US.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic testing and treatment recommendations can vary when medical care is sought by individuals for low back pain (LBP), leading to variation in quality and costs of care. We examine how the first provider seen by an individual at initial diagnosis of LBP influences downstream utilization and costs. METHODS: Using national private health insurance claims data, individuals age 18 or older were retrospectively assigned to cohorts based on the first provider seen at the index date of LBP diagnosis. Exclusion criteria included individuals with a diagnosis of LBP or any serious medical conditions or an opioid prescription recorded in the 6 months prior to the index date. Outcome measures included use of imaging, back surgery rates, hospitalization rates, emergency department visits, early- and long-term opioid use, and costs (out-of-pocket and total costs of care) twelve months post-index date. We used a two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) estimation approach comparing copay for the initial provider visit and differential distance as the instrumental variable to reduce selection bias in the choice of first provider, controlling for demographics. RESULTS: Among 3,799,593 individuals, cost and utilization varied considerably based on the first provider seen by the patient. Copay and differential distance provided similar results, with copay preserving a greater sample size. The frequency of early opioid prescription was significantly lower when care began with an acupuncturist or chiropractor, and highest for those who began with an emergency medicine physician or advanced practice registered nurse (APRN). Long-term opioid prescriptions were low across most providers except physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians and APRNs. The frequency and time to serious illness varied little across providers. Total cost of care was lowest when starting with a chiropractor ($5093) or primary care physician ($5660), and highest when starting with an orthopedist ($9434) or acupuncturist ($9205). CONCLUSION: The first provider seen by individuals with LBP was associated with large differences in health care utilization, opioid prescriptions, and cost while there were no differences in delays in diagnosis of serious illness.

Service provision and quality outcomes in home health for rural Medicare beneficiaries at high risk for unplanned care.

Multiple barriers exist to providing home health care in rural areas. This study examined relationships between service provision and quality outcomes among rural, fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who received home health care between 2011 and 2013 for conditions associated with high-risk for unplanned care. More skilled nursing visits, visits by more types of providers, more timely care, and shorter lengths of stay were associated with significantly higher odds of hospital readmission and emergency department use and significantly lower odds of community discharge. Results may indicate unmeasured clinical severity and care needs among this population. Additional research regarding the accuracy of current severity measures and adequacy of case-mix adjustment for quality metrics is warranted, especially given the continued focus on value-based payment policies.

Barriers Rural Physicians Face Prescribing Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder.

Opioid use disorder is a serious public health problem. Management with buprenorphine is an effective, office-based, medication-assisted treatment, but 60.1% of rural counties in the United States lack a physician with a Drug Enforcement Agency waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. This national study surveyed all rural physicians who have received a waiver in the United States and found that those who were not actively prescribing buprenorphine reported significantly more barriers than those who were, regardless of whether they were treating the maximum number of patients their waiver allowed. These findings suggest the need for tailored strategies to address barriers to providing buprenorphine for opioid use disorder and to support physicians who are adding or maintaining this service.

Geographic and specialty distribution of US physicians trained to treat opioid use disorder.

PURPOSE: The United States is experiencing an epidemic of opioid-related deaths driven by excessive prescribing of opioids, misuse of prescription drugs, and increased use of heroin. Buprenorphine-naloxone is an effective treatment for opioid use disorder and can be provided in office-based settings, but this treatment is unavailable to many patients who could benefit. We sought to describe the geographic distribution and specialties of physicians obtaining waivers from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to prescribe buprenorphine-naloxone to treat opioid use disorder and to identify potential shortages of physicians. METHODS: We linked physicians authorized to prescribe buprenorphine on the July 2012 DEA Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA) Waived Physician List to the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile to determine their age, specialty, rural-urban status, and location. We then mapped the location of these physicians and determined their supply for all US counties. RESULTS: Sixteen percent of psychiatrists had received a DEA DATA waiver (41.6% of all physicians with waivers) but practiced primarily in urban areas. Only 3.0% of primary care physicians, the largest group of physicians in rural America, had received waivers. Most US counties therefore had no physicians who had obtained waivers to prescribe buprenorphine-naloxone, resulting in more than 30 million persons who were living in counties without access to buprenorphine treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States opioid use and related unintentional lethal overdoses continue to rise, particularly in rural areas. Increasing access to office-based treatment of opioid use disorder--particularly in rural America--is a promising strategy to address rising rates of opioid use disorder and unintentional lethal overdoses.

The contribution of physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners toward rural primary care: findings from a 13-state survey.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of the relative contributions of physicians, physician assistants (PAs), and nurse practitioners (NPs) toward rural primary care are needed to inform workforce planning activities aimed at reducing rural primary shortages. OBJECTIVES: For each provider group, this study quantifies the average weekly number of outpatient primary care visits and the types of services provided within and beyond the outpatient setting. METHODS: A randomly drawn sample of 788 physicians, 601 PAs, and 918 NPs with rural addresses in 13 US states responded to a mailed questionnaire that measured reported weekly outpatient visits and scope of services provided within and beyond the outpatient setting. Analysis of variance and χ(2) testing were used to test for bivariate associations. Multivariate regression was used to model average weekly outpatient volume adjusting for provider sociodemographics and geographical location. RESULTS: Compared with physicians, average weekly outpatient visit quantity was 8% lower for PAs and 25% lower for NPs (P<0.001). After multivariate adjustment, this gap became negligible for PAs (P=0.56) and decreased to 10% for NPs (P<0.001). Compared with PAs and NPs, primary care physicians were more likely to provide services beyond the outpatient setting, including hospital care, emergency care, childbirth attending deliveries, and after-hours call coverage (all P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although our findings suggest that a greater reliance on PAs and NPs in rural primary settings would have a minor impact on outpatient practice volume, this shift might reduce the availability of services that have more often been traditionally provided by rural primary care physicians beyond the outpatient clinic setting.

Accuracy of ovarian and colon cancer risk assessments by U.S. physicians.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown a mismatch between published cancer screening and genetic counseling referral recommendations and physician-reported screening and referral practices. Inaccurate cancer risk assessment is one potential cause of this mismatch. OBJECTIVE: To assess U.S. physicians' ability to accurately determine a woman's colon and ovarian cancer risk level. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional survey of U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists. A twelve-page questionnaire with a vignette of a woman's annual examination included a question about the patient's level of colon and ovarian cancer risk. The final study sample included 1,555 physicians weighted to represent practicing U.S. physicians nationally. MAIN MEASURE: Accuracy of physicians' ovarian and colon cancer risk assessments. KEY RESULTS: Overall, most physicians accurately assessed women's risk of ovarian (57.0%, CI 54.3, 59.6) and colon cancer (62.0%, CI 59.4, 64.6). However, 27.1% (CI 23.0, 31.6) of physicians overestimated the ovarian cancer risk among women at the same risk as the general population, and 65.1% (CI 60.2, 69.7) underestimated ovarian cancer risk among women at much higher risk than the general population. Physicians overestimated colon more than ovarian cancer risk (38.0%, CI 35.4, 40.6 vs. 27.1%, CI 23.0, 31.6) for women at the same risk as the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' misestimation of patient ovarian and colon cancer risk may put average risk patients in jeopardy of unnecessary screening and higher risk patients in jeopardy of missed opportunities for prevention or early detection of cancers.

Guideline-inconsistent breast cancer screening for women over 50: a vignette-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Professional organizations have issued guidelines recommending breast cancer screening for women 50 years of age. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the percent of U.S. primary care physicians who report breast cancer screening practices that are not consistent with guidelines, and the characteristics of physicians who reported offering extra test modalities. DESIGN: We analyzed a subset of a 2008 cross-sectional Women's Health Care survey sent to primary care physicians randomly selected from the national American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile. A subset of physicians received a survey that presented a vignette of a health maintenance visit for an asymptomatic 51-year-old woman who was not at high risk for breast cancer. Responses were weighted to represent physicians nationally. PARTICIPANTS: 1,654 U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists under age 65, who practiced in office or hospital based settings (62.8 % response rate). After exclusions, 553 study physicians remained for analysis. MAIN MEASURE: Physician self-report of breast cancer screening practices that are not consistent with the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), and the American Cancer Society (ACS), defined as almost always offering mammography. KEY RESULTS: 36.0 % (95 % CI: 31.8 %-40.5 %) of physicians reported offering breast cancer screening tests inconsistent with national guidelines, with most offering extra tests (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] and/or ultrasound) (33.2 %, 95 % CI 29.1 %-37.6 %). In adjusted analysis, risk-averse physicians and those who believed in the clinical effectiveness of MRI were more likely to offer extra breast cancer screening tests. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often report offering breast cancer screening test modalities beyond those recommended for a 51-year-old woman. Strategies, such as academic detailing regarding appropriate use of technology and provision of clinical decision support for breast cancer screening, could decrease overuse of resources.

Barriers to primary care physicians prescribing buprenorphine.

PURPOSE: Despite the efficacy of buprenorphine-naloxone for the treatment of opioid use disorders, few physicians in Washington State use this clinical tool. To address the acute need for this service, a Rural Opioid Addiction Management Project trained 120 Washington physicians in 2010-2011 to use buprenorphine. We conducted this study to determine what proportion of those trained physicians began prescribing this treatment and identify barriers to incorporating this approach into outpatient practice. METHODS: We interviewed 92 of 120 physicians (77%), obtaining demographic information, current prescribing status, clinic characteristics, and barriers to prescribing buprenorphine. Residents and 7 physicians who were prescribing buprenorphine at the time of the course were excluded from the study. We analyzed the responses of the 78 remaining respondents. RESULTS: Almost all respondents reported positive attitudes toward buprenorphine, but only 22 (28%) reported prescribing buprenorphine. Most (95%, n = 21) new prescribers were family physicians. Physicians who prescribed buprenorphine were more likely to have partners who had received a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine. A lack of institutional support was associated with not prescribing the medication (P = .04). A lack of mental health and psychosocial support was the most frequently cited barrier by both those who prescribe and who do not prescribe buprenorphine. CONCLUSION: Interventions before and after training are needed to increase the number of physicians who offer buprenorphine for treatment of addiction. Targeting physicians in clinics that agree in advance to institute services, coupled with technical assistance after they have completed their training, their clinical teams, and their administrations is likely to help more physicians become active providers of this highly effective outpatient treatment.

Growing a rural family physician workforce: The contributions of rural background and rural place of residency training.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the distinct influences of rural background and rural residency training on rural practice choice among family physicians. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We used a subset of The RTT Collaborative rural residency list and longitudinal data on family physicians from the American Board of Family Medicine National Graduate Survey (NGS; three cohorts, 2016-2018) and American Medical College Application Service (AMCAS). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a logistic regression, computing predictive marginals to assess associations of background and residency location with physician practice location 3 years post-residency. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We merged NGS data with residency type-rural or urban-and practice location with AMCAS data on rural background. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Family physicians from a rural background were more likely to choose rural practice (39.2%, 95% CI = 35.8, 42.5) than those from an urban background (13.8%, 95% CI = 12.5, 15.0); 50.9% (95% CI = 43.0, 58.8) of trainees in rural residencies chose rural practice, compared with 18.0% (95% CI = 16.8, 19.2) of urban trainees. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing rural programs for training residents from both rural and urban backgrounds, as well as recruiting more rural students to medical education, could increase the number of rural family physicians.

Treatment of early-stage prostate cancer among rural and urban patients.

BACKGROUND: Geographic barriers and limited availability of cancer specialists may influence early prostate cancer treatment options for rural men. This study compares receipt of different early prostate cancer treatments between rural and urban patients. METHODS: Using 2004-2006 SEER Limited-Use Data, 51,982 early prostate cancer patients were identified (T1c, T2a, T2b, T2c, T2NOS; no metastases) who were most likely to benefit from definitive treatment (< 75 years old, Gleason score < 8, PSA ≤ 20). Definitive treatment included radical prostatectomy, daily external beam radiation for 5 to 8 weeks, brachytherapy, or combination external beam radiation/brachytherapy. Adjusted definitive treatment rates were calculated by rural-urban residence overall, and for different sociodemographic and cancer characteristics, and different states based on logistic regression analyses, using general estimating equation methods to account for clustering by county. RESULTS: Adjusted definitive treatment rates were lower for rural (83.7%) than urban (87.1%) patients with early-stage prostate cancer (P ≤ .01). Rural men were more likely than urban men to receive non-definitive surgical treatment and no initial treatment. The lowest definitive treatment rates were among rural subgroups: 70 to 74 years (73.9%), African Americans (75.6%), American Indians/Alaska Natives (77.8%), single/separated/divorced (76.8%), living in New Mexico (69.3%), and living in counties with persistent poverty (79.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2004 and 2006, this adjusted analysis found that men who were living in rural areas were less likely to receive definitive treatment for their early-stage prostate cancer than those living in urban areas. Certain rural patient groups with prostate cancer need particular attention to ensure their access to appropriate treatment. Rural providers, rural health care systems, and cancer advocacy and support organizations should ensure resources are in place so that the most vulnerable rural groups (men between 60 and 74 years of age; African American men; men who are single, separated, or divorced; and men living in rural New Mexico) can make informed prostate cancer treatment choices based on their preferences.

Vignette-based study of ovarian cancer screening: do U.S. physicians report adhering to evidence-based recommendations?

BACKGROUND: No professional society or group recommends routine ovarian cancer screening, yet physicians' enthusiasm for several cancer screening tests before benefit has been proven suggests that some women may be exposed to potential harms. OBJECTIVE: To provide nationally representative estimates of physicians' reported nonadherence to recommendations against ovarian cancer screening. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of physicians offering women's primary care. The 12-page questionnaire contained a woman's annual examination vignette and questions about offers or orders for transvaginal ultrasonography (TVU) and cancer antigen 125 (CA-125). SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: 3200 physicians randomly sampled equally from the 2008 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile lists of family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists; 61.7% responded. After exclusions, 1088 respondents were included; their responses were weighted to represent the specialty distribution of practicing U.S. physicians nationally. MEASUREMENTS: Reported nonadherence to screening recommendations (defined as sometimes or almost always ordering screening TVU or CA-125 or both). RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent (95% CI, 24.5% to 32.9%) of physicians reported nonadherence to screening recommendations for women at low risk for ovarian cancer; 65.4% (CI, 61.1% to 69.4%) did so for women at medium risk for ovarian cancer. Six percent (CI, 4.4% to 8.9%) reported routinely ordering or offering ovarian cancer screening for low-risk women, as did 24.0% (CI, 20.5% to 28.0%) for medium-risk women (P ≤ 0.001). Thirty-three percent believed TVU or CA-125 was an effective screening test. In adjusted analysis, actual and physician-perceived patient risk, patient request for ovarian cancer screening, and physician belief that TVU or CA-125 was an effective screening test were the strongest predictors of physician-reported nonadherence to published recommendations. LIMITATION: The results are limited by their reliance on survey methods; there may be respondent-nonrespondent bias. CONCLUSION: One in 3 physicians believed that ovarian cancer screening was effective, despite evidence to the contrary. Substantial proportions of physicians reported routinely offering or ordering ovarian cancer screening, thereby exposing women to the documented risks of these tests. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute.

Measuring the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Health Behaviors and Health Care Utilization in Rural and Urban Patients with Cancer and Cancer Survivors.

Healthcare access and health behaviors differ between those living in urban and rural communities and contribute to inequitable cancer health outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant disruptions in daily life and healthcare delivery. This cross-sectional survey aimed to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health behaviors of cancer patients and survivors, comparing outcomes for urban and rural respondents. Survey was administered from January 2021-June 2021 to cancer patients or survivors (treated within the last 5 years) at one of six cancer centers in Washington and Idaho. Respondent ZIP code was used to assess rurality using Rural-Urban Commuting Area designation. 515 rural (43.5% of those contacted) and 146 urban (40% of those contacted) cancer patients and survivors participated. Few differences between urban and rural cancer patients and cancer survivors were noted. Rural residents were older (69.2 years vs. 66.9 years). Rural respondents had higher mean alcohol consumption than urban respondents (4.4 drinks per week vs. 2.7 drinks per week). 12.2% of those who reported drinking in the last 30 days also reported increased alcohol consumption since the start of the pandemic, with no difference in reported increased alcohol consumption in rural vs. urban respondents. 38.5% reported decreased physical activity. 20.5% reported cancelling or delaying cancer care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Delays in cancer healthcare services and worsening health behaviors due to the COVID-19 pandemic may contribute to poorer health outcomes, with few differences between rural and urban cancer patients and cancer survivors.

Impact of Primary Care Exception Expansion on Family Medicine Resident Billing During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Medicare Primary Care Exception (PCE) permits indirect supervision of residents performing lower-complexity visits in primary care settings. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Medicare expanded the PCE to all patient visits regardless of complexity. This study investigates how PCE expansion changed resident billing practices at a family medicine residency during calendar year 2020. We hypothesized that residents not constrained by the PCE would bill more high-level visits. METHODS: We queried billing codes from attendings' and residents' established evaluation and management visits associated with the University of Washington Family Medicine Residency (UWFMR) from January to December 2020. We used χ2 tests to compare resident and attending physicians' use of low/moderate and high-level codes by quarter. RESULTS: Resident high-complexity code use increased after PCE expansion in Q4 (odds ratio [OR] 3.50 [2.34-5.23]) compared to Q1. No change was observed among attending physicians (OR 1.05 [0.86-1.28]). Resident and attending billing patterns became more similar following PCE expansion. CONCLUSIONS: With the PCE expansion, senior family medicine resident physicians at UWFMR used higher-complexity billing codes at a rate approximating that of attending physicians. The findings of this study have implications regarding the financial well-being and sustainability of primary care residency training and raise a relevant policy question about whether the PCE expansion should persist. More research is needed to determine whether these findings were replicated in other primary care residency practices, the impact on resident education, and the impact on patient outcomes.

Academic Achievement and Competency in Rural and Urban Family Medicine Residents.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The quality of training in rural family medicine (FM) residencies has been questioned. Our objective was to assess differences in academic performance between rural and urban FM residencies. METHODS: We used American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) data from 2016-2018 residency graduates. Medical knowledge was measured by the ABFM in-training examination (ITE) and Family Medicine Certification Examination (FMCE). The milestones included 22 items across six core competencies. We measured whether residents met expectations on each milestone at each assessment. Multilevel regression models determined associations between resident and residency characteristics milestones met at graduation, FMCE score, and failure. RESULTS: Our final sample was 11,790 graduates. First-year ITE scores were similar between rural and urban residents. Rural residents passed their initial FMCE at a lower rate than urban residents (96.2% vs 98.9%) with the gap closing upon later attempts (98.8% vs 99.8%). Being in a rural program was not associated with a difference in FMCE score but was associated with higher odds of failure. Interactions between program type and year were not significant, indicating equal growth in knowledge. The proportions of rural vs urban residents who met all milestones and each of six core competencies were similar early in residency but diverged over time with fewer rural residents meeting all expectations. CONCLUSIONS: We found small, but persistent differences in measures of academic performance between rural- and urban-trained FM residents. The implications of these findings in judging the quality of rural programs are much less clear and warrant further study, including their impact on rural patient outcomes and community health.

Rural Versus Urban Family Medicine Residency Scope of Training and Practice.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Little is known about how rural and urban family medicine residencies compare in preparing physicians for practice. This study compared the perceptions of preparation for practice and actual postgraduation scope of practice (SOP) between rural and urban residency program graduates. METHODS: We analyzed data on 6,483 early-career, board-certified physicians surveyed 2016-2018, 3 years after residency graduation, and 44,325 later-career board-certified physicians surveyed 2014-2018, every 7 to 10 years after initial certification. Bivariate comparisons and multivariate regressions of rural and urban residency graduates examined perceived preparedness and current practice in 30 areas and overall SOP using a validated scale, with separate models for early-career and later-career physicians. RESULTS: In bivariate analyses, rural program graduates were more likely than urban program graduates to report being prepared for hospital-based care, casting, cardiac stress tests, and other skills, but less likely to be prepared in some gynecologic care and pharmacologic HIV/AIDS management. Both early- and later-career rural program graduates reported broader overall SOPs than their urban-program counterparts in bivariate analyses; in adjusted analyses this difference remained significant only for later-career physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with urban program graduates, rural graduates more often rated themselves prepared in several hospital care measures and less often in certain women's health measures. Controlling for multiple characteristics, only rurally trained, later-career physicians reported a broader SOP than their urban program counterparts. This study demonstrates the value of rural training and provides a baseline for research exploring longitudinal benefits of this training to rural communities and population health.

Routes to Rural Readiness: Enhancing Clinical Training Experiences for Physician Assistants.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe practices and experiences of rurally oriented physician assistant (PA) training programs in providing rural clinical training to PA students. METHODS: A survey of PA program directors (PDs) included questions about program characteristics, student and clinical preceptor (CP) recruitment in rural areas, and barriers to, and facilitators of, rural clinical training. Programs that considered rural training "very important" to their goals were identified. We interviewed PDs from rurally oriented programs about their rural clinical training and rural CPs about their experiences training PA students for rural practice. We identified key themes through content analysis. RESULTS: Of 178 programs surveyed, 113 (63.5%) responded, 61 (54.0%) of which were rurally oriented and more likely than other programs to recruit rural students or those with rural practice interests and to address rural issues in didactic curriculum. The 13 PDs interviewed linked successful rural training to finding and supporting rural preceptors who enjoy teaching and helping students understand rural communities. The 13 rural CPs identified enthusiastic and rurally interested students as key elements to successful rural training. Interviewees identified systemic barriers to rural training, including student housing, decreased productivity, competition for training slots, and administrative burden. CONCLUSIONS: Physician assistant students can be coached to capitalize on their rural clinical experiences. Knowing how to "jump in" to rotations and having genuine interest in the community are particularly important. Student housing, competition for training slots, and lack of financial incentives are major system-level challenges for sustaining and increasing the availability of PA rural clinical training.

Understanding and Overcoming Barriers to Rural Obstetric Training for Family Physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Family physicians are the most common health professional providing rural obstetric (OB) care, but the number of family physicians practicing OB is declining. To address rural/urban disparities in parental and child health, family medicine must provide robust OB training to prepare family physicians to care for parent-newborn dyads in rural communities. This mixed-methods study aimed to inform policy and practice solutions. METHODS: We surveyed 115 rural family medicine residency programs (program directors, coordinators, or faculty) and conducted semistructured interviews with personnel from 10 rural family medicine residencies. We calculated descriptive statistics and frequencies for survey responses. Two authors conducted a directed content analysis of qualitative survey and interview responses. RESULTS: The survey yielded 59 responses (51.3%); responders and nonresponders were not significantly different by geography or program type. Most programs (85.5%) trained residents to provide comprehensive prenatal and postpartum care. Continuity clinic sites were predominantly rural across all years and OB training was largely rural in postgraduate year 2 (PGY2) and PGY3. Almost half of programs listed "competition with other OB providers" (49.1%) and "shortage of family medicine faculty providing OB care" (47.3%) as major challenges. Individual programs tended to report either few challenges or multiple challenges. In qualitative responses, common themes included the importance of faculty interest and skill, community and hospital support, volume, and relationships. CONCLUSIONS: To improve rural OB training, our findings support prioritizing relationships between family medicine and other OB clinicians, sustaining family medicine OB faculty, and developing creative solutions to interrupt cascading and interrelated challenges.

A Match Made in Rural: Interpreting Match Rates and Exploring Best Practices.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although rural family medicine residency programs are effective in placing trainees into rural practice, many struggle to recruit students. Lacking other public measures, students may use residency match rates as a proxy for program quality and value. This study documents match rate trends and explores the relationship between match rates and program characteristics, including quality measures and recruitment strategies. METHODS: Using a published listing of rural programs, 25 years of National Resident Matching Program data, and 11 years of American Osteopathic Association match data, this study (1) documents patterns in initial match rates for rural versus urban residency programs, (2) compares rural residency match rates with program characteristics for match years 2009-2013, (3) examines the association of match rates with program outcomes for graduates in years 2013-2015, and (4) explores recruitment strategies using residency coordinator interviews. RESULTS: Despite increases in positions offered over 25 years, the fill rates for rural programs have improved relative to urban programs. Small rural programs had lower match rates relative to urban programs, but no other program or community characteristics were predictors of match rate. Match rates were not indicative of any of five measures of program quality nor of any single recruiting strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the intricacies of rural residency inputs and outcomes is key to addressing rural workforce gaps. Match rates likely reflect challenges of rural workforce recruitment generally and should not be conflated with program quality.

Receipt of recommended radiation therapy among rural and urban cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Rural populations have limited geographic access to radiation therapy. The current study examines whether rural patients with cancer are less likely than urban patients with cancer to receive recommended radiation therapy, and identifies factors influencing rural versus urban differences in radiation therapy receipt. METHODS: The current study included 14,692 rural and 107,834 urban patients with 5 cancer types and stages for which radiation therapy was recommended. The authors used 2000 to 2004 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Limited-Use Data from 8 state-based (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Utah) and 3 county-based (Atlanta, rural Georgia, and Seattle/Puget Sound) cancer registries. Adjusted radiation therapy receipt rates were calculated by rural versus urban residence overall, for different sociodemographic and cancer characteristics, and for different states based on logistic regression analyses using general estimating equation methods to account for patient clustering by county. RESULTS: Adjusted rates of radiation therapy receipt were lower for rural (62.1%) than urban (69.1%) patients with breast cancer (P ≤ .001). Among patients with breast cancer, radiation therapy receipt differed more by sociodemographic characteristics (eg, rural patients aged < 50 years had a 67.1% receipt rate, whereas those aged ≥ 80 years had a radiation therapy receipt rate of 29.1%) than rural versus urban residence. Adjusted rates of radiation therapy receipt were similar for rural and urban patients with other cancer types overall (66.1% vs 68.2%; difference not significant), although there were differences between urban and rural patients with regard to radiation therapy receipt for patients with stage IIIA nonsmall cell lung cancer (66.2% vs 60.7%; P ≤ .01). CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographics, cancer types and stages, and state of residence appear to have a greater influence over receipt of radiation therapy than rural versus urban residence location, suggesting that factors such as social support, receipt of other cancer treatments, and regional practice patterns are important determinants of radiation therapy receipt.

Tracking the geographic distribution and growth of clinicians with a DEA waiver to prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder.

PURPOSE: Buprenorphine is an effective medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) but access is difficult for patients, especially in rural locations. To improve access, legislation, including the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (2016) and the Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities (SUPPORT) Act (2018), extended the ability to get a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) waiver to prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) to numerous types of clinicians. This study updates the distribution of waivered clinicians as of July 2020 and notes regional and geographic differences. METHODS: Using the July 2020 Drug Enforcement Administration list of providers with a waiver to prescribe buprenorphine to treat OUD, we assigned waivered clinicians to counties in one of four geographic categories. We calculated the number of counties in each category that did not have a waivered clinician, available treatment slots, and the county provider to population ratios. FINDINGS: The number of DEA-waivered clinicians more than doubled between December 2017 and July 2020 from 37,869 to 98,344. The availability of a clinician with a DEA waiver to provide MOUD has increased across all geographic categories. Nearly two-thirds of all rural counties (63.1%) had at least one clinician with a DEA waiver but more than half of small and remote rural counties lacked one. There were also significant differences in access by the US Census Division. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, MOUD access has improved, but small rural communities still experience treatment disparities and there is significant regional variation.